Adjusting to youth safety rules

[bluebell]

26 minutes ago, Coop said:

I feel for those who feel this way.  I'm sure that there are lots of people who were helped by leaders in the Church.  And not to denigrate them but I often say that the most significant things I learned growing up, I learned from comic books.  The thing that swayed my thinking on this issue goes like this.

If I was faced with a choice between:

a.  The absolute certainty that one-on-one interviews were causing harm, or

b.  The hope that one-on-one interviews might help someone,

I would go with certainty over hope.

If I'm wrong on this issue then I'm willing to accept what ever punishment God doles out to me in the next life for my decision.  But I know that I couldn't sleep knowing that someone is suffering because of on-on-one interviews because those who support them felt that those are harmed by these interviews some how deserved their fate, or that someone else's life was more important.  So rather than dealing with the certainty that someone is suffering because of a decision I made, I choose to suffer with those who aren't helped because they didn't have the opportunity to be in a one-on-one interview with an able Church leader.  For me this is the Christ like thing to do.

I think the thing that muddies the water on this issue is the concept of "one or all" as in "It is better for one man (Laban) should perish than for a whole nation to dwindle in unbelief" or to put it another way, "Christ died that all may live."  The question in my mind is, does this concept of "one or all" apply in the context of interviews in the Church?

From my perspective it's mose like:

a.  Certainty that one-on-one interviews have caused harm, and

b.  Certainty that one-on-one interviews have helped someone,

So there is no question of certainty over hope from my perspective.  Both options have potential to be bad (and have certainly been bad in some cases) and both options have potential to be good (and have certainly been good in some cases).   And that's why I like the church's current option where youth can choose one-on-one interviews if they want, but can also ask that someone else go in with them. And parents can request to attend interviews as well (though in cases where parents are abusive, that can cause it's own harm, but there isn't really any way around that).

[cinepro]

On 9/12/2019 at 9:46 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

Are the new policies going to have to be adjusted to fit reality?

No. Reality is going to have to be adjusted to fit the new policies.

[Amulek]

19 minutes ago, cinepro said:

No. Reality is going to have to be adjusted to fit the new policies.

So let it be written. So let it be done. 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

In my wife's ward growing up, there was a fellow who was required to have someone shadow him at all times. Fortunately, I've never personally lived in a ward where that was a problem. 

In one of my previous wards, there was a disabled young man who was required to be in the company of an elder or older man at all times.  He hadn't a clue about the wrongness, something that he had learned in a group home.  Abuse is rampant in such places for a variety of reasons unfortunately.

[Coop]

6 hours ago, bluebell said:

From my perspective it's mose like:

a.  Certainty that one-on-one interviews have caused harm, and

b.  Certainty that one-on-one interviews have helped someone,

So there is no question of certainty over hope from my perspective.  Both options have potential to be bad (and have certainly been bad in some cases) and both options have potential to be good (and have certainly been good in some cases).   And that's why I like the church's current option where youth can choose one-on-one interviews if they want, but can also ask that someone else go in with them. And parents can request to attend interviews as well (though in cases where parents are abusive, that can cause it's own harm, but there isn't really any way around that).

In my heart it is hard to argue with someone called "bluebell" but on the chance that I won't offend you and wound my heart I would beg to differ.

If the Church were to eliminate one-on-one interviews there are a number of things they could do to replace the good that comes from such interviews.  This makes the good that comes from such interviews a relative good.  For example the replacement of the Boy Scouts is a relative good being replaced with something better.  While on the other hand if we eliminated one-on-one interviews I'm absolutely certain that no bad will ever be done in this context.  To me the choice is obvious.  I go with the absolute certainty of no one-on-one interviews over the relative good of using them.

