Member of local Bishopric jailed on sex abuse charges

[_Jersey Girl]

Oh you heathens are all the same, What you are failing to take in to account is that his Bishop received a spiritual witness from God to have this man called as his counselor.

He may have. He may not have. If he did, then it goes to show...and not for the first time in history...that God calls upon the weak things of the world in order to accomplish His purposes. If, as the first article seems to be saying, the fellow may not have been in the Bishopric at the time of his misbehavior then it might be that the calling brought him to a position/place of being 'outed'. That's a good thing. As long, of course, as he hasn't been misbehaving in the meantime. It's hard to know all of the variables/factors involved. The fact is, it's good that he was caught and that he now has a chance to repent of his past misbehaviors.

God had obviously already taken this man's pedophilia history into account prior to sending that special witness to the Bishop.

That's a possibility, if indeed the counselor was called through direct inspiration/revelation. That doesn't always happen, I would guess. But again, if he was called through inspiration, it might be that God...knowing the end from the beginning...knew how things were going to pan out. And the fact is, this man now has been brought to justice and also has an opportunity to repent. Not to say that there hasn't been damage done along the way.

Back off this special man...he was called by the Mormon God through revelation and inspiration...

I know I'm repeating myself here, but the fact is...he may have been...or he may not have been.

...and we all know that you can trust a spiritual witness to only confirm what God wants us to know is true...

That makes sense. But the question remains...how MUCH does God "want us to know"? I don't think that God is under any obligation to fully disclose anything to us.

That would take all the fun out of living. I think we need to struggle a bit.

...cuz God does not lie.

I think we can agree on this.

Regards,
MG

What you are essentially saying is that God likes to play hide and seek with the truth. The only healthy response to the above report is "The church needs to do something to prevent this." And why is that?

Because if you believe in a Creator God, you believe that God made us with brains and expects us to use them.

[Guest]

Some points in response to opening post.

Many religious faiths require one-on-one confession, even with minors. The priest-penitential confession is abrogated when more are involved and most states would not shield the confession if, for example, a parent or friend was present in an interview. So, true, one can say that "my child won't be subjected to one-on-one interviews with the [bishop, rabbi, priest, church elder, pastor]" but then there won't be the opportunity for essential confession required for salvation in many faiths.

Schools and youth organizations often have one-on-one interactions between child and adult -- scoutmasters, merit badge counselors, teachers, school counselors, sports coaches. The problem with some of those professions is that child molesters are drawn to them. Virtually any avocation or profession involving an adult working with youth gives rise to this kind of risk. During the OJ Simpson trial, LAPD's chief public relations spokesman was a deputy chief and highest ranking gay police officer. A greatly admired individual. He was active in the LAPD's ride-along BSA Explorer program, but then got caught having sex with some of his ride-along boys. So, even police officers working with youth pose problems.

When I was an 8th grader, our school received funding to build a dark room. Two of my friends were enlisted by a very popular married science teacher to set it up. That meant a lot of after-school time in the darkroom. My buddies would report to me repeated attempted assaults by the science teacher (more like, aggressive attempts to get into the kids pants), but they didn't report it to the parents or the police, Instead, they banded together to make sure they were never alone in the dark room. We'd take to openly mocking the guy in class. Weird times, when I think back on it.

The news story does not say that this perp did these things in a church setting.

Voluntary confession might be just the needed thing for those seeking absolution. But the Mormon version requires in-depth questioning, disclosure of specific often embarrassing details. And there is nothing voluntary when worthiness interviews are required to maintain Mormon status to keep a recommend or advance in their youth program. Their system is very invasive and cultish causes loss of self worth, is humiliating and damaging. The Mormon system creates guilt and shame.

[_Kishkumen]

As usual, Yahoo Bot finds the wrong side of a debate—this time the “lots of religions unnecessarily put their minors in risky situations where they are liable to be victimized” side. Some people just love the challenge of arguing the obviously stupid side of an argument.

Maybe it’s time for an omniscient Deity to reveal ways of obtaining salvation without so much molestation.

Derp.

[_Res Ipsa]

Hey, Bot.

It looks to me like you've smushed a whole bunch of stuff together than needs untangling.

Several faiths require one-on-one confession.

Which faiths actually require confessions? Specifically, which faiths deny full participation or some benefit to those who do not attend confession? And of those, which faiths require confession to only a single individual?

I know because there is substantial legal development about what constitutes a confession and what happens when more than two people are involved.

Well, of course there is substantial litigation over the extent of the privilege. Unlike LDS worthiness interviews, the privilege is about confession of crimes, as opposed to how much a teenage boy has masterbated and whether he's touched a teenage girls boobs. People blurt out confessions of crimes in all kinds of circumstances, and so there is case law that defines the boundaries of the privilege. The fact of that litigation tells us little to nothing about whether or the extent to which one on one confession is required by other faiths. Thus, my request for actual evidence of such faiths.

A well-known legal case in California concerned a confession made by a gay fellow (and counseling session) to an Evangelical pastor of one of the largest churches in Los Angeles. He went out and committed suicide after his session.

Citation please. Your description on its face has nothing to do with the privilege. Is your point simply that one on one interactions can lead to harm other than in LDS worthiness interviews?

