Baptism Questions

[Tacenda]

21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, in most jurisdictions a minor who is a suspect cannot be interviewed by police without a parent present.  And adults cannot be interviewed by police without an attorney present, if they request a lawyer.

The problem for a bishop might be that the presence of parents could lead to the child clamming up and remaining silent about items which he might otherwise confess if they were not present -- including molestation by a parent or relative, something a bishop definitely needs to know.  How do you propose to deal with that difficulty?

I'd take that chance, especially for the mere fact that there is a chance that a child or preteen is hurt by the questions. 

I do remember feeling extremely uncomfortable when I was interviewed at age twelve by a counselor, almost knee to knee in a classroom sitting side by side in chairs. I'll never forget it. This man didn't abuse me, but something made me feel bad. Even though I did nothing wrong. I don't know if this had lasting affects on me or not. 

But this subject has been hashed over many times on the board. I'm sure it will come around to saying the same things. But that was about the youth getting these interviews. I guess I was unaware that it is happening at such a young age. And parents are pretty much left out of the equation.

 

Edited October 6, 2016 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

I listened to the whole thing and it was very repetitious, with the parent probably the one doing the recording -- which was why he was so cagey and grandstanding.  The bishop sent him to see the stake president, explaining that he (the bishop) might then be called in to receive direction from the stake pres on how to proceed.  The bishop sounded very low key and honest to me.

To me, he put himself as the superior. But that's probably because I've changed from believing as I once have.

Edited October 6, 2016 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

23 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Yes, in most jurisdictions a minor who is a suspect cannot be interviewed by police without a parent present.  And adults cannot be interviewed by police without an attorney present, if they request a lawyer.

The problem for a bishop might be that the presence of parents could lead to the child clamming up and remaining silent about items which he might otherwise confess if they were not present -- including molestation by a parent or relative, something a bishop definitely needs to know.  How do you propose to deal with that difficulty?

Need to address the issue about the child clamming up and remaining silent, part of your post. As I listened to the youtube the father asks the bishop why he has to ask these certain questions, and the bishop says because of how our church teaches the importance of the law of chasitity. And also mentioned how masturbation will stop someone from going on a mission etc. He never mentions anything about it being a saftey guard for molestation, that I remember. But do agree it's a nice safety precaution. 

Of course there have been times in this church where church leaders have kept it amongst themselves and the family, so that the perpertrator isn't convicted anyway. I've read situations like this. 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

When it's our underage children, especially children are under 8. Yes, by all means record the conversation, if we think it will help stop the wrongdoing. 

So record the conversation with the bishop's permission, or surreptitiously?  Is the difference important?  And the bishop has no right to be concerned with possible molestation by someone?  And the bishop has no right to counsel and question a child about to be baptized, unless the parent(s) are present?  Is that what you are saying?  Does this apply to children of every age, up to 18?  Also, you spoke of stopping the "wrongdoing."  What wrongdoing is that specifically?  Are you saying that the bishop is engaged in illegal or immoral activity?

[Tacenda]

12 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So record the conversation with the bishop's permission, or surreptitiously?  Is the difference important?  And the bishop has no right to be concerned with possible molestation by someone?  And the bishop has no right to counsel and question a child about to be baptized, unless the parent(s) are present?  Is that what you are saying?  Does this apply to children of every age, up to 18?  Also, you spoke of stopping the "wrongdoing."  What wrongdoing is that specifically?  Are you saying that the bishop is engaged in illegal or immoral activity?

The line of questioning is wrong.

 

[cdowis]

It is clear to me that this not going to be settled until we have a transcript of this discussion, and see exactly what the bishop said.  The discussion went beyond the baptism interview into a discussion on what the parents need to discuss with their son.

Edited October 6, 2016 by cdowis

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

  Is nothing private and confidential?

Apparently yes.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I think there needs to be a rule that parents be in the room with a seven or eight year old. 

I think there needs to be a rule all bishops record their interviews and publish them so this secret recording stuff loses its appeal.  

[Doctrine 612]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

IF that is possible

Suppose the parents are non-members but give permission for the child to be baptized because they think the child needs a "good influence" in their lives and a friend will bring them to church?

Still the same answer.

[halconero]

I interviewed a few 9 and 10 year-olds for baptism on the mission (anyone over 8 years of age is considered a convert baptism under the keys of the mission president and so missionaries conduct the interviews. 8 year olds are converts as well IF the entire family is being baptized). A couple rules of thumb which were standard among my mission, and in my anecdotal experience are generalized among missionaries.

Question 4 on Homosexuality, Abortion or being convicted of a Serious Crime: Skipped this one below a certain age/maturity threshold. It simply wasn't relevant below a certain age, and any answer in the affirmative was almost assuredly a non-consensual act.

