Baptism Questions

[ksfisher]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You didn't ask me but I'll take a stab.

1- Eliminate "worthiness" interviews altogether. The concept of a man declaring a person's "worth" to God is offensive. Instead, any interviews that are carried out could be referred to as "readiness" interviews. Is the child ready to be baptized, ready to receive the priesthood, ready to go to the temple. IMO readiness will be reflected in a person's understanding of whatever it is they are getting "ready" for and their desire to participate, as well as their desire to follow Jesus.

2- Because a bishop is no longer required to declare a person's present worth to God, there is no need to delve into questions aimed at eliciting confessions. Interviews could be more generally used to have a person declare that they indeed seek to follow Jesus despite their shortcomings and imperfections. As it is now there is a hierarchy of sins, only some of which prevent a person from participating in ordinances/temple, whereas other sins seem to be fine. NO unclean thing can enter into the kingdom of God. I've got news, everyone is unclean. It's more about attitude, effort, and desire.

3- Because there are no deeply personal questions about sxuality etc being asked, it becomes very appropriate to have another party present. That could be a parent (if they desire) or a RS president if a woman feels the need to confess something etc. For adults, this should be left to the discretion of the individual confessing.

4- Any interaction between a bishop and youth should be positive. There's no need to express disappointment or make the youth feel shame.

IOW- the entire concept of "worthiness" needs an overhaul. Once that happens, interviews become less relevant. As a result, neither the interviewer nor the interviewee is put in awkward, dangerous, embarrassing, potentially harmful situations.

Why not just dispense with bishops and other priesthood leaders entirely?  Wards could just be run by a ward manager and everyone could decide for themselves what they were "ready" for.

[HappyJackWagon]

12 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Why not just dispense with bishops and other priesthood leaders entirely?  Wards could just be run by a ward manager and everyone could decide for themselves what they were "ready" for.

That's a pretty radical idea. I was trying to be more measured, but ok. I'll go for it.

A ward manager more aptly describes what a bishop can reasonably do. They all have priesthood keys of authority that allows them to act on behalf of the church but they do not all have priesthood power or spiritual gifts. Bishops generally act as though they do have priesthood power and spiritual gifts of discernment etc, which sets improper expectations for ward members, inflates the head of the bishop, and has him try to involve himself in personal matters for which he usually has limited skill and/or knowledge.

Ward manager works for me.

[rongo]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You didn't ask me but I'll take a stab.

1- Eliminate "worthiness" interviews altogether. The concept of a man declaring a person's "worth" to God is offensive. Instead, any interviews that are carried out could be referred to as "readiness" interviews. Is the child ready to be baptized, ready to receive the priesthood, ready to go to the temple. IMO readiness will be reflected in a person's understanding of whatever it is they are getting "ready" for and their desire to participate, as well as their desire to follow Jesus.

2- Because a bishop is no longer required to declare a person's present worth to God, there is no need to delve into questions aimed at eliciting confessions. Interviews could be more generally used to have a person declare that they indeed seek to follow Jesus despite their shortcomings and imperfections. As it is now there is a hierarchy of sins, only some of which prevent a person from participating in ordinances/temple, whereas other sins seem to be fine. NO unclean thing can enter into the kingdom of God. I've got news, everyone is unclean. It's more about attitude, effort, and desire.

3- Because there are no deeply personal questions about sxuality etc being asked, it becomes very appropriate to have another party present. That could be a parent (if they desire) or a RS president if a woman feels the need to confess something etc. For adults, this should be left to the discretion of the individual confessing.

4- Any interaction between a bishop and youth should be positive. There's no need to express disappointment or make the youth feel shame.

IOW- the entire concept of "worthiness" needs an overhaul. Once that happens, interviews become less relevant. As a result, neither the interviewer nor the interviewee is put in awkward, dangerous, embarrassing, potentially harmful situations.

We "agree to disagree" (I hate that expression, but it has its place).

