Scott Lloyd Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 (edited) I try to check out my doctors ahead of time and never commit to one until I see them in operation. I have wasted too much time and money on doctors who not only do me no good, but make things worse because they wouldn't take the time to prepare and educate themselves....so it became necessary that I do so enough to be able to evaluate the competency of each doctor.Perhaps it is having family members that have been abused, perhaps it is exposure to clinical psychology in my youth which supplied me with information about how easily humans can slip into unhealthy situations, but I approach all interactions of children with adults with caution. I don't assume the worse, but I prepare for it in hopes of preventing it. I have the same attitude towards others sinning as I have towards myself...stay away from the edge as far as possible, walk as close to the safe zone as one can get instead (within reason).In setting up the comparison, I took it for granted that one would have already checked out the doctor ahead of time. But once the trust is in place, there comes a point where we have to free up the doctor to do his/her job, even if it means excusing a father and/or mother so the doctor can consult in private with an older teenager on matters that would likely embarrass him if a parent was present. Edited May 7, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
rockpond Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 Does a bishop abusing his office in worthiness interviews even rise to the level of a probability? I don't see that it does. (See my post above about the routinization of charisma.) I return to my prior comparison to the relationship a family has with a pediatrician. As a routine matter, we trust the pediatrician to be competent and ethical, or we don't engage his services in the first place. I believe faithful Church members similarly regard priesthood leaders. A bishop "abusing his office"? Yes, I think that would be very, VERY rare. Church members don't get to choose their priesthood leaders as they would a pediatrician. I don't see a problem with that. But I have to think it would be rare that you would even have reason to believe such a thing. It depends on what your threshold is. If you believe that asking about masturbation is inappropriate, there might be quite a few bishops that do that. But I don't really know, hasn't been an issue for my family. I suspect, however, that it has been for some families.
Spammer Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 However mortal sins should be confessed to a priest and these confessions are usually explcit and detailed. And the chances are that the priest just may recognize the voice of the confessor. A good confession is a good confession.A Catholic can confess those explicit details to any priest in any parish. Confession can be totally anonymous, if desired.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 (edited) Not prevented, no..but she has never taken the opportunity, so yes in that sense if one wants to do temple work, it will require an interview, but given I grew up when single women weren't allowed temple recommends (outside of baptisms) and only attended baptisms once myself and that was in college, I see it as being possible to be fully active in church without that aspect.Living in the Mormon corridor, with a proliferation of temples, I find that these days,young men and women are apt to be invited to do baptisms for the dead far more often than they were when I was a youth. I'm talking once every month or two. Edited May 7, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Senator Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 Not prevented, no..but she has never taken the opportunity, so yes in that sense if one wants to do temple work, it will require an interview, but given I grew up when single women weren't allowed temple recommends (outside of baptisms) and only attended baptisms once myself and that was in college, I see it as being possible to be fully active in church without that aspect.I agree, it is possible, as you and I see it. However, times have changed, along with certain expectations. At least in my ward, youth temple attendance is a regular occurrence and I could see how an otherwise active youth, who never attends, would eventually garner attention.....and questions.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 A bishop "abusing his office"? Yes, I think that would be very, VERY rare. Church members don't get to choose their priesthood leaders as they would a pediatrician. But faithful Church members believe that God does choose them -- which they would regard as being just as good or better. Again, it's a matter of the routinization of charisma.
rockpond Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 But faithful Church members believe that God does choose them -- which they would regard as being just as good or better. Again, it's a matter of the routinization of charisma. I have had a long series of amazing bishops in my life. I've learned from every one of them. But they are still mortals. Fallible. Subject to doing things that may not be the best course of action under the belief that they are doing God's will.
Scott Lloyd Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 I have had a long series of amazing bishops in my life. I've learned from every one of them. But they are still mortals. Fallible. Subject to doing things that may not be the best course of action under the belief that they are doing God's will.Being fallible is one thing. Being apt to use egregiously poor judgment is quite another.
rockpond Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 Being fallible is one thing. Being apt to use egregiously poor judgment is quite another. Are we talking about "egregiously poor judgement"? I imagine some parents don't mind the bishop asking their kids about masturbation. Others seem horrified by it. It is egregiously poor judgement in your opinion?
