John Dehlin Attempting To Change Bishop's Interviews

[ERayR]

This is true. But I do think that he has lost his thunder with his about face. I think that he disappointed a lot of his following when he did an about turn back to the church. But he is now attempting to hoe a middle ground. on a high wire.

 

Insert something here about a man who straddles the fence ends up with a sore crotch.

[JulieM]

I had a disturbing experience with my Bishop when I was still single. I didn't get married until I was in my early 30's and was questioned in an extremely probing way by my current Bishop at that time. I actually left the interview and went into speak to my Stake President about it. He told me that he'd speak to my Bishop as he was newly called to be the Bishop. My Bishop apologized to me, but I never really shook the creep factor I'd felt in that interview.

I see nothing wrong with parents asking to be present in their kid's interviews. I can see both sides, but I'd rather error on the side of the child being safe. I do believe that the occurrences of any type of abuse are extremely rare though. However, it is within a parent's rights to be present. I think you have to use your own discretion and inspiration on this.

[why me]

I see nothing wrong with parents asking to be present in their kid's interviews. I can see both sides, but I'd rather error on the side of the child being safe. I do believe that the occurrences of any type of abuse are extremely rare though. However, it is within a parent's rights to be present. I think you have to use your own discretion and inspiration on this.

Should the parent also be present when the teacher wants to talk to the chld after school? Or when the coach wishes to talk to him or her after the game? Or after practice? Or when visiting the school nurse alone? Or when in a doctor's office? What if the child is 15 years old? Or 13 years old?

 

When the bishop gives a personal worthiness interview do you think that the child would be honest in front of mom or dad?

[cinepro]

Should the parent also be present when the teacher wants to talk to the chld after school? Or when the coach wishes to talk to him or her after the game? Or after practice? Or when visiting the school nurse alone? Or when in a doctor's office? What if the child is 15 years old? Or 13 years old?

 

When the bishop gives a personal worthiness interview do you think that the child would be honest in front of mom or dad?

 

If the teacher, coach, school nurse or doctor were asking questions about the child's sex life that might make the child uncomfortable, then yes, the parent has every right to know about it and be there.

 

Likewise, if a Bishop wants to talk to my child in full view of other people (including myself) about sports, school work, or public health, I would have no problem with it.

 

Boy Scouts already requires "two deep" leadership at all times (i.e. two adults present), and a trained sports coach would never be alone with a player these days.  So maybe the time isn't too far distant when the Church catches up and has a female leader present for young women's interviews, and another male leader present for young men's interviews.

Edited May 3, 2014 by cinepro

[Storm Rider]

If the teacher, coach, school nurse or doctor were asking questions about the child's sex life that might make the child uncomfortable, then yes, the parent has every right to know about it and be there.

 

Likewise, if a Bishop wants to talk to my child in full view of other people (including myself) about sports, school work, or public health, I would have no problem with it.

 

Boy Scouts already requires "two deep" leadership at all times (i.e. two adults present), and a trained sports coach would never be alone with a player these days.  So maybe the time isn't too far distant when the Church catches up and has a female leader present for young women's interviews, and another male leader present for young men's interviews.

 

When that occurs the end of the repentance process through priesthood leaders is dead and the membership will be left to their own devices.  

 

It is interesting how much life changes when humans remove themselves from living in nature to living in concrete jungles with no knowledge of how nature lives.  Much of this is prudishness parading as holiness. Granted there are examples, the rare exceptions, where stupid humans do stupid things. However, it is the vast majority of priesthood interviews that assist individuals gain the clear conscience that results from complete repentance.  Being able to put the sin behind them rather than weigh on their hearts for far too long. 

 

I detest the hyper-protective parent cannot allow a child to fall, to touch the earth, or to experience pain.  This is not love, it is not healthy; it is shortsighted, ignorance run amok.  The same can be said for this situation. People have lost all understanding of priorities or the end goal.  

[Bikeemikey]

When that occurs the end of the repentance process through priesthood leaders is dead and the membership will be left to their own devices.

It is interesting how much life changes when humans remove themselves from living in nature to living in concrete jungles with no knowledge of how nature lives. Much of this is prudishness parading as holiness. Granted there are examples, the rare exceptions, where stupid humans do stupid things. However, it is the vast majority of priesthood interviews that assist individuals gain the clear conscience that results from complete repentance. Being able to put the sin behind them rather than weigh on their hearts for far too long.

I detest the hyper-protective parent cannot allow a child to fall, to touch the earth, or to experience pain. This is not love, it is not healthy; it is shortsighted, ignorance run amok. The same can be said for this situation. People have lost all understanding of priorities or the end goal.