You did make me think about a link between the word "worth" and "worthiness." Obviously, there is an etymological link, and yet, "worth" and "worthy" mean different things. Someone who is unworthy still has worth; it's not like a judgment of unworthiness subtracts or decreases worth. Interesting to think about, though. In German, Wert is value or worth, and würdig means "worthy." They are not interchangeable, and they are not interchangeable in English.

I know that your testimony of the Restoration isn't what it once was, and that's your belief. Mine is fully intact, and part of that is the New Testament model that there are differences between sins --- and that priesthood authority contains the duty and ability to judge and to forgive sins (only the atonement makes forgiveness possible, but the delegated authority is necessary to apply the atonement in certain instances). 

We obviously differ sharply on what it means to be a "judge in Israel." Without that key part, the calling of bishop and the Church itself is eviscerated and emasculated, in my opinion. We're just one of a multitude of Protestant sects, under that. I'm curious how long ago you served as bishop, and how long of a term you served (you don't have to answer if you don't want to; I'm just curious).

I don't think anybody would confess anything at all if they only needed to do it "if they desire" and if they then needed to have a third party present. Yikes! They'd probably just as soon confess to that third party, and then why have a bishop at all?

I think on balance, most bishops create an atmosphere that isn't awkward, dangerous, embarrassing, or harmful. I think insisting on throwing out the baby with the bathwater for the few extreme cases is an extreme overreaction.

[Sidenote]  Why do you purposely not spell out "sexuality" or "sexual?" I've always wondered why LDS posters seem overly prudish about that, or "God" or other words (some only type G-d). 

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

That's a pretty radical idea. I was trying to be more measured, but ok. I'll go for it.

A ward manager more aptly describes what a bishop can reasonably do. They all have priesthood keys of authority that allows them to act on behalf of the church but they do not all have priesthood power or spiritual gifts. Bishops generally act as though they do have priesthood power and spiritual gifts of discernment etc, which sets improper expectations for ward members, inflates the head of the bishop, and has him try to involve himself in personal matters for which he usually has limited skill and/or knowledge.

Ward manager works for me.

I thinks this ward manager idea, while not presented as a serious idea, would be something that would drive me into inactivity. I wouldn't leave the Church (I know that the Restoration is true), but all of my vitality and enthusiasm would be sapped. 

[ksfisher]

10 minutes ago, rongo said:

I thinks this ward manager idea, while not presented as a serious idea, would be something that would drive me into inactivity. I wouldn't leave the Church (I know that the Restoration is true), but all of my vitality and enthusiasm would be sapped. 

If you went inactive the ward manager could send an attendance facilitator to you home to find out if there was a better time for you to attend church.

Edited October 6, 2016 by ksfisher

[JAHS]

Someone may have already mentioned this but  these are the directions for interviewing 8 yr olds from the Handbook:

"A bishopric member who interviews a child for baptism ensures that he or she understands the purposes of baptism. He also ensures that each child understands the baptismal covenant and is committed to live by it. As guided by the Spirit, he could ask questions similar to the first two that are asked in convert baptism interviews (see “Interview Instructions” on page 144). In asking other questions, the interviewer should bear in mind that children are accounted as sinless before God until the age of 8."

First two questions:

1. Do you believe that God is our Eternal Father? Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior and Redeemer of the world?
2. Do you believe that the Church and gospel of Jesus Christ have been restored through the Prophet Joseph Smith? Do you believe that [current Church President] is a prophet of God? What does this mean to you?

That's all it says.

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

If you went inactive the ward manager could send an attendance facilitator to you home to find out if there was a better time for you to attend church.

Maybe online church, or "home churching?"  

Hey, it's whatever I desire, how I like it. Kind of Burger King/have it your way style.

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, ERayR said:

And what would be your reaction if it was later found out the child was being abused or molested and the bishop hadn't asked the questions.  You all would be calling for his head because he hadn't asked and found out. 

