From my experience as one of the girls in those Youth classes, opportunity is a big part of it. You have young girls who have been taught to be careful with boys their own age ("they only have one thing on their mind!), who often don't have all that much dating experience. They've been taught to look up to the church hierarchy, and many are already already thinking about who they might marry someday.

And then here's this young man, who looks really mature in comparison to the guys you're own age. He's educated, and he's been to college, and he won't last long as a youth pastor if he can't get along with the teenagers. And parents will trust him with the kids. He can take a group of the classmates ice skating, or out for cocoa, or whatever on a fairly regular basis, and there's a good chance no one will question if he drops off one girl last every time unless he makes it blatantly clear he's gone out of his way to do that.

And even when parents think there might be something going on, depending on the girl's age, given that he's a pastor, some parents are going to be thinking about how early they'd be willing to let their daughter get engaged, not about whether he might be abusing her. Assuming the parents are paying any attention at all.

At least back in the day, when I attended, it was a known thing that a single guy wouldn't get much further than Youth Pastor without getting married, and it was pretty common that he'd marry a girl he'd first met as one of the students in his class.

On a site that discusses a broad spread of controversial subjects and has a history of discussing troubling issues, there's an expectation that distressing subjects may come up.

On a blog that normally discusses fiscal policy, an up-front warning that a particular post is going to discuss rape, abortion, violent assault, kinky sex, or country music ... would probably be appreciated by some readers. Does the blogger have to post the warning? No, of course not, but failure to post it could result in some readers not coming back to the blog, whether because they find the subject boring, a waste of their time, or something that leaves them emotionally devastated. And starting to read a post, expecting one topic and coming across something very upsetting to the reader, could trigger some extremely unpleasant reactions for some readers, depending on the subject and the association it brings up in the reader.

For those who are really into hearing Anthony Stewart Head singing... http://www.amazon.com/Music-Elevators-Anthony-Ste...

“It means we’re on your side.” That’s what Bonnie said. I have people on my side? What side? Am I unwittingly the face of the hoped-for rebellion? Has the mockingjay on my pin become a symbol of resistance? If so, my side’s not doing to well. You only have to look at what happened in 8 to know that.

I know Madge hasn't exactly been a huge character, and we've seen nothing from her point of view, but I just can't help wondering whether she was hoping for precisely this when she made such an issue of "please, please, please wear this into the arena".

I just recently found the site and am reading through old books, and despite being so late to the party, just had to respond to this:

The story of Eve and the story of the first mulefa are both identical in this sense. God tempts these beings. He does so with the full knowledge that they are absolutely unable to make a decision that is the slightest bit informed, and he then punishes the rest of the future of humanity for this, all the while fully aware that only out of sheer luck would Eve choose not to eat the apple from the Tree of Knowledge. And I use the word “luck” because Eve (and the first mulefa) do not have the capacity to even have a reason to choose one or the other. That requires knowledge and they have none.

I think you may be overstating the chance that Adam & Eve won't eat the apple. After all, on any given day, they might say "no, I don't think we should do that". But the tree *is still there*. It isn't a one-time temptation. It's *right there*. And there's nothing to say the snake only came by the once, either. Sooner or later, it was GUARANTEED that Adam or Eve would go ahead and take a bite.

Depending on when sundown hits, it's Friday night that would be a problem, since the SDA Sabbath runs from sundown Friday night to sundown Saturday night, and even before sunday Friday there's an expectation that you getting ready for Sabbath, not running around trying to get in your Halloween before the light fades. If it were on Saturday night, there could be an issue with the kids getting all worked up (looking forward to trick-or-treating) while it's still Sabbath.

Aside from that issue, back when I was a kid in the SDA church, they weren't entirely fond of the idea of SDA kids enjoying a pagan holiday, and some years they would try to hold "harvest parties" or some such instead.

"1 of the 3 Christians"? That doesn't sound right. Are we to believe that the rest were atheists or some non-Christian religion? Or is this one of those "Catholics aren't Christians" groups?

So, lets say the school is popular and there are only so many slots left once you've taken all the kids with properly-still-married parents. How do you rank the rest? Does divorced rank above never-married? Where does remarried rank? I assume widowed counts as highly as still married?

When do you start looking at which parents are active members in your church and which are married but not really religious? Because isn't that the next step?

Any reason to think the kid with the brain tumor hadn't gone through chemo right before the "faith healing"? So little actual info is given for any of these....

I'd agree with limiting pedophile to younger children - the age 10 listed above sounds pretty reasonable. One reason is that while a 14 or 15 year old is simply too young to be taken advantage of by some adult, that 14 or 15 year old probably doesn't look or act like a child (obviously, some kids come across older and some come across younger).