You used a kind of double negative in the first paragraph - you said the end of repentance would be dead... That actually sounds like a good thin because no one wants an end to repentance.

Anyway, as long as I can still repent through Jesus and the atonement not sure you hyperbolic and unlikely scenario is really a big deal anyway.

[Pahoran]

Well, I believe that you are wrong. For every study you can post links to, I can do the same proving my belief. I don't believe that watching gay porn causes people to become gay unless they already were born with those tendencies.

I fail entirely to see why you insist on demanding references, MichelleD, when it is entirely clear that you won't even consider accepting a view contrary to your own, however well referenced it might be. Why should anyone jump through hoops for your amusement when your opinion is already set in concrete?

Regards,

Pahoran

[MichelleD]

I fail entirely to see why you insist on demanding references, MichelleD, when it is entirely clear that you won't even consider accepting a view contrary to your own, however well referenced it might be. Why should anyone jump through hoops for your amusement when your opinion is already set in concrete?Regards,Pahoran

Where in that quote above (or anywhere else), did I demand references from that person? I didn't. Nor did they ask for any from me. We just simply disagree on this one point.

But I'm not the only one who asked you for a CFR regarding your 2 statements on the topic of the OP and you still haven't supplied any to back up your statements that these Bishop's interviews are a discontinued practice and that directives were given to leaders 20 years ago to stop asking questions of a sexual nature.

I'm going to assume you still don't have any references?

Edited May 3, 2014 by MichelleD

[Duncan]

Where in that quote above (or anywhere else), did I demand references from that person? I didn't. Nor did they ask for any from me. We just simply disagree on this one point.

But I'm not the only one who asked you for a CFR regarding your 2 statements on the topic of the OP and you still haven't supplied any to back up your statements that these Bishop's interviews are a discontinued practice and that directives were given to leaders 20 years ago to stop asking questions of a sexual nature.

I'm going to assume you still don't have any references?

 

 

From General Conference 1978, Pres. N. Eldon Tanner

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1978/10/the-blessing-of-church-interviews

[ALarson]

From General Conference 1978, Pres. N. Eldon Tanner

 

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1978/10/the-blessing-of-church-interviews

Thanks for posting this, Duncan.

 

This quote from Pres. Tanner's talk is good to read (but the entire talk is excellent):

 

That is, there must be nothing immodest or degrading in your interview. Our interviews are not to be indelicate, or offensive, or pornographic in any way.

 

May I say here that occasionally we receive reports that a bishop or a stake president has been very indiscreet or indelicate in an interview, especially of married members.

It is not in order for a priesthood leader to list in detail ugly, deviant, or bestial practices and then cross-examine a member of the Church as to whether or not such things are practiced.

 

One of the General Authorities once interviewed a young man who had gone into the mission home who had made confession of a transgression which disqualified him from missionary service.

 

The General Authority was amazed at the sordid nature of what the young man had done and asked, “Where on earth did you get the idea to do things like this?” He was shocked when the young man answered, “From my bishop.”

 

During a preliminary interview for the young man’s mission, the bishop had said, “Have you ever done this? Have you ever done that?” describing every unworthy and depraved act he could think of. Such things had never before entered the young man’s mind, but they were in his mind now! The adversary put in his way the opportunity and the temptation—and he fell!

 

Brethren, our interviews must be conducted in love, in modesty. Ofttimes things can be corrected if you ask: “Would there be a reason you may feel uncomfortable or perhaps even dishonest to the Lord if you were to sign your own temple recommend?

 

Edited May 3, 2014 by ALarson

[MichelleD]

From General Conference 1978, Pres. N. Eldon Tanner

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1978/10/the-blessing-of-church-interviews

Thank you, Duncan. President Tanner's talk is great and very pertinent to this topic. Thanks again for posting the reference. Edited May 3, 2014 by MichelleD

[Calm]

There are certain things I wish new bishops had to read as soon as they were called, in the presence of the Stake President with a quiz for comprehension afterwards to ensure that not only something is policy, but policy that gets implemented immediately.

[Duncan]

There are certain things I wish new bishops had to read as soon as they were called, in the presence of the Stake President with a quiz for comprehension afterwards to ensure that not only something is policy, but policy that gets implemented immediately.

 

 

that's true, people can have these lulu ideas about something that is policy or isn't and creates a ruckus. Par example a few years it seems the Church got rid of teacher improvement classes but my friend's Bishop didn't know about it and then a year or so later called her to be the teacher and I showed her the thing about it and her Bishop apologized profusely! so, I mean whatever. Another a guy in our bishopric believed there was a policy that the Primary President had to be married and so they were looking for a Primary Pres. that was married entirely not knowing that the next ward over that meets in our building their entire Primary Pres. at the time were single and divorced women. 

