Bishops interview with minors

[bsjkki]

So if you were going to rewrite the rules on Worthiness interviews with minors...what changes would you make? http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/12/12/all-the-buzz-about-sexual-harassment-has-some-mormons-wondering-if-bishops-interviews-go-too-far-and-need-reform/ Bishop roulette is real and many of these men have no training and no idea how to handle these things while others are exceptional. It is an issue but I don't think there is an easy solution. 

"After hearing so many stories, with so many layers, from so many members, Ostler sees a need for different worthiness interviews based on age and circumstances.

For ages 12 through 18, it makes sense to provide an option for a parent or other adult to be in the room. At the least, parents should know exactly what questions will be asked.

Bishops should tell singles, as he did in his former ward, what they need to share with their church leader and what concerns are better taken to God alone in prayer.

He believes that those who confess sexual missteps are “heroic.”

“It takes great courage, especially for the women,” Ostler says, “to talk to a man about sexual sin.”

The empathetic leader acknowledges there can be “gender tensions” in these conversations, but, for all that, they also can provide moments of comfort and catharsis."

Edited December 12, 2017 by bsjkki

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, bsjkki said:

.

For ages 12 through 18, it makes sense to provide an option for a parent or other adult to be in the room. At the least, parents should know exactly what questions will be asked.

 

That would imply that their is a set list of questions that will be or should be asked.  I've never gone into an interview with a youth with such a list.  We talk and see where the conversation goes.

[bluebell]

Going off of the church's statement and not the SLC article (which is really more an opinion piece than a news article)-

Personal interviews are an important part of ministering to those in a congregation. They offer an opportunity for a leader to know an individual better and to help them live the gospel of Jesus Christ. Leaders are instructed to prepare spiritually so they can be guided by the Holy Ghost during these interviews. Leaders are provided with instructions in leadership resources and are asked to review them regularly.

Interviews are held for a number of reasons, including for temple recommends, priesthood quorum or Young Women class advancement, callings to serve in the church or when a member requests to meet with a priesthood leader for personal guidance or to help them to repent from serious sin.

For youth, a bishop meets with a young person at least annually to teach, express confidence and support, and listen carefully. These interviews should be characterized by great love and the guidance of the Holy Ghost. They speak together about the testimony of the young woman or young man, their religious habits (such as prayer, church attendance and personal study of the scriptures) and their obedience to God’s commandments. They may review together these teachings in the scriptures or other church resources, such as “For the Strength of Youth.”

In these interviews, church leaders are instructed to be sensitive to the character, circumstances and understanding of the young man or young woman. They are counseled to not be unnecessarily probing or invasive in their questions, but should allow a young person to share their experiences, struggles and feelings.

There are times when a discussion of moral cleanliness is appropriate—particularly if a young man or young woman feels a need to repent. In these instances leaders are counseled to adapt the discussion to the understanding of the individual and to exercise care not to encourage curiosity or experimentation.

Church leaders have a solemn responsibility to keep confidential all information they receive in confessions and interviews. When a young person is faced with serious sin or temptation, a bishop will likely encourage them to share (as appropriate) their struggles with their parents so they can pray for, teach and encourage the young man or young woman.

When a church leader meets with a child, youth or woman, they are encouraged to ask a parent or another adult to be in an adjoining room, foyer or hall, and to avoid circumstances that may be misunderstood. 

I would change the bolded statement to "When a church leader meets with a child, youth or woman, they are required to ask a parent or another adult to be in an adjoining room, foyer or hall, and to avoid circumstances that may be misunderstood."

I know of a ward where this 'encouragement' basically was treated as a requirement by the SP, and a really good bishop was released less than a year into his service because he wasn't following the guidelines he was given when meeting with some adult females who needed counseling.  There was never any indication of any wrong doing on anyone's part, but that's not what mattered.  The risk was there and that's what the SP was not o.k. with.  I think that should be standard practice in the church.

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

When a church leader meets with a child, youth or woman, they are encouraged to ask a parent or another adult to be in an adjoining room, foyer or hall, and to avoid circumstances that may be misunderstood. 

I would change the bolded statement to "When a church leader meets with a child, youth or woman, they are required to ask a parent or another adult to be in an adjoining room, foyer or hall, and to avoid circumstances that may be misunderstood."

 

In my ward we try and arrange it so that if an interview is taking place with someone of the opposite gender that there is someone else around.

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

So if you were going to rewrite the rules on Worthiness interviews with minors...what changes would you make? http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/12/12/all-the-buzz-about-sexual-harassment-has-some-mormons-wondering-if-bishops-interviews-go-too-far-and-need-reform/ Bishop roulette is real and many of these men have no training and no idea how to handle these things while others are exceptional. It is an issue but I don't think there is an easy solution. 