All the best,

Bob

[Meadowchik]

8 hours ago, Coop said:

If the Church were to eliminate one-on-one interviews there are a number of things they could do to replace the good that comes from such interviews.  This makes the good that comes from such interviews a relative good.  For example the replacement of the Boy Scouts is a relative good being replaced with something better.  While on the other hand if we eliminated one-on-one interviews I'm absolutely certain that no bad will ever be done in this context.  To me the choice is obvious.  I go with the absolute certainty of no one-on-one interviews over the relative good of using them.

All the best,

Bob

I'm not sure that the good of a one-on-one, confidential conversation with a spiritual advisor can be replaced, though. Those type of relationships are throughout society, like with lawyers, doctors, therapists, spouses, and allowing a measure of privacy for such relationships--making some specifically-defined relationships sacrosanct--potentially gives them a unique function that is not replicated outside such types of relationships.

So the ability to speak and be heard outside one's own head, where that experience is protected, might be an essential human good. 

Edited September 14, 2019 by Meadowchik

[MustardSeed]

I believe the dynamic of a confidential conversation cannot be replaced. 

Again,I support the change.  I’m simply sad about it. 

[Coop]

8 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm not sure that the good of a one-on-one, confidential conversation with a spiritual advisor can be replaced, though. Those type of relationships are throughout society, like with lawyers, doctors, therapists, spouses, and allowing a measure of privacy for such relationships--making some specifically-defined relationships sacrosanct--potentially gives them a unique function that is not replicated outside such types of relationships.

So the ability to speak and be heard outside one's own head, where that experience is protected, might be an essential human good. 

I would go one step further and state that it is an essential human need.  But having one-on-one interviews with a Bishop isn't the only way for a relationship to develop  For example I'm good friends with my current Bishop.  Our friendship has developed on the golf course and not in his office.

As far as the privacy factor goes when I go to my lawyer, doctor, therapist or spouse I, like you, expect our conversation to be confidential.  I don't see the same need in the context of a relationship with a Bishop and a member of his ward.  And this is because I don't think confession needs to a private conversation.  I believe that confession is between God and man, and man and congregation.  For example when I bear my testimony I will often confess, in a general sense of the word, and then ask for forgiveness from those I have offended.  I believe private confessions are a good example of unrighteous dominion in the Church.

All the best,

Bob

 

[bluebell]

On 9/13/2019 at 8:58 PM, Coop said:

In my heart it is hard to argue with someone called "bluebell" but on the chance that I won't offend you and wound my heart I would beg to differ.

If the Church were to eliminate one-on-one interviews there are a number of things they could do to replace the good that comes from such interviews.  This makes the good that comes from such interviews a relative good.  For example the replacement of the Boy Scouts is a relative good being replaced with something better.  While on the other hand if we eliminated one-on-one interviews I'm absolutely certain that no bad will ever be done in this context.  To me the choice is obvious.  I go with the absolute certainty of no one-on-one interviews over the relative good of using them.

All the best,

Bob

I definitely do understand your point and I think that reasonable people can disagree.   I think that my perspective comes somewhat from a poster in this forum sharing how she had an abusive relationship with her mother and that the policy of one-on-one interviews with her bishop (which her mother couldn't control) was one of the things that saved her.

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 9/15/2019 at 4:39 AM, Coop said:

As far as the privacy factor goes when I go to my lawyer, doctor, therapist or spouse I, like you, expect our conversation to be confidential.  I don't see the same need in the context of a relationship with a Bishop and a member of his ward.

Having twice served in the bishopric of my ward, the second time as first counsellor to a bishop whose academic position meant he was frequently away from his congregation, I can assure you that there are numerous people in my ward who are glad that the conversations they've had with me are as confidential as those they have had with doctors and even spouses. It is my honour to be so trusted.

All last week, I felt impressed to check on a sister in our ward, but I didn't know what to say, so I let it slip till yesterday at church. When I saw her in the pew, I knew I had to approach her, so I did after sacrament meeting, confessing my earlier failure to follow an impression and asking if she was OK. Her response: 'If I answer that question here, I'll cry, and I don't want to do that'. I then asked if she wanted me to visit in the afternoon. 'Yes'.