[ERayR]

When that occurs the end of the repentance process through priesthood leaders is dead and the membership will be left to their own devices.  

 

It is interesting how much life changes when humans remove themselves from living in nature to living in concrete jungles with no knowledge of how nature lives.  Much of this is prudishness parading as holiness. Granted there are examples, the rare exceptions, where stupid humans do stupid things. However, it is the vast majority of priesthood interviews that assist individuals gain the clear conscience that results from complete repentance.  Being able to put the sin behind them rather than weigh on their hearts for far too long. 

 

I detest the hyper-protective parent cannot allow a child to fall, to touch the earth, or to experience pain.  This is not love, it is not healthy; it is shortsighted, ignorance run amok.  The same can be said for this situation. People have lost all understanding of priorities or the end goal.  

 

I wish I could give you a dozen or more rep points for this.

[why me]

If the teacher, coach, school nurse or doctor were asking questions about the child's sex life that might make the child uncomfortable, then yes, the parent has every right to know about it and be there.

 

Likewise, if a Bishop wants to talk to my child in full view of other people (including myself) about sports, school work, or public health, I would have no problem with it.

 

Boy Scouts already requires "two deep" leadership at all times (i.e. two adults present), and a trained sports coach would never be alone with a player these days.  So maybe the time isn't too far distant when the Church catches up and has a female leader present for young women's interviews, and another male leader present for young men's interviews.

The problem is allowing a child to be alone with an adult. How many teachers are having affairs with their students? Many. The newspapers are fill of such incidence. If I know that the bishop is going to ask my son or daughter personal worthiness questions, I can certainly prepare them for it. I know what is going on. The problem comes when a scot leader, a teacher, a coach begins to ask such questions without my knowledge. To me this is far worse than a personal worthiness interview. My point is simple: one must prepare a son or a daughter for the possibilities what could happen when alone with an adult and to report any problem to the parent or to the authorities.

 

A bishop is the least of the problem.

[mormonnewb]

Should the parent also be present when the teacher wants to talk to the chld after school? Or when the coach wishes to talk to him or her after the game? Or after practice? Or when visiting the school nurse alone? Or when in a doctor's office? What if the child is 15 years old? Or 13 years old?

 

When the bishop gives a personal worthiness interview do you think that the child would be honest in front of mom or dad?

If the teacher wants to ask my child about touching his privates, yes. If the coach wants to talk to my child about touching his privates, yes. And ditto, to the rest.

Let's be clear. I have no problem with adults talking to children, even alone with them. But when the subject turns to SEX, then NO ADULT (other than a trained medical professional) should be ALONE in a room with a child. For the life of me, I can't see why that's so hard to understand.

[Storm Rider]

You used a kind of double negative in the first paragraph - you said the end of repentance would be dead... That actually sounds like a good thin because no one wants an end to repentance.

Anyway, as long as I can still repent through Jesus and the atonement not sure you hyperbolic and unlikely scenario is really a big deal anyway.

 

My, aren't we all enlightened. No need for a church; no need for anyone else.  Just you out there alone.  Now why would the Lord tell us about the importance of meeting together and teach the principles of repentance.  

 

And a word smith to boot; dang, all hail the queen.

[mormonnewb]

Why would a bishop wish to talk about someone's private parts. But yes, if that did happen, I would consider that to be abusive and no medical professional necessary. However, we are basically dealing with bishops asking worthiness questions. This is not really that complicated and not the various sizes of private parts. In the catholic faith boys and girls go to the priest inside a booth and confess all sorts of sexual sins. No problem. Should the mom and dad be present in the booth?

LMBO!

Are you really using Catholic practices as an example of a good practice? And I used to think that I was funny.

Most of the practicing Catholics I know are wonderful people and I think that ALL Christians owe a debt to the institution itself. But to answer your question, I wouldn't allow my son to have a private conversation about sex with a Catholic priest ... and neither would YOU.

[Storm Rider]

If the teacher wants to ask my child about touching his privates, yes. If the coach wants to talk to my child about touching his privates, yes. And ditto, to the rest.

Let's be clear. I have no problem with adults talking to children, even alone with them. But when the subject turns to SEX, then NO ADULT (other than a trained medical professional) should be ALONE in a room with a child. For the life of me, I can't see why that's so hard to understand.

