Bishops interview with minors

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

There is a major flaw in your otherwise reasonable comments.  Confessions in Catholicism, and I assume other religions that require confession as part of repentance, are voluntary.  The annual interviews of youth are not. They are more like an interrogation.  

 

Big difference.

If a youth is troubled by a behavior they view as sin and they want to confess to and LDS bishop I am with you.

Not so much on the annual grilling youth in the LDS Church are subjected to.

I agree with your statement about the semi-annual interrogations.

But why would a youth choose to confess to a bishop? It's because they are taught it is necessary. They feel guilt, shame, fear if they don't repent and the church teaches that if they are truly to repent they must confess it to the bishop. Confessing to a man who stands in the place of God has becomes culturally acceptable but I think the premier lesson from the 1st vision narrative is that we can all have a personal relationship with God and don't need a spiritual leader as an intermediary. I think the church would do well to get back to that teaching and abandon the expectation of confession to another person. We should teach confession to God and repentance.

[The Nehor]

17 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree with your statement about the semi-annual interrogations.

But why would a youth choose to confess to a bishop? It's because they are taught it is necessary. They feel guilt, shame, fear if they don't repent and the church teaches that if they are truly to repent they must confess it to the bishop. Confessing to a man who stands in the place of God has becomes culturally acceptable but I think the premier lesson from the 1st vision narrative is that we can all have a personal relationship with God and don't need a spiritual leader as an intermediary. I think the church would do well to get back to that teaching and abandon the expectation of confession to another person. We should teach confession to God and repentance.

God speaking through the guy who had the First Vision experience disagrees.

[HappyJackWagon]

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

God speaking through the guy who had the First Vision experience disagrees.

Think about the irony of that statement.

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Everyone agrees that "one is too many." Despite everybody's best efforts, and even with eliminating interviews altogether, there will still be occurrences. So, it becomes a question of cost/benefit: does the benefit of the interviews outweigh the hypothetical chance that abuse might occur? 

I think everyone knows where they fall on that. Some would say, "Yes! There is absolutely no value or reason at all for them! Get rid of them!" Others would say that they should continue in some shape or form, because the benefit outweighs hypothetical risk. 

I was just curious how many actual instances we are talking about. It looked like you could find, what, 10 or so? Given 30,000 + bishops with an average of five years tenure, I wonder how the likelihood compares to, say, auto accidents or whatever. Isn't "one child death in a car accident one too many?" Yet, we allow our children to ride in cars, because the benefit outweighs hypothetical risk that they might be in a car accident.

I believe that even without any sexual abuse incidents, that the costs outweigh the benefits.   I think for those defending the status quo, the perceived benefits are that the child is kept on the straight and narrow path more, that these interactions with bishops are keeping the youth more in line with church teachings. 

Unfortunately we don't have any data to back it up.  I would propose a scientific experiment where some wards eliminate the interviews entirely and others continue to employ the interviews.  We'd need a statistically valid sample that could control for other variables.  It would be interesting to find out later what the outcomes of those studies are for how well or poorly the annual interview process actually works in practice when it comes to outcomes.  

I would potentially argue that there are other negatives about the whole interview process in general, that lead to spiritual malnutrition and teach behaviors that aren't conducive to growth and maturity.  Historically, where and when did this idea of regular interviews for the youth even get implemented, does anyone know? 

[Amulek]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

Historically, where and when did this idea of regular interviews for the youth even get implemented, does anyone know? 

No idea. Growing up, the only interviews I ever had with my bishop were for temple recommend interviews. We did try to go to the temple once a year as a youth group, so the interviews were likely about that frequent, but I don't have any strong recollection of them. I certainly never had a bishop - even the 'bad one' who left is wife and moved off to California - ask any questions that I thought were inappropriate during an interview. 

Same for whenever I would meet with the bishop to have a calling extended. All pretty uneventful stuff. 

 

 

[Calm]

4 hours ago, strappinglad said:

 With respect to the LoC , most adults know the law and all its nuances. The youth might know the large general rules but not the nuances. Good parents will have taught the nuances , but I suspect most parents slide around the specific details. Heavens , I was over 50 before I came upon some of the behaviors people get into that were, to say the least, WEIRD ! to me anyway. Humans can be so inventive !