Scott Lloyd Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 (edited) Are we talking about "egregiously poor judgement"? I imagine some parents don't mind the bishop asking their kids about masturbation. Others seem horrified by it. It is egregiously poor judgement in your opinion?Well that raises the question of whether the parents themselves are in error or are failing to properly understand the situation. If bishops are not infallible, parents certainly aren't either. Moreover, I'm wondering what it is exactly that Dehlin wants. Is he calling for a change such that henceforth and forever, bishops shall no longer conduct interviews with youth without first inviting parents to be present? What if the youth initiates the interview for the purpose of confessing something that he/she would be mortified over if a parent was in the room to hear it? Edited May 7, 2014 by Scott Lloyd
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 Are we talking about "egregiously poor judgement"? I imagine some parents don't mind the bishop asking their kids about masturbation. Others seem horrified by it. It is egregiously poor judgement in your opinion?I should point out that what made my interactions with my bishop uncomfortable is not the actual questions. It was that no one ever talked with me before hand. I think what Mister Dehlin is trying to do is no useful at all. The real issue I think, is that parents, even today, have a hard time talking with their kids about chastity and what that all entails.
Calm Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 Maybe bishops should have interviews with parents about parents talking to their kids. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 Maybe bishops should have interviews with parents about parents talking to their kids. I fear there would be something of a backlash against that as well.
Brian 2.0 Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 Does a bishop abusing his office in worthiness interviews even rise to the level of a probability? I don't see that it does. (See my post above about the routinization of charisma.) I return to my prior comparison to the relationship a family has with a pediatrician. As a routine matter, we trust the pediatrician to be competent and ethical, or we don't engage his services in the first place. I believe faithful Church members similarly regard priesthood leaders. I trust my kids pediatrician. Seems like a good guy. I think he's moral and ethical. But if he asked to be with with my kid alone in a room with the door closed for 15 minutes I wouldn't allow that.
toon Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 (edited) Maybe bishops should have interviews with parents about parents talking to their kids. It could also be that formal interviews are not be the best way of getting to know people and finding out what their needs are. I ask (not of you in particular) what is the particular reason for a "worthiness interview" outside of the situation where a someone is requesting permission or authorization for an ordinance or blessing that has some worthiness standard, such as a temple recommendation interview? I recognize that the worthiness of youth is a concern, but there seem to be more effective ways of addressing the issues other than an interrogation, often perceived as an intimidating one, into what one does in his or her private life. I remember these interviews when growing up. The bishop I had for most years of my youth would routinely have them, and they were intimidating circumstances. He was a nice enough guy, but he also never made any effort to know me personally outside of these interviews. I never had any real big sins to confess as a youth, but I also never felt comfortable opening up to him. Contrast that with my Priest quorum leader, he never interviewed me. But he would take me out to lunch from time to time, attend my swm meets and water polo games, and make an effort just to hang out with me. He did the same for the other priests in the quorum. I'm willing to bet that he had a better read on my worthiness than the Bishop ever could have achieved through formal worthiness interviews. Edited May 7, 2014 by toon
Scott Lloyd Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 (edited) I trust my kids pediatrician. Seems like a good guy. I think he's moral and ethical. But if he asked to be with with my kid alone in a room with the door closed for 15 minutes I wouldn't allow that.Well, your making that choice for your own family is one thing. Seeking to outlaw it for everybody, regardless of the family or the doctor involved, seems tantamount to what is being called for here with regard to those in the Church who have a pastoral role.. Edited May 7, 2014 by Scott Lloyd 3
Scott Lloyd Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 It could also be that formal interviews are not be the best way of getting to know people and finding out what their needs are. I ask (not of you in particular) what is the particular reason for a "worthiness interview" outside of the situation where a someone is requesting permission or authorization for an ordinance or blessing that has some worthiness standard, such as a temple recommendation interview? I recognize that the worthiness of youth is a concern, but there seem to be more effective ways of addressing the issues other than an interrogation, often perceived as an intimidating one, into what one does in his or her private life.The reason is simply that there are certain things that ought to be discussed in private without others knowing about them. 1
toon Posted May 7, 2014 Posted May 7, 2014 The reason is simply that there are certain things that ought to be discussed in private without others knowing about them. That doesn't necessitate a formal worthiness interview, where the Bishop probes into whether or not such things exist or are happning that need to be discussed. SInce returning from my mission, I have never had a worthiness interview outside of a continuing BYU endorsement, getting married or seeking a temple recommend, and all of those situations were the result of me seeking an ordinance or blessing that had some worthiness requirement. In other words, outside of that, no Bishop has ever felt the need to ask me if I obey the WoW, the Law of Chastity, or have any other sin. I have had interviews and meetings with my Bishop where he has asked me other matters, such as what my goals were and what made me tick. But never an inquiry about my worthiness. So why is it important to have these routine interviews of the youth, where probing and sometimes intimidating questions are sometimes asked about their private lives? Like I said, there are other, probably more effective ways of helping the youth maintain their worthiness and stay on track for a mission or a temple marriage.
