NOM

Reuben wrote:

alas wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 11:22 am But look on the bright side. The church will inform bishops not to allow recording, just as they have gotten stinky about people recording stake conferences where their majesties are speaking. All you have to do is inform the bishop that "this interview may be recorded for quality control" and they will all start refusing to do them. Problem solved.

And then they'll realize that missing out on certain membership privileges would make them second-class citizens, and most will cave.

I think anonymity is a better solution.

Anyone know if this new law would have made Mike Norton's temple videos illegal?

Yep reading through the bill draft, Norton would have been slapped with a third degree felony charge.

Additionally, if regular joe citizen has a security camera on his house, that would be a felony too. I'm uncertain how the existing 2 party states handle that part, they probably don't allow cameras with audio capability. Lame.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865 ... abuse.html

I missed this Desert News defense of youth interviews from two months ago, but the spin, deception, and outright lies make my stomach turn. I’ve gotta get my kids out of this messed up organization.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:25 pm https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865 ... abuse.html

I missed this Desert News defense of youth interviews from two months ago, but the spin, deception, and outright lies make my stomach turn. I’ve gotta get my kids out of this messed up organization.

WOW! That was horrible!

The LDS Church has a zero tolerance policy concerning sexual misconduct. It also gives specific instruction on conducting one-on-one interviews with youths, including encouraging them to have parents or other trustworthy adults sit directly outside the room. Church leaders are to avoid any situation that could be misinterpreted.

Okay this shows that they have ZERO understanding about how abusers work. They don't start off abusing, they groom their victims. Abusers are going to make damn sure that kid isn't going to cry out for help during or after the abuse.

MoPag wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:13 am

The LDS Church has a zero tolerance policy concerning sexual misconduct. It also gives specific instruction on conducting one-on-one interviews with youths, including encouraging them to have parents or other trustworthy adults sit directly outside the room. Church leaders are to avoid any situation that could be misinterpreted.

Okay this shows that they have ZERO understanding about how abusers work. They don't start off abusing, they groom their victims. Abusers are going to make damn sure that kid isn't going to cry out for help during or after the abuse.

Larry Nassar even abused some of his victims while their parents were in the room. Victims testified that he shielded what was going on with his body or other mechanisms. It would be much easier for a Mormon church leader to abuse a victim behind a closed door with the parents on the other side.

Yeah, they don't have any clue. Or concern.

Jeffret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2018 9:44 am

AllieOop wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2018 8:50 am I honestly do not know why the church has not stopped these types of interviews (just for their OWN protection as that's what the leaders are usually concerned about). If I still had kids of the age where these interviews took place, I'd be one of the parents insisting that either I or my husband sit in.

Because they see themselves and the leaders they call as inherently good and guided by god. Because they figure that whatever they have done, whatever they say, and whatever they feel must be god-guided because they are confident in their calling.

Because they see these interviews as essential tools in accomplishing what they want to do. They are incredibly coercive mechanisms for shaming and guilting people into doing what they want them to do. They see the guilt and the shame as fundamentally necessary for repentance.

Sure there are a few problems, a few mistakes made by leaders, a few cases in which leaders are excessive, or even downright abusive (according to their counting), but they're far more concerned about the status of the ninety-and-one (or even then twenty-and-nine) who might be manipulated into doing what they want than they are about the nine who are harmed and go astray.

They're not going to give up these practices, and the obsession over a warped sexual purity, easily.

And as we all know, the church never acquiesces to social/political pressure /s

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:25 pm https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865 ... abuse.html

I missed this Desert News defense of youth interviews from two months ago, but the spin, deception, and outright lies make my stomach turn. I’ve gotta get my kids out of this messed up organization.

I agree. I'm hoping this issue is not going to silently go away (with disciplining Young).


Don't know if this was posted, but he is picking up some traction and was interviewed by a Fox affiliate on TV:

http://www.fox26houston.com/news/the-is ... ors-at-lds


*

The Rob Porter story calls into question whether bishops should even meet alone with adults. One of his ex-wives indicates she was counseled by her Mormon bishops to stay with him:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyat ... ged-abuse/

In her blog post, Willoughby wrote, “When I tried to get help, I was counseled to consider carefully how what I said might affect his career.” She told The Intercept that she had described Porter’s anger issues to a lay official in the Mormon church. She said the official had told her to think carefully about what she said publicly about Porter’s behavior. “Keep in mind, Rob has career ambitions,” she recalled the official saying. (The press office at the Mormon church’s headquarters in Salt Lake City, Utah, declined to comment for this story.)

Maybe the Church needs to rethink its whole concept of what a bishop is.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:00 am Maybe the Church needs to rethink its whole concept of what a bishop is.