The bishop can do two things...teach about the Law of Chastity in a group setting, including presubmitted anonymous questions so he has time to prepare an appropriate way without crossing the line from frankness to porn himself.  Probably would be good to do a couple of these to allow for developing questions.

If there are gaps in knowledge found in the interview, then the bishop should have a teaching moment first with the parents and teach them how to teach sexuality rather than taking it on himself to do what is the parents' job.  If there are red flags coming up that signal possible abuse, I do not know what options are available, but having a professional for the bishop to talk over possible concerns about how to talk with a child or adult in this situation would be a good idea.  I don't know if the hotline provides that service.  It should, imo.

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

As has been mentioned before, statistically a child is most likely to be abused by a family member.  So it could be argued that a child is safer with a bishop than his or her own family.

As soon as you have a bishop asking sexual questions, I suspect the risk of abuse probability jumps way, way up.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Calm

[strappinglad]

When I see the words interrogation and grilling with reference to a youth interview, I wonder if those posters have ever actually been interrogated by law enforcement or grilled by a border guard at a foreign crossing ( with machine gun in hand) . I have and the difference between what I experienced there and those interviews with a Bishop are light-years apart. That said , if someone was treated by  a Bishop like an actual interrogation then the scripture about " amen to the priesthood " comes to mind.

For those who say that the parent should be the one talking about sex stuff with the child , I think you should be aware of what some places are doing. My province has passed laws allowing the formation of gay/straight alliance clubs in school. They have been mandated to be in any school where requested. Fine. Now they want to restrict the school from informing the parents of a child who joins such a club. They inform for football, and the chess club but not this. The rationale is that some parents will raise a fuss with the child at home. I wonder if any info on sex will be shared in such a group which likely will have at least an adult adviser present occasionally. The State cuts the parents out of the loop.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

When I see the words interrogation and grilling with reference to a youth interview, I wonder if those posters have ever actually been interrogated by law enforcement or grilled by a border guard at a foreign crossing ( with machine gun in hand) . I have and the difference between what I experienced there and those interviews with a Bishop are light-years apart. That said , if someone was treated by  a Bishop like an actual interrogation then the scripture about " amen to the priesthood " comes to mind.

For those who say that the parent should be the one talking about sex stuff with the child , I think you should be aware of what some places are doing. My province has passed laws allowing the formation of gay/straight alliance clubs in school. They have been mandated to be in any school where requested. Fine. Now they want to restrict the school from informing the parents of a child who joins such a club. They inform for football, and the chess club but not this. The rationale is that some parents will raise a fuss with the child at home. I wonder if any info on sex will be shared in such a group which likely will have at least an adult adviser present occasionally. The State cuts the parents out of the loop.

And because the State cuts the parent out of the loop, the Church should too?

Not understanding the relevance.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

And because the State cuts the parent out of the loop, the Church should too?

Not understanding the relevance.

Imagine if schools had counselors regularly quizzing kids about their sex lives behind closed doors. 

It seems odd to demand the school defer to parents but not the church. 

[strappinglad]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

Not understanding the relevance

Hopefully the parents know that their child is having an interview with the Bishop. They can go with and if necessary sit in . Try that with the State in the referred to case. It would be naïve to think that the Bishop is the only person outside of the family that will ever be with the child discussing sexual stuff. It's OK for a teacher or guidance counselor to do so because statistically they rarely are abusers----oh wait...

Personally, I think that a  Bishop who gets deep into the weeds of questions of sexual sin with a youth are likely doing so to for some prurient interest. Yes, I have a cynical streak !

Edited December 14, 2017 by strappinglad

[strappinglad]

19 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

Imagine if schools had counselors regularly quizzing kids about their sex lives behind closed doors

It may not be regular and it may not be ' quizzing' , but conversations about sex between counselors and kids happen. Sex Ed is mandatory in most places. Private discussions have never happened after class . Sexting between pupils and teachers  never happens either. Yet we sends our kids to school. Mind you, there must be some reason for the rise in home schooling.

[Exiled]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

You're saying that parents are the authority in the home, which they are, on a thread that deals with bishops interviewing children at church. 

I am. My feeling is that bishops shouldn't be interviewing children at all and that is the province of the parents only.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, strappinglad said:

It may not be regular and it may not be ' quizzing' , but conversations about sex between counselors and kids happen. Sex Ed is mandatory in most places. Private discussions have never happened after class . Sexting between pupils and teachers  never happens either. Yet we sends our kids to school. Mind you, there must be some reason for the rise in home schooling.

