Has the time come? IMO YES! To stop YW, YM, Single Women, from meeting alone with Priesthood Leaders. For everyone's sake!

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Having read, and re-read one story, and having heard more like of such stories, of young women, and even young men meeting alone with Bishops and Stake Presidents, I think it should end. 

I have been calling for and asking why this is (or was) not policy already. When serving in my Bishopric, so long ago, and while I had young daughters, I felt uncomfortable with questions being asked in a closed setting. I spoke about this is my Bishop about it, and he admitted that such meeting make him uncomfortable as well. My suggestions was for Relief Society Presidents, Young Women Presidents, and Young Men Presidents to have expanded calling, where each can meet with the Bishop, when he is meeting alone with Women, Girls and Boys. He liked the idea, but it was not Church policy at the time. 

Any thoughts, good idea, bad idea, what? 

Edited March 20, 2018 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[drums12]

It's an excellent idea.  It protects both parties.  If I were a bishop I would be afraid of being vulnerable to false accusations.  My father is an attorney of almost 40 years.  He has refused to meet alone with women at his office since he started for that reason.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, drums12 said:

It's an excellent idea.  It protects both parties.  If I were a bishop I would be afraid of being vulnerable to false accusations.  My father is an attorney of almost 40 years.  He has refused to meet alone with women at his office since he started for that reason.

Amen, because in this day and age, it would not matter what "false witness", was given, swift action on the part of the Church is necessary to protect the victim, and if it is "false witness", for the protection of the Priesthood Leader as well. I do not think children should not ask to meet alone, so we can give the youth an option "Parents" or, YW, YM advisors or Presidents. During my workdays, I would never allow my door to be shut. Each year when secretary day came up, I would take all I could from the office with me, the only time I ever had lunch alone with a woman and work, other than my Wife, once was with my sister who dropped in out of the blue, the other time a cousin, who also just dropped in out of nowhere. This would be easy by have the President's of the Relief Society, with adult women, YW, for the YW, or have a parent, and the same with the YM President. This issue is easliy sloved.  

[JLHPROF]

I have wondered whether minors ought to have a parent or guardian present.

I understand why they don't but they probably should.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I have wondered whether minors ought to have a parent or guardian present.

I understand why they don't but they probably should.

I believe they should, have a leader or a parent (whichever), as Bishop's and Stake President's must ask so very private questions. I have never know a Bishop, including the two I served with, who felt embarrassed to ask some question, and also relayed to me that it was more embarrassing the older the Child, especially with the YW. 

[Duncan]

My Dr. won't see female patients alone anymore. I've often wondered why we have a two deep teacher policy in Primary, when sexual stuff isn't mentioned, but don't when sexual stuff is brought up in interviews with one man

[carbon dioxide]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Having read, and re-read one story, and having heard more like of, of young women, and even young men meeting alone with Bishops and Stake Presidents, I think it should end. 

I have been calling for and asking why this is (or was) not policy already. When serving in my Bishopric, so long ago, and while I had young daughters, I felt uncomfortable with questions being asked in a closed setting. I spoke about this is my Bishop about it, and he admitted that such meeting make him uncomfortable as well. My suggestions was for Relief Society Presidents, Young Women Presidents, and Young Men Presidents to have expanded calling, where each can meet with the Bishop, when he is meeting alone with Women, Girls and Boys. He liked the idea, but it was not Church policy at the time. 

Any thoughts, good idea, bad idea, what? 

I guess if the youth would be comfortable about confessing sins in front of more than the bishop it might work.  However if it only adds an additional barrier than that could be a problem. 

[ksfisher]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

it was not Church policy at the time. 

 

It is more than church policy, it is the will of the Lord as given through His prophets and apostles.  A bishop is called as a "common judge in Israel."  (D&C 107:54)  He is charged to keep all that is confessed to him in confidence.  None of the callings you've listed in the OP are set apart to do the same.

[Duncan]

7 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

It is more than church policy, it is the will of the Lord as given through His prophets and apostles.  A bishop is called as a "common judge in Israel."  (D&C 107:54)  He is charged to keep all that is confessed to him in confidence.  None of the callings you've listed in the OP are set apart to do the same.