"After hearing so many stories, with so many layers, from so many members, Ostler sees a need for different worthiness interviews based on age and circumstances.

For ages 12 through 18, it makes sense to provide an option for a parent or other adult to be in the room. At the least, parents should know exactly what questions will be asked.

I read a couple comments about this topic online and found people worried that now that the church has officially stated that parents can be in an adjacent room, that parents like myself who attend the interviews in the same room with the bishop will now be told we can't do that anymore.  I surely hope that's not the case, and I plan on letting my newly called bishop know what our standard is for our family and that its a non-negotiable standard, either myself or my wife must be present for all interviews with our children.  

[The Nehor]

35 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

In my ward we try and arrange it so that if an interview is taking place with someone of the opposite gender that there is someone else around.

That is general policy. I am often asked by the bishop (as a clerk) to come when the bishop is doing interviews on a weekday evening if the Secretary cannot be there.

[The Nehor]

Why would a child confessing a sin or discussing their spiritual state with a leader want their parent there?

[ksfisher]

Just now, The Nehor said:

Why would a child confessing a sin or discussing their spiritual state with a leader want their parent there?

Anytime a third party is present in a conversation it changes the nature of the conversation. 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Why would a child confessing a sin or discussing their spiritual state with a leader want their parent there?

I think it just depends.  Most probably wouldn't want their parents there though, and having a parent present would probably keep some from confessing at all.  I think that most parents who want to be there are probably o.k. with that.  

[Bob Crockett]

I think this is a situation where we must stand up for the Church and its penitential system and defend it against political correctness. 

The law presumes that confessions (where a religion has them) are one-on-one, and that children may be penitents. 

Confessions have to be in private and have to be one-on-one; otherwise, the laws of almost all states would hold that the confession is not privileged and thus must be divulged to a parent or law enforcement or civil litigation.   If I have my Catholic doctrine correct, it is a mortal sin for a priest to divulge a confession.    Confessions should not be denied minors merely because of political agitation which is really just a part of a broad attack on the church by nonbelievers who would never be confessing anything, anyways.  For critics to demand that children not be subject to discussion of sexual misbehavior is to deny them a sacral rite.   School counselors and psychiatrists and other therapists, doctors, nurses and law enforcement officers talk to minors one on one about sexual matters -- why demand that a church cleric not?

Thus, a confession with somebody listening in, with a parent, with a sibling or a spouse, is not a confession under the law.  Could be under the church's rules, but the bishop and the penitent lose all sorts of legal protections.  

Many other faiths have penitential relations like ours.  I represent or have represented four major world faiths in my legal practice, and three of them have one-on-one penitential confessions.  The number of congregants in these other three religions are probably 100 times the size of the LDS church numbers.  

Plus, there are many circumstances in which children are one-on-one with adults, and it would be ludicrous to eliminate these:  school counselor, teacher, sport coach, etc.

Certainly, there is potential for abuse when there is an adult one-on-one with a child talking about sexual sins or sexual abuse.  But who better to deal with this than an LDS bishop?  As a lawyer, I've advised parents and children about sexual abuse and how to deal with it.  What makes me better than a bishop?  Should a child be prevented from speaking with a lawyer privately about sexual abuse?

Edited December 12, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[ALarson]

9 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it just depends.  Most probably wouldn't want their parents there though, and having a parent present would probably keep some from confessing at all.  I think that most parents who want to be there are probably o.k. with that.  

Bingo.

We have had several parents make a request to the Bishop that they be present for their youth's interviews.   He is very open to their wishes and respectful and understanding.  He also explains to them how this may change the interview and all of them have expressed that they do not want him (or any adult) speaking to their child about anything sexual behind closed doors.  

He's not offended by that.  It's a sensitive topic (interviews with youth that involve any conversations regarding sex).  Having another adult present is a protection for church leaders too, IMO (or at least having another adult right outside the door).

Edited December 12, 2017 by ALarson

[ALarson]

8 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

Certainly, there is potential for abuse when there is an adult one-on-one with a child talking about sexual sins or sexual abuse.  But who better to deal with this than an LDS bishop? 

I think depends on the Bishop involved.  Some are great at dealing with this and others not so much.  There could actually be better training regarding this part of their calling, IMO.  

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Why would a child confessing a sin or discussing their spiritual state with a leader want their parent there?

