John Dehlin Attempting To Change Bishop's Interviews

[Yirgacheffe]

I would think that it would depend on the age. For example, if you ask a question: should a clergyman talk about masturbation to a child? Most would say no because their image of a child is between 4 to 11. Very few people view a teenager as a child. The church considers them young women and young men. Also, I think that bishops in the lds church should only ask a very general question these days. A question such as: Have you followed the law of chasity? And if asked what is it? Just say: sexual purity, you haven't had sexual relations or masturbated. And if the teenager says that they haven't. the bishop must take it from there.

 

I see nothing improper about this. And most likely this is what happens. However, if the bishop asks more personal questions about how the teen masturbates etc, this will be over the top. I have no idea why people think that bishops would be perverts. As I said before, it is much better for a parent to have a talk with their teenager before their teenager goes into the bishop and go over with them what questions may be improper or what questions may not be improper.

 

And this would be the same with a child. But we still need to remember that the talk can also be a more general talk about adults and being alone with them and what should be avoided.

I work with 12-14 year olds and and while they are certainly closer to an adult than a 4 year old they are still kids, my co-workers see them in the same light. You don't see anything improper about the questioning, I do see it as improper and nothing either of us says is going to convince the other to change their view.

On an unrelated note, I tried to put a smiley face at the end but couldn't, puzzling since I'm sure I've used emoticons here before.

[Tacenda]

I'm sure someone will post this, but if interested, JD is being interviewed today on Radio West here in Utah. Maybe they'll discuss this topic, or maybe not.

[why me]

I work with 12-14 year olds and and while they are certainly closer to an adult than a 4 year old they are still kids, my co-workers see them in the same light. You don't see anything improper about the questioning, I do see it as improper and nothing either of us says is going to convince the other to change their view.

On an unrelated note, I tried to put a smiley face at the end but couldn't, puzzling since I'm sure I've used emoticons here before.

Like I have said, it is all in the question. Too detailed and it becomes rather perverted. However, I see nothing wrong with a generalized sexual purity question. Many religions have confessions in place, especially the catholic church. But I am sure that if I were a lutheran and if I committed a sexual sin and if I were religious, I would also see a pastor.

 

My problem is simple: if members have a belief that all bishiops are perverts then they shouldn't bother to be coming to church. Why be a member of a church when one believes that biships are technically perverts?

[Yirgacheffe]

Like I have said, it is all in the question. Too detailed and it becomes rather perverted. However, I see nothing wrong with a generalized sexual purity question. Many religions have confessions in place, especially the catholic church. But I am sure that if I were a lutheran and if I committed a sexual sin and if I were religious, I would also see a pastor.

 

My problem is simple: if members have a belief that all bishiops are perverts then they shouldn't bother to be coming to church. Why be a member of a church when one believes that biships are technically perverts?

Over the years I've heard more people who don't believe confession to a human being is necessary, as far as I can tell they think you confess to Jesus and no one else. I don't see where anyone has said they believe all bishops are perverts.

[why me]

Over the years I've heard more people who don't believe confession to a human being is necessary, as far as I can tell they think you confess to Jesus and no one else. I don't see where anyone has said they believe all bishops are perverts.

If people do not want their young person alone with the bishop during a personal worthiness interview I suppose that they believe that the bishop may be a pervert. What other conclusion can one draw?

[Yirgacheffe]

If people do not want their young person alone with the bishop during a personal worthiness interview I suppose that they believe that the bishop may be a pervert. What other conclusion can one draw?

That the line of questioning is inappropriate whether from a pervert or not.

[rockpond]

If people do not want their young person alone with the bishop during a personal worthiness interview I suppose that they believe that the bishop may be a pervert. What other conclusion can one draw?

 

Here's one conclusion:

 

I think there are many bishops out there who believe that they should ask young men if they are masturbating.  Those bishops are not perverts.  I would submit that they are doing what they feel is their priesthood duty.  But, as a parent, I do not want my 12 year old son asked about masturbation by an adult who is not his mother or father.  Period.