I emailed a concern I had about something to my then serving Bishop and when I got to Church I found out he read my email out loud in ward council, like, nice, I don't trust him anymore. I remember my fave. Stake President years ago said in stake conference that someone in the congregation used to be a prostitute and how her life had changed and everything, which is great but now people wondered who was that? and maybe she didn't feel comfortable with him telling anyone that story, even though he didn't mention her name

Edited March 20, 2018 by Duncan

[Guest]

14 hours ago, ksfisher said:

It is more than church policy, it is the will of the Lord as given through His prophets and apostles.  A bishop is called as a "common judge in Israel."  (D&C 107:54)  He is charged to keep all that is confessed to him in confidence.  None of the callings you've listed in the OP are set apart to do the same.

I was speaking of Church Policy, "at the time"m to allow others in during certain aspect of the role of being "Judge of Israel". Did I suggest otherwise. If so let me know where, so that I can edit the OP. If it is only the"confidence" you speak of, this is why I suggested expand the callings of the RS, YW, YM. Solves the problem with all. Having said this, most confessions do not stay confidential very long, as he must report his fining to the Bishopric, it we are to also have Church Court. Sometimes a Bishop with just put someone on probation, if so he must notify the Bishopric and any quorum of society to which they belong. I took you comments seriously, it is why I posted as I did, and why I suggested a solution.

Problem solving 101

Reconize the problem

Find solutions 

On a personal note, this one story now running on two threads, the Mission Training President, should and give thanks it was not one of my girls. Because they trust their Dad, and would have told me, at that very instant, Church Leaders would have known!  

Edited March 20, 2018 by Bill "Papa" Lee

[Calm]

There is a big pull for me between privacy and safety, especially since there is a greater chance a child will be abused by a relative than a church leader and who knows, that abuse might be shared in a private meeting and the victim gets help that way.  But abuse in church settings occurs and that needs to be addressed as well.

I don't know...maybe not have required private interviews, but only if requested and then windows get put in where they still are not so someone can see that there is distance between the two, no touching possible.

There should also be a well publicized hotline for members to use to report suspected and known abuse since they are more likely to report it to other leaders than the police if they just suspect it and are not sure.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Calm

[strappinglad]

If we want to follow the world's lead , the Bishop could secretly tape all interviews and then put them up on youtube  even 10 years later.

It is hard enough to keep things quiet when just 2 people know the situation. Let's give another half dozen folks the opportunity to listen in.

Can we take a page from our Catholic brethren and build a special 2 part room for confessions , preferably in the foyer. ?

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Having read, and re-read one story, and having heard more like of, of young women, and even young men meeting alone with Bishops and Stake Presidents, I think it should end. 

I have been calling for and asking why this is (or was) not policy already. When serving in my Bishopric, so long ago, and while I had young daughters, I felt uncomfortable with questions being asked in a closed setting. I spoke about this is my Bishop about it, and he admitted that such meeting make him uncomfortable as well. My suggestions was for Relief Society Presidents, Young Women Presidents, and Young Men Presidents to have expanded calling, where each can meet with the Bishop, when he is meeting alone with Women, Girls and Boys. He liked the idea, but it was not Church policy at the time. 

Any thoughts, good idea, bad idea, what? 

(Speaking as a person who was abused as a child)

Own your fate-

- Teach your children to know what a bad situation is and how to deal with things (that is everywhere they go)

-Communicate with your kids  (that is for everything)

-Don't depend on a system to protect kids- that is downright naive.  Own your own choices.

-If a bishopric interview really bugs you, you can ask to have the door open.  Own your own choices.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[drums12]

28 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I was speaking of Church Policy, "at the time"m to allow others in during certain aspect of the role of being "Judge of Israel". Did I suggest otherwise. If so let me know where, so that I can edit the OP. If it is only the"confidence" you speak of, this is why I suggested expand the callings of the RS, YW, YM. Solves the problem with all. Having said this, most confessions do not stay confidential very long, as he must report his fining to the Bishopric, it we are to also have Church Court. Sometimes a Bishop with just put someone on probation, if so he must notify the Bishopric and any quorum of society to which they belong. I took you comments seriously, it is why I posted as I did, and why I suggested a solution.

Problem solving 101

Reconize the problem

Find solutions 

On a personal note, this one story now running on two threads, the Mission Training President, should and give thanks it wa not one of my girls. Because they trust their Dad, and would have told me, at that very instant, Church Leaders would have known!  