My reaction would be the same as yours..should the Bishop be the one man responsible for the abuse. I wouldn't be calling his head.  This is the responsibility of parents..teachers and law enforcement.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Jeanne

[HappyJackWagon]

38 minutes ago, rongo said:

We "agree to disagree" (I hate that expression, but it has its place).

You did make me think about a link between the word "worth" and "worthiness." Obviously, there is an etymological link, and yet, "worth" and "worthy" mean different things. Someone who is unworthy still has worth; it's not like a judgment of unworthiness subtracts or decreases worth. Interesting to think about, though. In German, Wert is value or worth, and würdig means "worthy." They are not interchangeable, and they are not interchangeable in English.

If I wanted to buy a box of Twinkies that had a list price of $3.00 and I went to the cashier and gave him $2.00 he would tell me my offering wasn't enough, or didn't carry enough value, or wasn't sufficient for me to get my box of Twinkies. The $2.00 still is worth $2.00 but it is deemed to be not good enough. My $2.00 was an unworthy offering for what I wanted to obtain.

Likewise, a person always has value. No bishop is going to say that a person is "worthless", yet bishops are very comfortable telling a person their worth  at any given time is not sufficient. It is unworthy of what they are hoping to obtain. I believe that is both destructive and untrue.

I know that your testimony of the Restoration isn't what it once was, and that's your belief. Mine is fully intact, and part of that is the New Testament model that there are differences between sins --- and that priesthood authority contains the duty and ability to judge and to forgive sins (only the atonement makes forgiveness possible, but the delegated authority is necessary to apply the atonement in certain instances).

A bishop has no power to forgive sins on behalf of God. What a bishop can do is judge a person on behalf of the institutional church, essentially claiming that their level of worth (worthiness) is sufficient for the institutional need.

We obviously differ sharply on what it means to be a "judge in Israel." Without that key part, the calling of bishop and the Church itself is eviscerated and emasculated, in my opinion. We're just one of a multitude of Protestant sects, under that. I'm curious how long ago you served as bishop, and how long of a term you served (you don't have to answer if you don't want to; I'm just curious).

I served for 5 years and was released 16 months ago. While serving I entered my dark night of the soul (faith crisis) but my SP asked my to continue anyway. Different story for another time.

I don't think anybody would confess anything at all if they only needed to do it "if they desire" and if they then needed to have a third party present. Yikes! They'd probably just as soon confess to that third party, and then why have a bishop at all?

Desire is what it's all about. If the person doesn't have the desire to change then repentance is just a checklist. If a person feels they need a bishop's help to repent then they can use that resource, but that would originate out of a deep desire in their heart to change. The idea that a bishop stands as proxy for God is very grandiose and wrought with problems; the first and most major problem is that a man, no matter how good and no matter how well intentioned does not have the grace, wisdom, knowledge, perfection of God. Instead of using an intermediary like a bishop, I think it is better for the individual to go straight to the source.

I think on balance, most bishops create an atmosphere that isn't awkward, dangerous, embarrassing, or harmful. I think insisting on throwing out the baby with the bathwater for the few extreme cases is an extreme overreaction.

Most bishops are very good people trying to do the best they can. But the process itself is awkward. When a 70 year old woman comes into talk about mstrbtion, it's going to be awkward...and unnecessary.

[Sidenote]  Why do you purposely not spell out "sexuality" or "sexual?" I've always wondered why LDS posters seem overly prudish about that, or "God" or other words (some only type G-d). 

 It's not about being prudish. It's about not wanting the work computer to flag questionable terms or phrases.

 

Edited October 6, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

What specific recommendations do you have, hypothetically in your world, for the complete overhaul? For a worthiness interview? I'm thinking specifically of teenagers and adults, not 7-8 year-olds. 