[The Nehor]

Here's one conclusion:

 

I think there are many bishops out there who believe that they should ask young men if they are masturbating.  Those bishops are not perverts.  I would submit that they are doing what they feel is their priesthood duty.  But, as a parent, I do not want my 12 year old son asked about masturbation by an adult who is not his mother or father.  Period.

Yes, because mom or dad asking about it is much less awkward.

[Buzzard]

If the brethren ever decide that certain lines of questioning are inappropriate, I suspect that instruction would be part of the next bishoprics seminar. Until then, I'll stick with the brethren over John Dehlin.

Sometimes I hope that Dehlin doesn't go away angry, but I do wish he would just go away. 

[rockpond]

Yes, because mom or dad asking about it is much less awkward.

 

I have a relationship with my son that allows me to talk about these things without it being awkward.

[The Nehor]

I have a relationship with my son that allows me to talk about these things without it being awkward.

Uh-huh.....sure.

[rockpond]

If the brethren ever decide that certain lines of questioning are inappropriate, I suspect that instruction would be part of the next bishoprics seminar. Until then, I'll stick with the brethren over John Dehlin.

Sometimes I hope that Dehlin doesn't go away angry, but I do wish he would just go away. 

 

Is there any documentation that Bishops are supposed to ask these lines of questioning?  Any indication that the Brethren have ever instructed Bishops to ask anything beyond if members are obeying the law of chastity?

[The Nehor]

Is there any documentation that Bishops are supposed to ask these lines of questioning?  Any indication that the Brethren have ever instructed Bishops to ask anything beyond if members are obeying the law of chastity?

Yes, when the reason answers "no" to that question you are expected to dig a little deeper; also when the Spirit prompts them to.

[Buzzard]

Is there any documentation that Bishops are supposed to ask these lines of questioning?  Any indication that the Brethren have ever instructed Bishops to ask anything beyond if members are obeying the law of chastity?

Given the "no secrets, it's all on the internet" state of society and the church, if such an instruction to refrain from additional questioning along this or other topics had been given in a Bishops seminar, you may be assured it would be semi-public knowledge. I have certainly heard the phrase "Last week in our Bishops seminar, we were taught/instructed ______________" many times in bishopric, PEC, and ward council meetings. 

I know that in Temple Recommend interviews for adults, Leaders are not to go beyond the set questions unless the interviewee requests clarification or volunteers information-and that has been reinforced multiple times in leadership settings.. I have not heard that at all in regard to youth interviews. 

Edited May 7, 2014 by Buzzard

[rockpond]

Yes, when the reason answers "no" to that question you are expected to dig a little deeper; also when the Spirit prompts them to.

 

Digging a little deeper doesn't necessarily mean asking inappropriate questions.

[rockpond]

Given the "no secrets, it's all on the internet" state of society and the church, if such an instruction had been given in a Bishops seminar, you may be assured it would be semi-public knowledge.

 

So, is that a "no"?

 

I have certainly heard the phrase "Last week in our Bishops seminar, we were taught/instructed ______________" many times in bishopric, PEC, and ward council meetings. 

 

As have I.  But that doesn't necessarily mean that it came from the Brethren.  Our ward and stake do plenty of things that originate locally.

[Buzzard]

Rockpond, what it seems you are seeking is an LDS Talmud. Not just the scriptures, not just the CHOI, which is thick enough already, but to eliminate the voice of the spirit from every human interaction in the church. If that's how I wanted my religion, I guess I'd be an Orthodox Jew. No thanks, it's tough enough being an Orthodox Mormon. 

[thatjimguy]

Would any of you feel differently if it was someone from the Stake Council asking the questions? How far up would you have to go to think that "This man is called of God." not to doubt the sanctity of the man and the interview?

Edited May 7, 2014 by thatjimguy

[USU78]

So the reason that we need adult men speaking to children about M in private is so that we can preserve the CHILD'S privilege against self-incrimination at trial?  Which trials are you referring to -- the Salem Witch Trials?