My fear Papa is that Church leaders (at least Elder Asay) did know.  I can't imagine someone like Elder Holland failing to take immediate action.  I want to withhold judgement because we don't know what was known.  But as I said on another thread, if proof comes out that this was ignored or swept under the rug or given a slap on the wrist, my confidence in Church leadership would be crushed.

Edited March 20, 2018 by drums12

[Guest]

1 minute ago, drums12 said:

My fear Papa is that Church leaders (at least Elder Asay) did know.  

That may be, but if I am to err, it will be on the side of caution. We don't know what he knew, and when he knew. Until then I won't be a part of fear mongering, nor should anyone else. If he are others knew, then we can judge properly, in the court of opinion, till then he or anyone will not be tried in a Kangaroo Court.  

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

There is a big pull for me between privacy and safety, especially since there is a greater chance a child will be abused by a relative than a church leader and who knows, that abuse might be shared in a private meeting and the victim gets help that way.  But abuse in church settings occurs and that needs to be addressed as well.

I don't know...maybe not have required private interviews, but only if requested and then windows get put in where they still are not so someone can see that there is distance between the two, no touching possible.

There should also be a well publicized hotline for members to use to report suspected and known abuse since they are more likely to report it to other leaders than the police if they just suspect it and are not sure.

I like this. Why not install glass doors in all bishops offices and only schedule youth interviews during church hours.  The privacy of the conversation is maintained and a parent could wait outside and watch the whole interview.  The cost would be paid for by avoiding just one lawsuit 

[Tacenda]

40 minutes ago, california boy said:

I like this. Why not install glass doors in all bishops offices and only schedule youth interviews during church hours.  The privacy of the conversation is maintained and a parent could wait outside and watch the whole interview.  The cost would be paid for by avoiding just one lawsuit 

This would be all well and good except for one thing. Sometimes what a bishop might say is abuse also.

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

This would be all well and good except for one thing. Sometimes what a bishop might say is abuse also.

Yes, it can be.  But if someone is watching, especially a parent, they might be able to tell if there is something disturbing, especially if they have told their child to look at them or give a certain sign if they want out.  If the bishop was aware of the parent's concern, knowing the parent would cue into any discomfort and likely report it...that would likely be a deterrent. 

There are benefits to having multiple adults in one's life.  The risk of not growing up and being able to relate to others on one's own without having a parent attached to one, speaking for one even...that can lead to big problems (speaking from experience of having a child who was extreme shy).  The vast majority of bishops are safe for kids to talk to and a good way for them to learn to speak up for themselves, imo.

It is eventually going to happen when they go for job interviews, college interviews, etc.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Calm

[MorningStar]

2 hours ago, california boy said:

I like this. Why not install glass doors in all bishops offices and only schedule youth interviews during church hours.  The privacy of the conversation is maintained and a parent could wait outside and watch the whole interview.  The cost would be paid for by avoiding just one lawsuit 

But then anyone can walk by and you see crying if you're talking about something upsetting. Not very private. 

[smac97]

6 hours ago, california boy said:

I like this. Why not install glass doors in all bishops offices and only schedule youth interviews during church hours.  The privacy of the conversation is maintained and a parent could wait outside and watch the whole interview.  The cost would be paid for by avoiding just one lawsuit 

I think there is some merit to these suggestions.  If not glass doors, then perhaps a door with a window in it.  

As to interviews during church hours, that seems to be the preference anyway.  It's not always feasible, though. 

The current practice of having another MP holder nearby (outside the door) should be strictly adhered to.  No chaperson = no meeting with a youth or a woman.

That said, Calm makes some solid points:

Quote

There is a big pull for me between privacy and safety, especially since there is a greater chance a child will be abused by a relative than a church leader and who knows, that abuse might be shared in a private meeting and the victim gets help that way.  But abuse in church settings occurs and that needs to be addressed as well.

If Calm is correct about instances of abuse being more commonly perpetrated by relatives than by church leaders (and I think she is), and if nobody is calling for stringent and intrusive "for the children" security measures in other private settings where children are at greater risk for abuse (such as the home or the homes of relatives) (and nobody seems to be calling for that), then the recent calls for hypervigilance seem a bit . . . suspect.  Add to this the inflammatory rhetoric and unseemly pressure tactics being used by the likes of Sam Young, and these calls become even more suspect.  As in "are there ulterior motives in play here?" types of suspicion.