I'm thinking that most of your overhaul consists of chaperoned interviews, and I'm trying to wrap my brain around what that would actually look like and how any meaningful discussion or confession about worthiness would be possible under that. 

Or, is the overhaul basically the full elimination of actual worthiness interviews?

I pretty much agree with HappyJack on his reply.  The concept of worthiness needs an overhaul.  We are all worthy and loved in God's eyes.  I do think people should self determine and select their ability to go to the temple, not have this judged by a specific set of rules being followed.  

Now, there should be background checks on leaders in certain positions of authority, working with kids, and doing other types of callings around children for the protection of the children. 

If the church does want to continue some form of worthiness interviews, I think they should quit talking about sexual practice specifics, get completely out of that business for all ages.  Just ask if someone follows the law of chastity.  And I think they should have two people in every interview sessions with the youth, could be a parent or another trusted leader of the choosing of the youth. Also, part of me has thought that women should interview the young ladies and men the boys, but I'm not so sure anymore about that one.  Perhaps the option should be given to the person being interviewed, which gender they would prefer talking to.  

[Jeanne]

3 hours ago, ERayR said:

And what would be your reaction if it was later found out the child was being abused or molested and the bishop hadn't asked the questions.  You all would be calling for his head because he hadn't asked and found out. 

And what would your reaction be if the child that was abused was abused by a bishop?  These questions shouldn't be asked for the majority of those who are not in this situation..I surely wouldn't call a Bishop out for not being totally on top of things.  This is the responsibility of parents, teachers and the trust built around the world of the child.  I feel if a child is being abused..others around the child most days will be more apt to pick up on the situation.  Being a lone in a Bishop's office surely wouldn't help...My hope is that Bishop's can see this without an interview ...building that trust..inquiring with parents..and contacting police authorities.  I think Primary teachers...and other adults can make inquiries per individual circumstances of concern..but alone in an office..talk like this..will be damaging in most cases.  IMO.  If a child is being sexually abused, a conversation with a bishop about sex and masturbation will compound the worst guilt of someone innocent.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Jeanne

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

And what would your reaction be if the child that was abused was abused by a bishop?  These questions shouldn't be asked for the majority of those who are not in this situation..I surely wouldn't call a Bishop out for not being totally on top of things.  This is the responsibility of parents, teachers and the trust built around the world of the child.  I feel if a child is being abused..others around the child most days will be more apt to pick up on the situation.  Being a lone in a Bishop's office surely wouldn't help...My hope is that Bishop's can see this without an interview ...building that trust..inquiring with parents..and contacting police authorities.  I think Primary teachers...and other adults can make inquiries per individual circumstances of concern..but alone in an office..talk like this..will be damaging in most cases.  IMO.  If a child is being sexually abused, a conversation with a bishop about sex and masturbation will compound the worst guilt of someone innocent.

I never thought of the bold like this. Thanks, I think you're right. And if the bishop is like the one in the video, definitely.

[Robert F. Smith]

19 hours ago, Tacenda said:

The line of questioning is wrong.

So you are not prepared to answer most of my questions?

What was wrong with the bishop's line of questioning, Tacenda?  In my opinion, the bishop made a fundamental error in confusing the temple covenant on the Law of Chastity with a pre-baptism interview of a child who was nearly 8, while the male parent seemed confused about the role of a bishop in approving baptism.  The bishop even misstated the content of the Law of Chastity at one point, trying to make it deal with masturbation -- which it does not -- although he never asked the 7-year-old about masturbation, but only generally about touching himself or others, among other matters of simple modesty.  What part of that disturbed you, Tacenda?  The male parent (who thought that his unethical conduct in making the recording justified) thought that all matters of modesty and self-touching come under the exclusive parental jurisdiction over sex-education of children.  Do you agree, Tacenda?  I asked you about the possible role of the bishop in detecting molestation, but you ignored that.  Do you basically think that bishops should not be trusted?  Should bishops be no more than the master of ceremonies at Sacrament Meetings, and smile a lot?  Or should they have other functions?