Question 5b on Chastity: Keep it Simple Stupid. I wouldn't phrase the whole question as stated in Preach My Gospel/Handbook for those below a certain age. If all they knew about the Law of Chastity was that their "bathing suit" area was private, that they should tell someone they trust if someone else touched them there, and that they would learn more as they got older, I was happy. 

In all honesty, I wasn't all that concerned with the exact answers I was given below a certain age. Yes, they mattered somewhat, but I was far more focused on whether or not parental and ward support for the baptism was in place. I interviewed one kid who was diagnosed with ADHD, and it was enough to keep him sitting through the whole interview. When I asked him about the Word of Wisdom he said "no coke, and you can't take too many pixie sticks," and his response to the Law of Chastity was "don't beat girls until your married to them" (I corrected this to "never beat girls ever."). I passed him. His parents were members returning to activity, his dad had been ordained a priest a couple months prior, they were doing great activity wise, and that was what mattered to me more. I would have more concerns about an 8 year old with the spirituality of Young Samuel the Prophet, but who lacked both family and ward support.

I guess that's my really long way of saying that both missionaries and bishops are encouraged to adapt the questions, and in cases such as this it should be really emphasized that having a parent there might be a good thing and that an 8 year-old doesn't have to have the understanding of a 13 or 14 year-old with regards to chastity and sex.

[HappyJackWagon]

10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Baptismal questions:

https://www.lds.org/manual/preach-my-gospel-a-guide-to-missionary-service/how-do-i-prepare-people-for-baptism-and-confirmation?lang=eng

The instructions say to adapt the questions to the age of the person being baptized- remember these are the missionary questions for those older than 8, but are the same for those "younger"

The bishop in the video says he asked the SP how to adapt the chastity question for an 8 year old and if asking the child about "touching himself" was an appropriate question and supposedly the SP said it was.

IMO this practice is way out of line.  I would, and have, skipped that question entirely for an 8 year old.  I might say something about not looking at pictures of naked people if someone shows them, just to make sure they know its wrong

Being a bishop is tremendously difficult.  You have to sit and listen to things that should make you scream, but instead you sit there with a vague smile and remain calm.

Unbelievably difficult position to be in.

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.

[ksfisher]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

I think there needs to be a rule all bishops record their interviews and publish them so this secret recording stuff loses its appeal.  

With all the new meetinghouse technology being available these days I think live streaming should be an option for all priesthood leaders conducting worthiness ineterviews or hearing confessions. 

[hope_for_things]

12 hours ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHdw10y8ABM

Why is this allowed? Eight year old children shouldn't have to be quizzed like this. I don't recall these questions when I was eight, it's all a blur. 

Does anyone know exactly what is going on? I wish I had gone in the bishop's office when each of my children had that interview now. I had no idea these questions were given to an eight year old.

I have three kids that have been baptized all in the last 6 years.  I can tell you that I sat in the baptismal interviews for all three kids.  They were also conducted by three different bishops (moves and bishop changes).  I don't recall any questions about the law of chastity in any of the three interviews.  The most recent interview two years ago was after my faith crisis/journey and I'm hyper sensitive about appropriate questions for kids now.  

Sounds like this bishop was totally out of line, and I think he's going rogue with his interpretations.  I wouldn't tolerate this kind of questioning at all.

Also, I won't allow a bishopric member to interview any of my kids 1 on 1, including my youth aged kids.  One parent always has to be in the room, this is for the kid's protection and for the leader's protection as well.  Hopefully the church will get on board with changes tot he whole worthiness interview process, its in dire need of a complete overhaul.  

[cdowis]

del

 

Edited October 6, 2016 by cdowis

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, cdowis said:

They can do a world wide  live broadcast on youtube, and viewers could tweet their comments to the bishop or the individual during the interview.

 

I don't understand the snarky comments. Everyone understands that interviews are for the benefit of the person being interviewed, not the interviewer, right?

In this particular case, had the bishop been reasonable from the start there wouldn't have been much need to record the discussion. But he wasn't, so they did. It's not ideal, I grant, but when people feel they need to record their interactions with leaders to prove inappropriate comments, attitude, etc, then that's a problem.

Frankly, I would have preferred that they confer with the SP after the bishop responded inappropriately to their very reasonable request. After that, if they are not satisfied with the way leaders planned to interact with their children, they could have just prohibited the bishop from talking to the child. The problem is the bishop was holding the child's baptism, a saving ordinance, hostage to his interpretation of questions and his predetermined course of action. Totally inappropriate.

Again, I'm not a fan of secret recordings but I'm even less a fan of abuses of power.