That's really what Sam's stories clearly demonstrate. Yes, the harm to children from the compulsory interviews is real and potentially severe. They need to stop. But that's not enough. Significantly more changes are required. However, the changes would go very deep into the heart of what Mormonism is. It would involve a radical revolution in theology, structure, and culture. Even just eliminating chastity discussions from bishop's interviews with children would be a dramatic change, with not only the immediate upheavals but changes throughout the structure. It's very unlikely the current, calcified leadership would ever take on something so dramatic until it reaches the point where they absolutely have no other choice. The leadership mechanism in the Church strongly selects away from such a visionary, revolutionary leader.

These structures are more deeply woven into Mormonism than polygamy was in early Utah. In that case, nothing changed until the Church was driven to the brink of destruction. Even when it did change, it was a long, hard process lasting many years. It engendered many factions, which continues into today.

My guess is that we won't see any bold changes by Church leadership, no matter how much pressure they receive externally, which still hasn't risen to a significant level. Things will gradually shift over some number of years.

Jeffret wrote: ↑Thu Feb 08, 2018 11:41 am These structures are more deeply woven into Mormonism than polygamy was in early Utah. In that case, nothing changed until the Church was driven to the brink of destruction. Even when it did change, it was a long, hard process lasting many years. It engendered many factions, which continues into today.

My guess is that we won't see any bold changes by Church leadership, no matter how much pressure they receive externally, which still hasn't risen to a significant level. Things will gradually shift over some number of years.

Sad but true.

Honestly I don't see much change coming at all for two reasons.
1. Outsiders don't care. Those outside of the church don't know about MI's (masturbation interviews) and when they find out they just shrug and say, "that's creepy! If I was a parent I wouldn't send my kids in." So the obvious solution is to stop participating.

2. Insiders don't care. Top leadership doesn't care. Most members don't even care. Reading through the comments on various articles and pro LDS boards is sickening. Nobody really cares.

Hell, most of us don't really care either other than to sign an online petition and whine about it on the internet.

I have to say I disagree with those who are saying that nothing will change/no one cares about these issues. I believe that right now, a lot of people care to hear/report/discuss the issues at hand; inappropriate questioning of youth, with potential emotional and sexual abuse, as well as counseling adult women to stay in abusive relationships. I think (forced) changes are coming.

StarbucksMom wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:05 am I have to say I disagree with those who are saying that nothing will change/no one cares about these issues. I believe that right now, a lot of people care to hear/report/discuss the issues at hand; inappropriate questioning of youth, with potential emotional and sexual abuse, as well as counseling adult women to stay in abusive relationships. I think (forced) changes are coming.

I agree - people cared enough to get the proposed bill killed. Thanks to all of our Utah friends who stopped this outrageous legislation dead in its tracks. Hopefully the Church got the message that it doesn't control the state as much as it thinks it does.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/02/06/ ... nterviews/

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:50 am

StarbucksMom wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:05 am I have to say I disagree with those who are saying that nothing will change/no one cares about these issues. I believe that right now, a lot of people care to hear/report/discuss the issues at hand; inappropriate questioning of youth, with potential emotional and sexual abuse, as well as counseling adult women to stay in abusive relationships. I think (forced) changes are coming.

I agree - people cared enough to get the proposed bill killed. Thanks to all of our Utah friends who stopped this outrageous legislation dead in its tracks. Hopefully the Church got the message that it doesn't control the state as much as it thinks it does.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/02/06/ ... nterviews/

From the article:

Weiler went so far as to express regret in agreeing to sign onto the bill. (He hadn’t read it when he agreed, he said.)

Ummmmmmmmm Hey Weiler, isn't reading bills kind of your job? And also, isn't it common sense to not blindly agree to things?

MoPag wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 11:36 am

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 10:50 am

StarbucksMom wrote: ↑Fri Feb 09, 2018 8:05 am I have to say I disagree with those who are saying that nothing will change/no one cares about these issues. I believe that right now, a lot of people care to hear/report/discuss the issues at hand; inappropriate questioning of youth, with potential emotional and sexual abuse, as well as counseling adult women to stay in abusive relationships. I think (forced) changes are coming.

I agree - people cared enough to get the proposed bill killed. Thanks to all of our Utah friends who stopped this outrageous legislation dead in its tracks. Hopefully the Church got the message that it doesn't control the state as much as it thinks it does.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/02/06/ ... nterviews/

From the article:

Weiler went so far as to express regret in agreeing to sign onto the bill. (He hadn’t read it when he agreed, he said.)

Ummmmmmmmm Hey Weiler, isn't reading bills kind of your job? And also, isn't it common sense to not blindly agree to things?

It just sounds better to say he had not actually read the bill than to say he had just never considered how the bill will protect out of control bishops asking inappropriate questions.