[rongo]

9 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Should bishops be no more than the master of ceremonies at Sacrament Meetings, and smile a lot?  Or should they have other functions?

Sounds like the new ward manager model . . . .  

And tithing settlement? None of the bishop's business. Tithing is between the member and the Lord.  

[Robert F. Smith]

12 hours ago, rongo said:

........................................................

And tithing settlement? None of the bishop's business. Tithing is between the member and the Lord.  

Actually, no one is required to attend tithing settlement.  It is optional, and a convenient time to check on the ward bookkeeping, prior to receipt of the form which one uses to claim a deduction for charitable giving on income tax returns.

However, tithing does become ward and stake business for those who wish to obtain or renew a temple recommend.

 

 

Edited October 7, 2016 by Robert F. Smith

[rongo]

I know that no one is required to attend tithing settlement. But the nerve of holding it at all and expecting/wanting people to come!  

[Tacenda]

3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you are not prepared to answer most of my questions?

What was wrong with the bishop's line of questioning, Tacenda?  In my opinion, the bishop made a fundamental error in confusing the temple covenant on the Law of Chastity with a pre-baptism interview of a child who was nearly 8, while the male parent seemed confused about the role of a bishop in approving baptism.  The bishop even misstated the content of the Law of Chastity at one point, trying to make it deal with masturbation -- which it does not -- although he never asked the 7-year-old about masturbation, but only generally about touching himself or others, among other matters of simple modesty.  What part of that disturbed you, Tacenda?  The male parent (who thought that his unethical conduct in making the recording justified) thought that all matters of modesty and self-touching come under the exclusive parental jurisdiction over sex-education of children.  Do you agree, Tacenda?  I asked you about the possible role of the bishop in detecting molestation, but you ignored that.  Do you basically think that bishops should not be trusted?  Should bishops be no more than the master of ceremonies at Sacrament Meetings, and smile a lot?  Or should they have other functions?

 

What disturbed me was the way this bishop spoke with the father. Like he had a right to override the parent's wishes. It didn't sit well. If I was as good as some of you, I'd be able to explain, but not so good at it especially at this moment. My brain is too scattered. I really believe one day this questioning will be changed. Scott can start the clock.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68197-baptismuestions/?do=findComment&comment=1209667535

In this post I mention that the questions could be a safety precaution to weed out abuse. But then I read Jeanne's post about it and agree with her also. 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/68197-baptism-questions/?do=findComment&comment=1209667672

 

[Duncan]

3 hours ago, rongo said:

I know that no one is required to attend tithing settlement. But the nerve of holding it at all and expecting/wanting people to come!  

I haven't been to tithing settlement in several years but pay it and they say nothing to me about it-I have a recommend. 

[Danzo]

10 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You didn't ask me but I'll take a stab.

1- Eliminate "worthiness" interviews altogether. The concept of a man declaring a person's "worth" to God is offensive. Instead, any interviews that are carried out could be referred to as "readiness" interviews. Is the child ready to be baptized, ready to receive the priesthood, ready to go to the temple. IMO readiness will be reflected in a person's understanding of whatever it is they are getting "ready" for and their desire to participate, as well as their desire to follow Jesus.

2- Because a bishop is no longer required to declare a person's present worth to God, there is no need to delve into questions aimed at eliciting confessions. Interviews could be more generally used to have a person declare that they indeed seek to follow Jesus despite their shortcomings and imperfections. As it is now there is a hierarchy of sins, only some of which prevent a person from participating in ordinances/temple, whereas other sins seem to be fine. NO unclean thing can enter into the kingdom of God. I've got news, everyone is unclean. It's more about attitude, effort, and desire.

3- Because there are no deeply personal questions about sxuality etc being asked, it becomes very appropriate to have another party present. That could be a parent (if they desire) or a RS president if a woman feels the need to confess something etc. For adults, this should be left to the discretion of the individual confessing.