You don’t see the difference between mandatory closed-door interviews and the illegal actions of a few pervs?

[Duncan]

9 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

The first time I heard the "m-word" was in an interview before my 12th birthday. I said I didn't know what that word meant, so a red-faced bishop ended up explaining it to a rather horrified boy. More intrusive and inappropriate questions would come later, but that first interview was a real shock to me. As my kids were growing up, I worried that they might find themselves in that situation, which is why I came up with the "ask my dad" approach, which more than one of them has used, sorry to say. I couldn't tell them not to do the interviews, but I wanted to make sure they wouldn't be subjected to what I was.

I have no idea what the guidelines are for bishops and other leaders. That said, this kind of stuff has been going on for generations, such that most people don't think twice about it. Perhaps some specific ground rules for what to ask and how to prevent inappropriate discussion would help. 

The word that I didn't know was "petting" like, you can even pet the cat or dog or rosie the goldfish,? odd thing to say in the for strength of youth pamphlet

[Guest]

On December 12, 2017 at 2:03 PM, 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.

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."

I have long worried about this. I think that a woman should be able to ask for the Relief Society Oresident, and youth to have either Young women or Young men's Presidents if they desire, or parents if they wish. When I was in the Bishopric, the Bishop required a counselor to be in the next room with the door slightly open. This is avoid any issues, or rumors. I think all Bishops should employ this practice. 

[strappinglad]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

You don’t see the difference between mandatory closed-door interviews and the illegal actions of a few pervs?

Conversations between counselors and kids, sex ED discussions, private talks after class, etc. are not illegal. Sometimes unwise yes, but not illegal or perverted. Can they become so, yes indeed. As far as mandatory closed door interviews , I think there must be safeguards in place to protect all involved. In today's hyper sensitive environment it should be obvious that stricter protocols be in place to protect the child as well as the interviewer.

 From personal experience, one teacher I know was accused of sexual misconduct with a student. He confessed, was jailed, and died there. Another teacher was accused by a group of girls. His reputation, life and health were in tatters before the plot to lie and destroy him was discovered.

[jkwilliams]

14 minutes ago, Duncan said:

The word that I didn't know was "petting" like, you can even pet the cat or dog or rosie the goldfish,? odd thing to say in the for strength of youth pamphlet

I didn’t know, either. And “heavy petting” was a complete mystery. 

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

No idea. Growing up, the only interviews I ever had with my bishop were for temple recommend interviews. We did try to go to the temple once a year as a youth group, so the interviews were likely about that frequent, but I don't have any strong recollection of them. I certainly never had a bishop - even the 'bad one' who left is wife and moved off to California - ask any questions that I thought were inappropriate during an interview. 

Same for whenever I would meet with the bishop to have a calling extended. All pretty uneventful stuff. 

 

This thread is frankly bizarre and has little to do with reality.  There is battalion of straw men arguments being made and then built upon.  Like you I never had an interview with a bishop or stake president that asked me inappropriate questions.  The fact that these interviews were so benign is that I don't have a memory of one from another.  The only fact I know is that I was interviewed for priesthood advancement and mission preparation/temple recommend interviews. 

What is shocking is that I missed out on all these juicy things that so many are harping on and actually calling them a "cost".  The cost for me is that these horribly intrusive interviews were so bad that I blanked them from my memory and have no memory of a specific question.  That MUST be evidence of something wrong and I am suffering dreadfully from suppressed memory syndrome and some other terrible psychological problem(s).  Who knew what I was missing?  If I was just plugged in to the "right" people I could quickly conclude that I should be hospitalized in order to correct all the egregious actions of my bishop that I have no memory of.  The great thing is that reality does not need to correct the problem of these not so subtle attacks on the Church of Jesus Christ - the critics become like those 3 monkeys covering their eyes, ears, and mouth - never a need to tell the truth and actually look at the reality when this train is moving so fast.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

This thread is frankly bizarre and has little to do with reality.  There is battalion of straw men arguments being made and then built upon.  Like you I never had an interview with a bishop or stake president that asked me inappropriate questions.  The fact that these interviews were so benign is that I don't have a memory of one from another.  The only fact I know is that I was interviewed for priesthood advancement and mission preparation/temple recommend interviews. 