I've often seen people who are coerced to confess as part of an interview. Maybe an interviewer employs guilt or fear to get the person to admit to something but that seems more like an interrogation to me. Some people may feel that coercion is helpful for the young person's repentance process but I don't.  I have less of a problem if the individual initiates the conversation/confession than if they are called in as part of a standard worthiness interview and the confession is coerced.

In any case, some people may not want a parent there but some may. Regardless, I don't see a ton of value in having someone in an adjoining room who can't see or hear what is going on. That "policy" merely recognizes that there is a risk. The church feels that the risk is justified.

Some people confess things to the bishop because they think they should, not because they really need to. Can someone supply some scriptural sources that state when a person "needs" to confess to a leader.

[MorningStar]

17 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Why would a child confessing a sin or discussing their spiritual state with a leader want their parent there?

Exactly.  I would have been mortified to discuss some things with my mom present.  Some kids might feel comfortable, but others won't confess their sins with a parent there.  Moms are more likely to fly off the handle when a bishop will behave in a calm and understanding manner. 

[bsjkki]

There are no easy answers but the nature of these conversations can be problematic and some go south quickly. I agree that most teenagers do not want their parents in a "confessional" conversation. I've heard from some therapists that a few of their clients have been "damaged" by Bishop interviews. There is a whole range of experiences. Personally, I've seen both extremes but I can't figure out a way to maintain the privacy of the "confessional" and the repentance process and also protect against all potential abuses. If every Bishop were perfect and perfectly followed the spirit we would have no problems. 

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I think this is a situation where we must stand up for the Church and its penitential system and defend it against political correctness. 

The law presumes that confessions (where a religion has them) are one-on-one, and that children may be penitents. 

Confessions have to be in private and have to be one-on-one; otherwise, the laws of almost all states would hold that the confession is not privileged and thus must be divulged to a parent or law enforcement or civil litigation.   If I have my Catholic doctrine correct, it is a mortal sin for a priest to divulge a confession.    Confessions should not be denied minors merely because of political agitation which is really just a part of a broad attack on the church by nonbelievers who would never be confessing anything, anyways.  For critics to demand that children not be subject to discussion of sexual misbehavior is to deny them a sacral rite.   School counselors and psychiatrists and other therapists, doctors, nurses and law enforcement officers talk to minors one on one about sexual matters -- why demand that a church cleric not?

Thus, a confession with somebody listening in, with a parent, with a sibling or a spouse, is not a confession under the law.  Could be under the church's rules, but the bishop and the penitent lose all sorts of legal protections.  

Many other faiths have penitential relations like ours.  I represent or have represented four major world faiths in my legal practice, and three of them have one-on-one penitential confessions.  The number of congregants in these other three religions are probably 100 times the size of the LDS church numbers.  

Plus, there are many circumstances in which children are one-on-one with adults, and it would be ludicrous to eliminate these:  school counselor, teacher, sport coach, etc.

Certainly, there is potential for abuse when there is an adult one-on-one with a child talking about sexual sins or sexual abuse.  But who better to deal with this than an LDS bishop?  As a lawyer, I've advised parents and children about sexual abuse and how to deal with it.  What makes me better than a bishop?  Should a child be prevented from speaking with a lawyer privately about sexual abuse?

Not a chance. This is a system that would not be accepted in any other area of life. Not in school, or boy scouts, or sports etc. I'm not aware of any situation where a school counselor, teacher etc would be alone with a student behind closed doors with no windows. It doesn't happen. It's dangerous for the kids and also for the adults. There is simply too much risk. The system is the problem, not the intentions.

[Jeanne]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

That would imply that their is a set list of questions that will be or should be asked.  I've never gone into an interview with a youth with such a list.  We talk and see where the conversation goes.

I like this..maybe different questions for different personalities...it would be nice to just be better acquainted and be friends.  A trust can be made..if there are specific necessary questions, I believe parents should be aware and attend if they want.

Edited to add:  Having left the church, I do have a different perspective on the whole thing...children of all ages should go to parents with questions/problems...and then kneel to God.  In any home, I think it would be great to have the year interview with Mom and Dad.  Build a good relationship and work with prayer, forgiveness...and the atonement.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Jeanne

[Duncan]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

I've often seen people who are coerced to confess as part of an interview. Maybe an interviewer employs guilt or fear to get the person to admit to something but that seems more like an interrogation to me. Some people may feel that coercion is helpful for the young person's repentance process but I don't.  I have less of a problem if the individual initiates the conversation/confession than if they are called in as part of a standard worthiness interview and the confession is coerced.

In any case, some people may not want a parent there but some may. Regardless, I don't see a ton of value in having someone in an adjoining room who can't see or hear what is going on. That "policy" merely recognizes that there is a risk. The church feels that the risk is justified.