[ksfisher]

23 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Also, I won't allow a bishopric member to interview any of my kids 1 on 1, including my youth aged kids.  One parent always has to be in the room, this is for the kid's protection and for the leader's protection as well.  Hopefully the church will get on board with changes tot he whole worthiness interview process, its in dire need of a complete overhaul.  

Part of the repentance process is confessing your sins.  If they are of a serious nature this would mean a confession to a bishop.  What your changes would accomplish would be to cut the youth of the church off from the atonement of Christ if they have serious sins they need to confess and don't feel comfortable doing so in front on a parent. 

Edited October 7, 2016 by ksfisher
sp

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Part of the repentance process is confessing your sins.  If they are of a serious nature this would mean a confession to a bishop.  What your changes would accomplish would be to cut the youth of the church off from the atonement of Christ if they have serious sins they need to confess and don't fell comfortable doing so in front on a parent. 

I'd like to leave the judging up to God, and not say that certain sins require certain steps for forgiveness to be granted.  

If my child came to me and said, Dad, I have something I'd like to talk to the bishop about, I would discuss this with the child first, and hope that I have the kind of relationship with my kid that he/she feels comfortable talking to me about it.  If they feel strongly about wanting to talk to the bishop at the end of the day, I would let them, but I'd also want to know its for the right reasons.

Its one thing for a person to feel compelled to talk to a bishop because someone gave a shame inducing talk in class that prompted some kind of action.  Its another thing for a person to working on some kind of problem over a long period of time and wanting to get advice from a trusted leader about it.  I think the old idea of a confessional, aka in the catholic tradition, is outdated and not a scripturally sound practice.   

[HappyJackWagon]

34 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Part of the repentance process is confessing your sins.  If they are of a serious nature this would mean a confession to a bishop.  What your changes would accomplish would be to cut the youth of the church off from the atonement of Christ if they have serious sins they need to confess and don't fell comfortable doing so in front on a parent. 

Sins that "require" bishop confession are very few. If one looks in the handbook it will be very challenging to find a list of sins which require confession to the bishop.

Also, there is a significant difference, IMO, between a teenage youth going in of their own free will to confess a specific sin, and a youth being pulled in for an interview, often without warning, in which they are questioned to uncover their sins. Confessing voluntarily is very different than an interrogation aimed at uncovering sins.

Personally, I no longer believe that a bishop, or any other leader, stands between an individual and forgiveness from God. If someone feels they need assistance in repenting, fine, see the bishop. But otherwise, repentance is a personal process between the individual and God.

Edited October 6, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[ksfisher]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Sins that "require" bishop confession are very few. If one looks in the handbook it will be very challenging to find a list of sins which require confession to the bishop.

Also, there is a significant difference, IMO, between a teenage youth going in of their own free will to confess a specific sin, and a youth being pulled in for an interview, often without warning, in which they are questioned to uncover their sins. Confessing voluntarily is very different than an interrogation aimed at uncovering sins.

Personally, I no longer believe that a bishop, or any other leader, stands between an individual and forgiveness from God. If someone feels they need assistance in repenting, fine, see the bishop. But otherwise, repentance is a personal process between the individual and God.

I respect your opinion, but it seems as if both you and Hope for Things are heading in a different direction than the church. 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I respect your opinion, but it seems as if both you and Hope for Things are heading in a different direction than the church. 

 

It's only a different direction until the church changes course  

I say that partially in jest, but I really do believe that interview processes/expectations are going to change. They have to. In our society it is not appropriate for kids, youth, women to go behind closed doors to discuss sxual things with a grown man. There is no other place in society where that would be tolerated because of the potential for harm. The church will catch up. They'll adapt as they always do. Nothing is static.

If you can find in the handbook a list of sins which require bishop confession, I'm all ears. I don't think you'll find it.

Edited October 6, 2016 by HappyJackWagon

[ERayR]

13 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Way too many sad stories like this.  Thanks for the link.  My daughter never went to another interview..she quit going to young womens when she was 15.  I know that is not the Bishop's fault..but it really did a number on her.

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. 

[hope_for_things]

41 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

I respect your opinion, but it seems as if both you and Hope for Things are heading in a different direction than the church. 

 

Or just waiting for the church to catch up to a more enlightened perspective.  :-) 

[ksfisher]

45 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If you can find in the handbook a list of sins which require bishop confession, I'm all ears. I don't think you'll find it.

I never said there was any such list, and you are correct, there isn't.  However, any sin which might jeopardize a persons standing in the church should be confessed to the bishop.  That would just seem to make sense.

[rongo]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

 Hopefully the church will get on board with changes to the whole worthiness interview process, its in dire need of a complete overhaul.  

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?

[HappyJackWagon]

59 minutes 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?

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.