What is shocking is that I missed out on all these juicy things that so many are harping on and actually calling them a "cost".  The cost for me is that these horribly intrusive interviews were so bad that I blanked them from my memory and have no memory of a specific question.  That MUST be evidence of something wrong and I am suffering dreadfully from suppressed memory syndrome and some other terrible psychological problem(s).  Who knew what I was missing?  If I was just plugged in to the "right" people I could quickly conclude that I should be hospitalized in order to correct all the egregious actions of my bishop that I have no memory of.  The great thing is that reality does not need to correct the problem of these not so subtle attacks on the Church of Jesus Christ - the critics become like those 3 monkeys covering their eyes, ears, and mouth - never a need to tell the truth and actually look at the reality when this train is moving so fast.

So, if you didn’t experience it, it never happened? Hoping my grandkids don’t have to deal with this stuff hardly constitutes an attack on the church. 

Why am I not surprised that you think we’re not telling the truth? It’s all just lies from those horrible critics, right?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

Hopefully the parents know that their child is having an interview with the Bishop. They can go with and if necessary sit in . Try that with the State in the referred to case. It would be naïve to think that the Bishop is the only person outside of the family that will ever be with the child discussing sexual stuff. It's OK for a teacher or guidance counselor to do so because statistically they rarely are abusers----oh wait...

Personally, I think that a  Bishop who gets deep into the weeds of questions of sexual sin with a youth are likely doing so to for some prurient interest. Yes, I have a cynical streak !

I am not seeing anyone here arguing for the State to be doing this or assuming that it is only a problem with Bishops.

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

This thread is frankly bizarre and has little to do with reality.  There is battalion of straw men arguments being made and then built upon.  Like you I never had an interview with a bishop or stake president that asked me inappropriate questions.  The fact that these interviews were so benign is that I don't have a memory of one from another.  The only fact I know is that I was interviewed for priesthood advancement and mission preparation/temple recommend interviews. 

What is shocking is that I missed out on all these juicy things that so many are harping on and actually calling them a "cost".  The cost for me is that these horribly intrusive interviews were so bad that I blanked them from my memory and have no memory of a specific question.  That MUST be evidence of something wrong and I am suffering dreadfully from suppressed memory syndrome and some other terrible psychological problem(s).  Who knew what I was missing?  If I was just plugged in to the "right" people I could quickly conclude that I should be hospitalized in order to correct all the egregious actions of my bishop that I have no memory of.  The great thing is that reality does not need to correct the problem of these not so subtle attacks on the Church of Jesus Christ - the critics become like those 3 monkeys covering their eyes, ears, and mouth - never a need to tell the truth and actually look at the reality when this train is moving so fast.

So, the actual documented occurrences of sexual abuse of children don't matter even a little bit to you.  Got it.

Edited December 14, 2017 by ttribe

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, Exiled said:

I am. My feeling is that bishops shouldn't be interviewing children at all and that is the province of the parents only.

The First Presidency feels different.  

Bishops hold priesthood keys.  A parent cannot interview a child for baptism or a young man to receive or advance in the priesthood.  A parent cannot interview and sign a recommend for a young man or woman to enter the temple.

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, Duncan said:

The word that I didn't know was "petting" like, you can even pet the cat or dog or rosie the goldfish,? odd thing to say in the for strength of youth pamphlet

The writers of the pamphlet didn’t make up the word.

noun

1.

Informal. kissing, caressing, and other sexualactivity between partners that does not involvesexual intercourse.

Compare heavy petting.

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/petting?s=t

[ksfisher]

3 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Imagine if schools had counselors regularly quizzing kids about their sex lives behind closed doors. 

It seems odd to demand the school defer to parents but not the church. 

Schools don’t really teach the Law of Chastity much these days, do they.  On the other hand the church does.  The commandments teach us that it is a sin to break the law of chastity.  One would expect someone who has both stewardship for the members of his congregation and is a judge in Israel to be concerned.  Especially about youth whose sexual maturity is outrunning their emotional maturity. 

[Duncan]

20 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

The writers of the pamphlet didn’t make up the word.

noun

1.

Informal. kissing, caressing, and other sexualactivity between partners that does not involvesexual intercourse.

Compare heavy petting.

 

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/petting?s=t

they also didn't include the link either!!!!!!!