Some people confess things to the bishop because they think they should, not because they really need to. Can someone supply some scriptural sources that state when a person "needs" to confess to a leader.

I've been in a meeting like that in the mission field and heard of another time when someone confessed to something and the other was brought in and told to retell it, in front of the guilty party. I get that people want to get to the bottom of things but this isn't a court room.

I have a talk from Elder McConkie from 1981 and he said their shouldn't be witchhunts, all sins confessed to the Lord but the only sins confessed to the Bishop are ones that would warrant a church court. In saying that though if you smoke, he may just refer you to the ARP program, I don't know though if there would be any limits placed on your membership, then again I knew a Branch Presidency member who drank to the point of intoxication. He invited the missionaries over for lunch while drunk and asked them if they wanted to see his gun collection..........no thanks! not while you're boozed up! So, did he tell his Branch President or was it an open secret or just a secret, who knows.  

[Calm]

37 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

.  But who better to deal with this than an LDS bishop? 

Someone who is professionally trained not to overreact and further traumatize an individual if they have been a victim or turn healthy guilt and repentance into toxic shame.

Not saying this happens a lot with bishops, I have no clue.  I think the interview can be a healthy part of adult child relationships as well as adult-adult.  I do think it could be improved with more training and ensuring leaders aren't called who are overly dogmatic in how they handle such things.

[The Nehor]

Maybe I am biased because of personal experience. I know of one case where a tween wanted an interview with the Bishop and asked herself. The parent found out and insisted on being in the interview when the child did not want the parent present.

Later it came out there was abuse and the poor kid wanted help. Statistically the parent is more likely to be an abuser than the Bishop. If someone else has to be there the parent is not necessarily the best person.

Edit: I also volunteer in CPS cases. Parents who are afraid of their children talking to others make my blood boil more than it used to because in that context it is usually done to cover up nefarious deeds..

Edited December 12, 2017 by The Nehor

[stemelbow]

I don't see the point of the one-on-one's much.  I guess they are good in connecting on an individual level, but you can do that in many other ways.  

In every interview I've been the subject of, I've seen nothing positive as a result.  I'd rather connect with people in other ways, to be honest.

My wife and I talked about this not long ago and I was reminded of the time in the MTC.  I figured others went through it.  But there was a really strong push that came for the weeks I was there over and over to get us to confess to some sin that was not taken care of before.  I was comfortable and confident that there was nothing, so I kept saying no, for every time it was asked.  But my wife told me she was like, "uh there must be something since they keep telling me there is something".  So she confessed everything from taking a dollar from her sister's piggy bank to having romantic feelings for boys.  She was a sweet innocent gal growing up so there was really nothing, but she said how she broke down and cried each time, and they kept asking.  She was going foreign where I did not.  So my time there was short while her's was long and it kept coming.  

Sometimes we're just such weirdos, we Mormons.

 

[Jeanne]

2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Maybe I am biased because of personal experience. I know of one case where a tween wanted an interview with the Bishop and asked herself. The parent found out and insisted on being in the interview when the child did not want the parent present.

Later it came out there was abuse and the poor kid wanted help. Statistically the parent is more likely to be an abuser than the Bishop. If someone else has to be there the parent is not necessarily the best person.

I hear you on this...but if this is the case...why go to the Bishop?  Why not a school counselor or the police...family services...for those who do not have bishops ..this is what they should do...and they do.  My heart breaks for this girl because she must of thought a bishop was her only option...I hope not.

Bishops are not the answer to everything...especially those..(Not all....!!)  that have talkative wives.  Don't mind me...I had a horrible experience and I was an adult!

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Maybe I am biased because of personal experience. I know of one case where a tween wanted an interview with the Bishop and asked herself. The parent found out and insisted on being in the interview when the child did not want the parent present.

Later it came out there was abuse and the poor kid wanted help. Statistically the parent is more likely to be an abuser than the Bishop. If someone else has to be there the parent is not necessarily the best person.

I don't know that going to the bishop about abuse has always given the best results either.  So...there is that problem.  In truth, though, abuse by parent or bishop is pretty rare, so I guess we can all take our chances.  

Also,

Some kids confess to parents and would never confess to bishops.  So you never know.  

[bluebell]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Statistically the parent is more likely to be an abuser than the Bishop. If someone else has to be there the parent is not necessarily the best person.

True.

[Jeanne]

Just now, bluebell said:

True.

I also agree with this..even after my comment to Nehor above....parents can be damaging on different levels of abuse.