Calm Posted May 8, 2014 Posted May 8, 2014 I don't know if formal interviews are required. Certainly as an alternative our bishop was willing to do anything that created a situation that he could interact with our daughter where she would be comfortable including, us going over and watching Dr. Who episodes with his family.
rockpond Posted May 8, 2014 Posted May 8, 2014 Well that raises the question of whether the parents themselves are in error or are failing to properly understand the situation. If bishops are not infallible, parents certainly aren't either.Moreover, I'm wondering what it is exactly that Dehlin wants. Is he calling for a change such that henceforth and forever, bishops shall no longer conduct interviews with youth without first inviting parents to be present? What if the youth initiates the interview for the purpose of confessing something that he/she would be mortified over if a parent was in the room to hear it?Parents will be in error at times and so will bishops. My point was just that I don't think the topic here is accusing bishops of "egregiously poor judgement". I think that Dehlin's message is just to say: Let's take a look at this practice within the church and make sure that what we're doing is really in the best interest of our kids. 1
why me Posted May 8, 2014 Posted May 8, 2014 I trust my kids pediatrician. Seems like a good guy. I think he's moral and ethical. But if he asked to be with with my kid alone in a room with the door closed for 15 minutes I wouldn't allow that.No children's doctor should be left alone with a child and I would doubt any children's doctor would request that the parent remain outside. However, when the child is 13 or 14 it may be necessary and I am not sure if such an age would have a children's doctor. However, with a personal worthiness interview, we are dealing with sin. And I am not sure that the teen would want their parents in the room when sins are confessed. I know that when I was 13, it was between me and the priest and I certainly would not my mom or dad in the confession booth hearing my sins.
why me Posted May 8, 2014 Posted May 8, 2014 I think that Dehlin's message is just to say: Let's take a look at this practice within the church and make sure that what we're doing is really in the best interest of our kids.I am sure that his heart is in the right place. It is just that his way of going about it may not be. John also needs to balance his issues with the postives that he sees in the church. If not, he just becomes another person who attempts what he considers to be negatives. Also, I have not met many teenagers who would want their mommy and daddy with them. A much better tactic would be a good talk with the teenager about being alone with an adult and a good discussion about what is not appropriate.
Calm Posted May 8, 2014 Posted May 8, 2014 Pediatrics can go into adulthood. My daughter's paediatric diabetes doctor takes his patients until 23 or so depending on the case.
why me Posted May 8, 2014 Posted May 8, 2014 Pediatrics can go into adulthood. My daughter's paediatric diabetes doctor takes his patients until 23 or so depending on the case.I would think that is because it is called juvenile diabetes. Also, since diabetes is a chronic illness it may be good to have the same doctor up to such an age. However, at what age would it be okay for the patient to be alone with the doctor? This is a catch 22 because since diabetes is dangerous if not treated correctly, a parent may wish to be there in the room during the early growing teenage years so they can help their child cope with the diabetes. .
Buzzard Posted May 8, 2014 Posted May 8, 2014 I asked my daughter about this subject after we both came home tonight. She was shocked that anyone would consider it a problem. In all the interviews she has ever had from 12 on up, the ONLY one where the questions were frank and probing were from her SP prior to being recommended for full time missionary service. What makes that relevant was that the SP apologized for having to be so direct, but said that he had been instructed to ask this level of questions at his leadership training by a member of the 70, so as to avoid sending missionaries into the field unworthily and unable to feel the spirit. So it would seem that a level of formal direction HAS been issued as to what questions should be asked in what situations, not just leaving bishops and SP's to their own and the spirit's devices.
Recommended Posts