 

Okay, let's take this slow.  Your child has a burden that he carries around with him. The guilt of his/her sin weighs heavily on her or his soul and heart.  They strive to work through in prayer and supplication, but to no avail.  It is not, as some would assume in ignorance, an issue of the atonement of Jesus Christ not being sufficient, but the need for confession. Unfortunately, the sin that tortures the soul is an abuse of the Law of Chastity. Do they seek out a "trained medical professional" or do you think a bishop  or stake president might be the solution?

[Bikeemikey]

My, aren't we all enlightened. No need for a church; no need for anyone else. Just you out there alone. Now why would the Lord tell us about the importance of meeting together and teach the principles of repentance.

And a word smith to boot; dang, all hail the queen.

Not sure being a wordsmith and observing basic grammar are the same thing.

[Bikeemikey]

Okay, let's take this slow. Your child has a burden that he carries around with him. The guilt of his/her sin weighs heavily on her or his soul and heart. They strive to work through in prayer and supplication, but to no avail. It is not, as some would assume in ignorance, an issue of the atonement of Jesus Christ not being sufficient, but the need for confession. Unfortunately, the sin that tortures the soul is an abuse of the Law of Chastity. Do they seek out a "trained medical professional" or do you think a bishop or stake president might be the solution?

The church is increasingly encouraging the use of both professional and ecclesiastical supports.

[Tacenda]

If the teacher wants to ask my child about touching his privates, yes. If the coach wants to talk to my child about touching his privates, yes. And ditto, to the rest.

Let's be clear. I have no problem with adults talking to children, even alone with them. But when the subject turns to SEX, then NO ADULT (other than a trained medical professional) should be ALONE in a room with a child. For the life of me, I can't see why that's so hard to understand.

We definitely need more training for current and future Bishops!

[mormonnewb]

Okay, let's take this slow.  Your child has a burden that he carries around with him. The guilt of his/her sin weighs heavily on her or his soul and heart.  They strive to work through in prayer and supplication, but to no avail.  It is not, as some would assume in ignorance, an issue of the atonement of Jesus Christ not being sufficient, but the need for confession. Unfortunately, the sin that tortures the soul is an abuse of the Law of Chastity. Do they seek out a "trained medical professional" or do you think a bishop  or stake president might be the solution?

After explaining to him that it is Christ's atonement that accomplishes the forgiveness of sin (and not any absolution that he THINKS might come from a judge in Israel), I would call our bishop to set up an appointment with my son, the bishop AND another priesthood leader (e.g. a counselor, member of the SP, stake high councillor, ward janitor, it really wouldn't matter).

[why me]

If the teacher wants to ask my child about touching his privates, yes. If the coach wants to talk to my child about touching his privates, yes. And ditto, to the rest.

Let's be clear. I have no problem with adults talking to children, even alone with them. But when the subject turns to SEX, then NO ADULT (other than a trained medical professional) should be ALONE in a room with a child. For the life of me, I can't see why that's so hard to understand.

When I go online and read the NYPost or the NYDAILYNEWS I usually see that a teacher has been messing around with a student. And usually it is a female teacher messing with one of her students. How do you think this happens? Usually with a private talk. Should this teacher ask your permission? Much happens these days. Now if my daughter was going to the bishop for a personal interview I would wager a guess what this talk will be about. Either she is getting a calling or it is a personal worthiness interview. I would know what happens at such meetings. However, I have no idea what is happening at a teacher, student interview. And I don't think that a son would come running to dad after a mess around with his English teacher.

 

For example:

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/teacher-22-sex-13-year-old-student-sexted-cops-article-1.1772523

Edited May 3, 2014 by why me

[mormonnewb]

When I go online and read the NYPost or the NYDAILYNEWS I usually see that a teacher has been messing around with a student. And usually it is a female teacher messing with one of her students. How do you think this happens? Usually with a private talk. Should this teacher ask your permission? Much happens these days. Now if my daughter was going to the bishop for a personal interview I would wager a guess what this talk will be about. Either she is getting a calling or it is a personal worthiness interview. I would know what happens at such meetings. However, I have no idea what is happening at a teacher, student interview. And I don't think that a son would come running to dad after a mess around with his English teacher.

 

For example:

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/teacher-22-sex-13-year-old-student-sexted-cops-article-1.1772523

Thank you for making my point for me. Bad things can happen when adults and children are alone together. That's why it just makes sense to limit these interactions.

Doesn't our church take such prophylactic measures in other areas? Isn't it common practice for, say, a bishop and a RS pres to a avoid riding alone together in a car? In this case, we have two ADULTS in high callings and even still, our attitude is, "Better safe than sorry." When one of the individuals is a CHILD, it would seem that we would be even more cautious, not less.