 

In 99% of cases, the child's confession does not need to be privileged for legal purposes.  And in those tragic cases (such as a child confessing to molesting a younger sibling), I THINK Church policy (and local law) might require the bishop to disregard the privilege and contact law enforcement.

 

Finally, the presence of a third-party does not automatically obviate the priest-penitent privilege.  For instance, if the bishop and his counselor are present, then it's the functional equivalent of confessing to two priests or rabbis.  And, in some cases, the presence of a parent might be okay as well.  There was a 2011 case in Arizona in which the privilege held despite the presence of the wife at the confession.

 

http://www.churchlawandtax.com/cltr/2011/march-april/spouses-presence-may-not-nullify-clergy-penitent-privilege.html

 

Hyperbolate much?  Salem witch trials?  Really?

 

99?  Really?  And why should that matter?  If I am entitled to have my conversations with the bishop confidential and privileged, so should my son.  You act as though this is a matter of no consequence.  Bishops are required to keep their mouths shut.  Period.  It is not only the State, but gossipy neighbors and, perhaps (especially?) even teachers and youth leaders that one must be protected.  There's a reason the Bishop is the only one present:  so one can expect to open up about highly personal things without needing to edit for an audience that is increasingly likely to gossip the larger the audience is..

 

In any case, you focus on the wrong thing.  Perhaps your contrarienne nature.

 

The major point is the child's autonomy and giving the child respect and honoring his independence.  This you wholly failed to address in your response.

 

If one were to list the person most likely to abuse a child sexually, the parents would come first, teachers second, scout leaders third, and clergy prolly last by a very large margin, based upon what was presented to me back in '08 in San Diego at a child sex abuse seminar.  Of course, politics gets in the way of clear thinking here.

Edited May 7, 2014 by USU78

[Buzzard]

Would any of you feel differently if it was someone from the Stake Council asking the questions? How far up would you have to go to think that "This man is called of God." not to doubt?

I'd be more comfortable with the bishop. Common Judge in Israel and all that. Stake High Councilmen don't hold those keys. Stake Presidency does, though. 

[Gray]

Rockpond, what it seems you are seeking is an LDS Talmud. Not just the scriptures, not just the CHOI, which is thick enough already, but to eliminate the voice of the spirit from every human interaction in the church. If that's how I wanted my religion, I guess I'd be an Orthodox Jew. No thanks, it's tough enough being an Orthodox Mormon. 

 

I think you're misrepresenting Orthodox Judaism. 

[rockpond]

Rockpond, what it seems you are seeking is an LDS Talmud. Not just the scriptures, not just the CHOI, which is thick enough already, but to eliminate the voice of the spirit from every human interaction in the church. If that's how I wanted my religion, I guess I'd be an Orthodox Jew. No thanks, it's tough enough being an Orthodox Mormon. 

 

Not at all.  I do want bishops who follow the Spirit.  I was just pointing out that asking the questions that Dehlin seems to be complaining about does NOT appear to be a matter of church policy.

[Senator]

Look, if you have a problem with these types of interviews, then simply decline them. It's that easy. It's your right.

 

However, do realize that such action will bring along ramifications for you and (especially) your child in regards to his relationship with, and participation in the church.

[rockpond]

Look, if you have a problem with these types of interviews, then simply decline them. It's that easy. It's your right.

 

However, do realize that such action will bring along ramifications for you and (especially) your child in regards to his relationship with, and participation in the church.

 

That's precisely the problem.  It's not really "that easy" for someone who wants to stay actively engaged in the church.

[Buzzard]

Not at all.  I do want bishops who follow the Spirit.  I was just pointing out that asking the questions that Dehlin seems to be complaining about does NOT appear to be a matter of church policy.

I was just pointing out that;

-Not every church policy is written in the scriptures, elucidated in a handbook, or even remains the same. 

-Bishops following the spirit is not just part of the worthiness interview process, it's the heart of that process. What may be comfortable and appropriate for one youth may traumatize another.

-Dehlin only seems to like one thing about the church, and that's to complain about it. I've yet to hear a valid one, so I'm through listening to him.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Buzzard