4- Any interaction between a bishop and youth should be positive. There's no need to express disappointment or make the youth feel shame.

IOW- the entire concept of "worthiness" needs an overhaul. Once that happens, interviews become less relevant. As a result, neither the interviewer nor the interviewee is put in awkward, dangerous, embarrassing, potentially harmful situations.

This is one of the reasons it's hard to have a discussion here. While everyone is trying to pretend that they are only concerned about the children, they are really trying destroy worthiness as a concept. Trying to destroy accountability.  Trying to destroy the idea of priesthood. The idea of sin.

Concern for children is just a pretext.

 

[california boy]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So you are not prepared to answer most of my questions?

What was wrong with the bishop's line of questioning, Tacenda?  In my opinion, the bishop made a fundamental error in confusing the temple covenant on the Law of Chastity with a pre-baptism interview of a child who was nearly 8, while the male parent seemed confused about the role of a bishop in approving baptism.  The bishop even misstated the content of the Law of Chastity at one point, trying to make it deal with masturbation -- which it does not -- although he never asked the 7-year-old about masturbation, but only generally about touching himself or others, among other matters of simple modesty.  What part of that disturbed you, Tacenda?  The male parent (who thought that his unethical conduct in making the recording justified) thought that all matters of modesty and self-touching come under the exclusive parental jurisdiction over sex-education of children.  Do you agree, Tacenda?  I asked you about the possible role of the bishop in detecting molestation, but you ignored that.  Do you basically think that bishops should not be trusted?  Should bishops be no more than the master of ceremonies at Sacrament Meetings, and smile a lot?  Or should they have other functions?

Is there a huge problem in the church with 8 year olds masterbating?  Seriously?  Or is this just another in a long line of policies instituted from the top for nonexistent problems that can cause great harm.  Let's stop and ask what the purpose of asking a child about chastity.  

Are there a lot of 8 year olds having premarital sex and hiring prostitutes?  

If the purpose of asking a child about chastity is to try and determine if any abuse is taking place, is this really the way to ask such a question?  Guilt the child further over something that they have no control over?  Perhaps a better line of questioning would be to ask the child if there is anyone in their life that they feel uncomfortable in being around.  Or is there anyone in their life that is causing them fear or hurting them.  How a child answers that question might signal a problem much more easily than asking them if they are touching their private parts or if someone else is.  Even when the answer may be no, how they say no can tell a leader a lot.  Children know when something is not right.  Adults should be able to tell if an answer to such questions is not quite right as well.  

 

[thatjimguy]

Listened to first 27 minutes

 

1:10 - Bishop already tries to put father on defensive.

6:00 - This interview is supposed to be about baptismal stuff, the bishop is not supposed to be a policeman sent to interrogate members to find perps or potential perps. This is what this bishop saying the church is doing because of problems with molestation. I almost want to give it a pass because it sounds like a worthy cause, however, it is a lie that this has to be done for baptismal reasons.

13:30 - He acts as if children are all the same and become accountable at eight in a solid, structured manner. I know that is in scripture, but isn't it true that adults at 18 can be "off the mature mark" regardless if they are 18? This is Pharisaical nonsense.

14:00 - Pretty much saying the church teaches better than the parents and should override/replace their judgement. NO! They don't hold those "keys"

19:35 - Have you ever M*********D in your life? EVER? That’s a missionary question? Talking about setting people up for a guilt trip. How many say never? Maybe I am wrong…anyone got a story of any guy who never did?

 

I'll listen to the rest later.

 

Man, I know the church means well, but why does it have such a military-like approach to everything? It just simply lacks the spirit to me.

 

 

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I am unaware of a list of question a bishop is required to ask for child of record baptisms. Obviously, any thinking person knows it is unnecessary to speak to an 8 year old about abortion, or LoC, or frankly much about worthiness at all. If anyone has evidence of required questions I'd be happy to take a look.