If you argue against one-on-one confessionals you're arguing against a basic and critical rite and you seem to see no problem denying such to a minor.

In what way is the youth worthiness interview a basic and critical rite? Is it basic enough to be required in LDS scripture? Will a young person who would be unquestionably found worthy in any such interview kept out of the celestial kingdom by not attending the worthiness interview? The LDS church withholds one critical ordinance from young people -- Celestial Marriage. Is he worthiness interview a more basic or critical rite than that? What about the Melchezdek priesthood? Isn't that a critical and basic rite. Isn't that withheld from youth?

Seems rather hypocritical given your criticism of the Mormons denying baptism to children of polygamous and gay-married households.

Why? Because baptism has the identical importance that a worthiness interview does? Because protecting children from child molesters and rapists is exactly like excluding a kid from membership based on his parent's conduct? C'mon counselor, you can do better than that.

You condemn the fact that the confession is taken by a lay person rather than a professional minister. Well, I think that in California at least, all reported decisions involving priests or pastors molesting children involve professional ministers.

Well, yes, if you look at the subset of churches that only use trained professionals for confessions, then that's exactly what you'll find. What that tells you exactly nothing about is whether placing untrained, unprofessional folks in that position creates a greater risk. And isn't that the issue you're talking about?

Any organization, like the LDS church, that puts male authority figures in one-on-one situations with children and teenagers is creating a substantial risk of molestation and rape. It's reasonable to think that the risk increases when the authority figures discuss sexual conduct and practices with the young folks and when the authority figures aren't trained in how to avoid having discussions about sex turn into sex. As you pointed out in your first part, other organizations have had problems in this area. Many, if not most, have changed their practices in order to reduce the risk to young people.

If Bishops and Counselors are going to conduct private interviews about sex, there are going to be sexual predators who take advantage of that to get access to children. There are also going to be otherwise good men who are going to end up making bad choices that could have been prevented if steps had been taken to do so. The real question to me is, how serious is the LDS church about protecting its youth from sexual molestation and assault.

You are correct that we don't know at this time what role, if any, confidential interviews played in this case of molestation. We don't know whether he was in the Bishopric at the time of the molestation or whether he interviewed the victim. The police say she was targeted and one source says he was a neighbor. That's all the information we have this point. And I can see how unfair it appears for folks to use this case as an excuse to criticize the LDS church when it's not clear at all what role, if any, the church played in the case.

But that doesn't make criticism of the practice of one-on-one, closed door interviews about sex between men and teens unfair or wrong. And it doesn't give the LDS church a pass for conducting those interviews with men they tell the teens are called by God to be in those positions in a culture of obedience to leaders.

[_Chap]

What point is Yahoo Bot trying to make, do you think?

Many religious faiths require one-on-one confession, even with minors.

Really? How many, do you think, apart from Roman Catholicism?

I'd like a specific answer to that question.

Several faiths require one-on-one confession. I know because there is substantial legal development about what constitutes a confession and what happens when more than two people are involved.

So now we are down from 'many' to 'several'. How many is that? And which faiths?

[_I have a question]

It is a simple decision to state that no minor is to be interviewed without their parent or guardian being present.

One wonders what is more important about that one to one interview, that warrants leaving the risk of grooming and abuse unchecked?

[_Chap]

It is a simple decision to state that no minor is to be interviewed without their parent or guardian being present.

One wonders what is more important about that one to one interview, that warrants leaving the risk of grooming and abuse unchecked?

But the problem for the CoJCoLDS is that if they change the regulations, so as to say that in future every interview must be in some way chaperoned, they are admitting that the previous practice was not as it should have been.

And that is a very slippery slope for them to start going down.

[_Res Ipsa]

It is a simple decision to state that no minor is to be interviewed without their parent or guardian being present.

One wonders what is more important about that one to one interview, that warrants leaving the risk of grooming and abuse unchecked?

It seems to me that one of the benefits might be in ecouraging the young person to confide in an adult about problems between parent and child or problems being concealed from parents. If a parent is present, that may lead the child to be less honest or open with the bishop. It would also remove the protection of the privilege.

Here’s one way we could think about it. What are the risks that any given child is being abused by a parent or family member. Conceivably, a semi annual confidential interview with the Bishop increases the odds that the child will tell someone and the abuse will be discovered. So we’d have to compare the expected reduction of abuse by family members with increased abuse by bishops.

We don’t have the necessary data to compare those risks. But the thought experiment illustrates how difficult a risk/benefit risk can be. What appears simple at first glance may be pretty damn complicated when you stop to think.

[_Res Ipsa]

It is a simple decision to state that no minor is to be interviewed without their parent or guardian being present.

One wonders what is more important about that one to one interview, that warrants leaving the risk of grooming and abuse unchecked?

But the problem for the CoJCoLDS is that if they change the regulations, so as to say that in future every interview must be in some way chaperoned, they are admitting that the previous practice was not as it should have been.

And that is a very slippery slope for them to start going down.

I dunno, Chap. The Mormon church has changed so much in my lifetime, I think they could change this with no problem at all. If you mean legal exposure, changes in practice generally aren’t admissible as evidence that the old practice was substandard.

[_Chap]

If you mean legal exposure ... .

I don't.