As a father, I want my children to be safe.  As a Latter-day Saint, I want my children to be safe in church settings.  I want these things for all children in the Church. But some of the rhetoric I have seen comes across as fishy.  As a bit over-the-top.  As unduly accusatory.  As an attempt to induce a moral panic.  Consider the following (from the preceding link):

Quote

A moral panic is a feeling of fear spread among a large number of people that some evil threatens the well-being of society. A Dictionary of Sociology defines a moral panic as "the process of arousing social concern over an issue – usually the work of moral entrepreneurs and the mass media".

The media are key players in the dissemination of moral indignation, even when they do not appear to be consciously engaged in crusading or muckraking. Simply reporting the facts can be enough to generate concern, anxiety, or panic.  Stanley Cohen states that moral panic happens when "a condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests." Examples of moral panic include the belief in widespread abduction of children by predatory paedophiles, belief in ritual abuse of women and children by satanic cults, the War on Drugs, and other public health issues.

...

According to {sociologist and criminologist} Stanley Cohen, often considered the researcher who first coined the term "moral panic", there are five key stages in the construction of a moral panic:

1. Someone, something or a group are defined as a threat to social norms or community interests
2. The threat is then depicted in a simple and recognizable symbol/form by the media
3. The portrayal of this symbol rouses public concern
4. There is a response from authorities and policy makers
5. The moral panic over the issue results in social changes within the community

Are LDS bishops being characterized as "a threat to social norms or community interests?"  Yep.

Are LDS bishops being "depicted in a simple and recognizable symbol/form by the media?"  Yep.

Is "{t}he portrayal of this symbol rous{ing} public concern?"  Yep.

Have there been calls for "a response from authorities and policy makers?"  Yep.  See here and here.

Is this "moral panic" resulting in "social changes within the community?"  Well, no.  Not yet, anyway.  I wonder what is going to happen if and when non-negotiable, my-way-or-the-highway demands are presented by the likes of Sam Young and Natasha Parker.

Thanks,

-Smac

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

Having read, and re-read one story, and having heard more like of, of young women, and even young men meeting alone with Bishops and Stake Presidents, I think it should end. 

I have been calling for and asking why this is (or was) not policy already. When serving in my Bishopric, so long ago, and while I had young daughters, I felt uncomfortable with questions being asked in a closed setting. I spoke about this is my Bishop about it, and he admitted that such meeting make him uncomfortable as well. My suggestions was for Relief Society Presidents, Young Women Presidents, and Young Men Presidents to have expanded calling, where each can meet with the Bishop, when he is meeting alone with Women, Girls and Boys. He liked the idea, but it was not Church policy at the time. 

Any thoughts, good idea, bad idea, what? 

Doctrinally, I see no reason for it. I see the wisdom in it, depending on the physical, emotional and spiritual situation. For physical safety we have doors that can stay open and/or with windows on them. For emotional safety, we have parents and guardians who can accompany the child. For spiritual safety, we have keys of discernment and the gift of the Holy Ghost. Should wisdom fail we have the legal system. Should fear prevail, we have D&C 83:4, “All children have claim upon their parents for their maintenance until they are of age.” The Church is a support to the parents and family so their wishes should be honored, or the interview conducted by someone they trust in the line of priesthood leadership. So, I don’t think a one-policy-fits-all is applicable in protecting our youth from pervert bishops, real, imagined or in the popular appearance of things.

[CV75]

7 hours ago, california boy said:

I like this. Why not install glass doors in all bishops offices and only schedule youth interviews during church hours.  The privacy of the conversation is maintained and a parent could wait outside and watch the whole interview.  The cost would be paid for by avoiding just one lawsuit 

The interviews needn't even take place in the bishop's office -- any room with a windowed door would do, or in the child's home.

Edited March 20, 2018 by CV75

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours ago, Calm said:

There is a big pull for me between privacy and safety, especially since there is a greater chance a child will be abused by a relative than a church leader and who knows, that abuse might be shared in a private meeting and the victim gets help that way.  But abuse in church settings occurs and that needs to be addressed as well.

I don't know...maybe not have required private interviews, but only if requested and then windows get put in where they still are not so someone can see that there is distance between the two, no touching possible.

There should also be a well publicized hotline for members to use to report suspected and known abuse since they are more likely to report it to other leaders than the police if they just suspect it and are not sure.