This particular bishop is a good example of "church broke". A leader told him to do it so he does. End of story. I've listened to both interviews and the bishop is condescending and frankly doesn't even seem to understand the purpose of a baptismal interview. He seemed more concerned about teaching sx ed to little kids (even though it's a very watered down version), because he stated kids that age aren't innocent. In addition, he stated a purpose of the interview is to make sure the child isn't being abused. Okay, that's not the purpose of a baptismal interview. The bishop refused to accommodate the parents requests that he skip the lesson about "swimsuit areas", touching, looking, showing, etc.

After the first recording of the father and bishop, the father met with the SP where it is reported the SP gave him approval to inform the bishop how he would like the topic broached with his child. So mom and dad go back to the bishop again, record it again, and ask him to ask the question "do you live the law of chastity?" The bishop said he would not ask the question that way because he didn't think the child would understand. The parents told the bishop they would teach the child what it meant but the bishop still refused, instead focused on teaching about swimsuit areas.

1- the bishop should respect the role of parents and their requests for their very young child

2- if children are incapable of answering certain questions a. the question shouldn't be asked or b. the child isn't old enough to make a decision about baptism.

3- Children should never be required to speak alone with a man about their sexuality, bodies etc. It's very creepy and dangerous. In this case the bishop absolutely required that he talk to the child alone first, then again with parents afterward. He stated this was to uncover possible abuse. Again, this is a worthy goal but not the purpose of a baptismal interview.

4- In todays world, closed door interviews are a danger to both the interviewee as well as the interviewer. Children/youth can be groomed via the interview process but the interviewer (who is most likely just doing what he's told in most cases) opens himself up to accusation that could ruin his life. It's time to stop this process altogether.

I was pretty much with you until that last sentence.

I think interviews serve anothe purpose also of making it a "big deal" for the child to sit down with the Bishop and have (what they think is a) serious discussion about worthiness.

My questions were often along the lines of

"Jesus wants us to become like him and when we do something wrong- we are to try to fix it as best as we can- are you trying to do that?  Are you obeying your parents?   We know we are supposed to repent of our sins before we get baptized- do you feel like you have been better and been more obedient now that you are getting baptized?  How are you getting along with your brothers and sisters?  Are you being kind to them and helping them to learn to be good?   How are you trying to be more like Jesus?"

I would go over the baptismal covenants and that would be about it.

But I think the interview makes it all more serious for the child.   It is a big step in their lives and should be treated as such

[HappyJackWagon]

11 hours ago, rongo said:

Sounds like the new ward manager model . . . .  

And tithing settlement? None of the bishop's business. Tithing is between the member and the Lord.  

Exactly. Now you're getting the hang of it

 

[HappyJackWagon]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually, no one is required to attend tithing settlement.  It is optional, and a convenient time to check on the ward bookkeeping, prior to receipt of the form which one uses to claim a deduction for charitable given on income tax returns.

However, tithing does become ward and stake business for those who wish to obtain or renew a temple recommend.

 

 

Last year I reported my tithing by doing tithing settlement via email. Works great!

[Tacenda]

7 hours ago, Danzo said:

This is one of the reasons it's hard to have a discussion here. While everyone is trying to pretend that they are only concerned about the children, they are really trying destroy worthiness as a concept. Trying to destroy accountability.  Trying to destroy the idea of priesthood. The idea of sin.

Concern for children is just a pretext.

 

I disagree of course.  There is something to not being under someone else or a go between but instead be beholden only to God. I believe it's conditioning that might hinder someone's spiritual growth. Conditioning that tries to make someone follow a certain path, and certain interviews that make one feel unworthy. It's not follow the PH is it?

I read a comment by someone who was told not to take the Sacrament as a youth because he masturbated and confessed. It apparently scarred him for life. To have others wonder what he had done wrong. So these questions aren't bulletproof.