I was there for 2.5 hours yesterday with her and her two boys. As a bishopric counsellor, I had been intimately involved in the dizzyingly ugly events that culminated in a divorce from her husband: adultery of the more shocking-than-standard variety. As I was leaving yesterday, she thanked me for being the one person in the ward she doesn't have to put on a front for. I told her I was happy to be of service and reminded her that we had already been through heaven and hell together and that I'd seen her at her 'worst'. She acknowledged that fact and said it was why she can still trust and talk to me. Both boys thanked me as well. The younger said, 'It was so good that you came!'

When I left, all three individuals were better than when I'd arrived. What a tragedy if they couldn't access the support they desire! (Even if it has to come in the woefully imperfect form of me ...)

Edited September 16, 2019 by Hamba Tuhan

[Meadowchik]

On 9/14/2019 at 7:39 PM, Coop said:

I would go one step further and state that it is an essential human need.  But having one-on-one interviews with a Bishop isn't the only way for a relationship to develop  For example I'm good friends with my current Bishop.  Our friendship has developed on the golf course and not in his office.

As far as the privacy factor goes when I go to my lawyer, doctor, therapist or spouse I, like you, expect our conversation to be confidential.  I don't see the same need in the context of a relationship with a Bishop and a member of his ward.  And this is because I don't think confession needs to a private conversation.  I believe that confession is between God and man, and man and congregation.  For example when I bear my testimony I will often confess, in a general sense of the word, and then ask for forgiveness from those I have offended.  I believe private confessions are a good example of unrighteous dominion in the Church.

All the best,

Bob

 

I think this is all reasonable and worth considering. 

Also there is still the point that youth confessions are distinct from adult confessions, and that neither require sexually explicit questioning. Remove the latter, that of sexually explicit questioning, and a large safety risk factor might be eliminated.

Edited September 16, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Tacenda]

On 9/13/2019 at 8:58 PM, Coop said:

In my heart it is hard to argue with someone called "bluebell" but on the chance that I won't offend you and wound my heart I would beg to differ.

If the Church were to eliminate one-on-one interviews there are a number of things they could do to replace the good that comes from such interviews.  This makes the good that comes from such interviews a relative good.  For example the replacement of the Boy Scouts is a relative good being replaced with something better.  While on the other hand if we eliminated one-on-one interviews I'm absolutely certain that no bad will ever be done in this context.  To me the choice is obvious.  I go with the absolute certainty of no one-on-one interviews over the relative good of using them.

All the best,

Bob

In my heart I do as well. For one a lot of one on one's involve emotional abuse, so nothing physical. And surely the church can do something like the school districts are doing, they can teach the youth that it's always good to tell an adult if there is abuse, which could include any adults in the ward, not just the bishop. 

[Coop]

I just realized in rereading this thread that I missed an important point.  What I failed to do is to make the distinction between mandated one-on-one interviews and pastoral interviews.

My objection is to the former and not the later.  I'm sure that there is much good that we all can do to minister to each other.  In my case I spent time this past Sunday talking after Church with a sister who shared in Sunday School her pain in having a gay son and his life style.  It was clear to me that she was struggling with this issue and I tried my best to help.  And in my mind a lot of good can come of this type of ministering.  This for me is where we need to focus our efforts.

But even in this we need to be cautious.  I think in the Church we get so caught up in trying to do as much good as possible that we can overload ourselves to the point of feeling guilty for not doing enough.  In this I'm reminded of the Savior who was able to cause the blind to see, the deaf to hear, and the lame to walk but He still hasn't visited a friend of mine who is confined to a wheel chair due to an industrial accident.  If there is a limit to how much good God can do then I'm not too concerned about how much I do.  The parable of the labours in the vineyard and their unequal compensations comes to mind.

All the best,

Bob