These are good suggestions. I once asked if I could put a window in the Bishop's office door and I was told I couldn't because it would be unseemly for someone to be able to look inside and see a person crying during a confession or something similar. They (Stake Presidency & facilities) felt it didn't provide enough privacy. I disagree. If meetings are truly voluntary and initiated by the individual I feel that a window in the bishop's office would be a great improvement.

As you mention, I think it is important for people, including youth, to have a safe place they can go to discuss problems or even abuse they have suffered. A bishop could be a safe place. The obvious problem is when private interviews between bishop and women/youth/children are mandated. It's often not a choice of the individual to go to discuss something private. It's more often a requirement for a temple recommend or a regularly scheduled youth interview. So often the individual doesn't initiate the meeting for their own needs but rather to meet an institutional need. So if the institution is requiring these one-on-one meetings, they should provide much more care for the safety of both the individual and the leader.

I agree Papa Lee, the time has come for these policies to change. I think there is a sea change occurring where public opinion is shifting dramatically in these areas. But this needs to happen from the top down. For those who suggest it's not a big deal because a parent can ask for a door to remain open, or even sit in with the interview, remember, there are leaders who will refuse these requests. The leaders hold the institutional power and the individual is required to accept it or forfeit TR, priesthood advancement, baptism etc.

[6EQUJ5]

48 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Is this "moral panic" resulting in "social changes within the community?"  Well, no.  Not yet, anyway.  I wonder what is going to happen if and when non-negotiable, my-way-or-the-highway demands are presented by the likes of Sam Young and Natasha Parker.

I think I can give you a glimpse of what might happen.  

This story has been flying around FB and even our EQ mailing list.  Clearly there are some differences of opinion but the overall consensus has been that ward members will withhold their children from Priesthood interviews unless allowed to be present. No exceptions.  Enough is enough.  2 ward members have shared stories of abuse in their past that came from inappropriate contact with Church leaders.

This situation reminds me of that true true saying: "I don't have a testimony of the history of the Church."  In this case, I don't have a testimony of the Church's law firm.  Kirton and McConkie have covered up abuse by Bishops and others too many times.  IMO, high Church leadership is mostly unaware of their activity so I don't blame Church leadership.  But its time for that law firm to go and it is time to stop priesthood leaders from being alone with youth.  

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

These are good suggestions. I once asked if I could put a window in the Bishop's office door and I was told I couldn't because it would be unseemly for someone to be able to look inside and see a person crying during a confession or something similar.

Our bishop's office is so situated that a person sitting in chairs along wall cannot be readily observed from the hallway.  So even if a person were crying or upset, they would not be seen.  So the door could have a window in it without unduly compromising the "privacy" of the individual being counseled.

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

They (Stake Presidency & facilities) felt it didn't provide enough privacy. I disagree. If meetings are truly voluntary and initiated by the individual I feel that a window in the bishop's office would be a great improvement.

I agree with you.

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

As you mention, I think it is important for people, including youth, to have a safe place they can go to discuss problems or even abuse they have suffered. A bishop could be a safe place. The obvious problem is when private interviews between bishop and women/youth/children are mandated.  It's often not a choice of the individual to go to discuss something private.

I'm not sure it's a "problem" as much as a situation requiring particular attention to logistics, decorum and propriety.

Children sometimes need to meet wtih teachers or administrators or some such while in school.  This is not a "problem" in and of itself.  It is just a situation that requires some attention and diligence.

Children sometimes need to meet with a mental health counselor/therapist, or a law enforcement officer, or an attorney, or a judge.  Again, is not a "problem" in and of itself. 

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's more often a requirement for a temple recommend or a regularly scheduled youth interview. So often the individual doesn't initiate the meeting for their own needs but rather to meet an institutional need. So if the institution is requiring these one-on-one meetings, they should provide much more care for the safety of both the individual and the leader.

I appreciate your sentiment here.

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree Papa Lee, the time has come for these policies to change. I think there is a sea change occurring where public opinion is shifting dramatically in these areas. But this needs to happen from the top down. For those who suggest it's not a big deal because a parent can ask for a door to remain open, or even sit in with the interview, remember, there are leaders who will refuse these requests. The leaders hold the institutional power and the individual is required to accept it or forfeit TR, priesthood advancement, baptism etc.

I think there are measures that can be taken that can accommodate the needs for "safety" and propriety, and also pastoral counseling.

Thanks,

-Smac