Bishops interview with minors

[Robert F. Smith]

On 12/12/2017 at 12:03 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."

Nonsense.  Doug Fabrizio's "Radio West" had a full program today on that very subject.  In one case, a young woman who had been molested by her father could not confess that to the bishop, and having a parent present may have made that even less likely.  In another case, a man with a psych degree became a bishop and found that his degree did not enable him to handle matters well -- indeed, he and his subjects were traumatized, and he is still troubled by it.  One suggestion was that a female do the interview with young women.  http://radiowest.kuer.org/  (Wednesday Dec 13, 2017).

We probably underestimate the degree of difficulty such worthiness interviews can entail.  And we may overestimate the value of some training in family counseling, etc.  Even a graduate degree in counseling does not really prepare one for such difficulties.  The only therapist able to handle such problems well is a trained therapist who has specialized in such problems for quite awhile under the tutelage of experts, and no bishop is going to be of that caliber.  I would advise any bishop to immediately terminate an interview which seems to be going off the rails and refer the child to a professional therapist who is actually qualified and experienced -- with the parents' permission, and at Church expense, if necessary.  I  know of one case in which an entire family was referred by a bishop, and the good results took about a year of therapy.

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

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.

I understand their position. The church family comes first in this case for sure.

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nonsense.  Doug Fabrizio's "Radio West" had a full program today on that very subject.  In one case, a young woman who had been molested by her father could not confess that to the bishop, and having a parent present may have made that even less likely.  In another case, a man with a psych degree became a bishop and found that his degree did not enable him to handle matters well -- indeed, he and his subjects were traumatized, and he is still troubled by it.  One suggestion was that a female do the interview with young women.  http://radiowest.kuer.org/  (Wednesday Dec 13, 2017).

We probably underestimate the degree of difficulty such worthiness interviews can entail.  And we may overestimate the value of some training in family counseling, etc.  Even a graduate degree in counseling does not really prepare one for such difficulties.  The only therapist able to handle such problems well is a trained therapist who has specialized in such problems for quite awhile under the tutelage of experts, and no bishop is going to be of that caliber.  I would advise any bishop to immediately terminate an interview which seems to be going off the rails and refer the child to a professional therapist who is actually qualified and experienced -- with the parents' permission, and at Church expense, if necessary.  I  know of one case in which an entire family was referred by a bishop, and the good results took about a year of therapy.

that's the thing some bishops think they have to be a therapist or think that people expect them to solve their problems. My favourite quotation from Elder Joe J. Christensen, formerly of the Seventy, is that Bishops/Stake Presidencies are shepherds, not veterinarians. 

[Exiled]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nonsense.  Doug Fabrizio's "Radio West" had a full program today on that very subject.  In one case, a young woman who had been molested by her father could not confess that to the bishop, and having a parent present may have made that even less likely.  In another case, a man with a psych degree became a bishop and found that his degree did not enable him to handle matters well -- indeed, he and his subjects were traumatized, and he is still troubled by it.  One suggestion was that a female do the interview with young women.  http://radiowest.kuer.org/  (Wednesday Dec 13, 2017).

We probably underestimate the degree of difficulty such worthiness interviews can entail.  And we may overestimate the value of some training in family counseling, etc.  Even a graduate degree in counseling does not really prepare one for such difficulties.  The only therapist able to handle such problems well is a trained therapist who has specialized in such problems for quite awhile under the tutelage of experts, and no bishop is going to be of that caliber.  I would advise any bishop to immediately terminate an interview which seems to be going off the rails and refer the child to a professional therapist who is actually qualified and experienced -- with the parents' permission, and at Church expense, if necessary.  I  know of one case in which an entire family was referred by a bishop, and the good results took about a year of therapy.

So, what if there were a loosening of the bishop interview requirements, e.g. not interviewing until 18?  Do think that would be harmful to the church? helpful?  What about for the members?  What if the church took more of a sideline role and simply taught the young members and let their families take on a bigger role?  Does the church really need to do youth interviews?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nonsense.  Doug Fabrizio's "Radio West" had a full program today on that very subject....

What was nonsense?

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Think about the irony of that statement.

I did and smiled when I wrote it.

Still true.

[Robert F. Smith]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

What was nonsense?

Quote

For ages 12 through 18, it makes sense to provide an option for a parent or other adult to be in the room.
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."

 

[Robert F. Smith]

36 minutes ago, Exiled said:

So, what if there were a loosening of the bishop interview requirements, e.g. not interviewing until 18?  Do think that would be harmful to the church? helpful?  What about for the members?  What if the church took more of a sideline role and simply taught the young members and let their families take on a bigger role?  Does the church really need to do youth interviews?

"So, what"?  I thought you didn't approve of that type of response.  

However, all your questions are relevant.  Listen to Doug Fabrizio's podcast, http://radiowest.kuer.org/  (Wednesday Dec 13, 2017).

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

 

There were two (at least) items...having another adult in the room being helpful and confessing to a leader can be comforting and cathartic.  Are both nonsense in your view? (Not arguing, just collecting PoVs).

[rchorse]

As an FYI, having another person nearby when interviewing children, youth, or women is not just recommended, it's required. Per Handbook 1, "When a member of a bishopric or stake presidency meets with a child, youth, or woman, he asks a parent or another adult to be in an adjoining room, foyer, or hall. A parent would usually be available for a child. The leader should avoid all circumstances that could be misunderstood." 

What more could be done to protect children, youth, and women is not so easy to answer. The critics naturally just want to end all worthiness interviews, but for those that believe in a scriptural/doctrinal/revelatory mandate to ensure worthiness for ordinances, etc. that solution doesn't work. I think clearer guidelines for bishops on what constitutes an appropriate level of discussion on chastity issues would help. But there will always be bishops who think they know better and don't follow the rules/guidelines. Allowing parents or others in interviews could help, but introduces its own problems. There is no perfect solution.

 

[Storm Rider]

9 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

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?

Jk, it is not that I think you are not telling the truth or that you are lying; I do think that those who have been critical are using straw man arguments and exaggerating.  Your edit is an exaggeration of my comments and has nothing to do with reality. 

Studies prove that it is family members that abuse children far more often than ecclesiastical staff/leaders, etc.  If these studies are true why wouldn't each of us be far more concerned about family members than bishops?  Why the focus on bishops?  When anyone takes the exception to the rule and then tries to make the standard nothing they say is worth salt because their position is not based on reality. 

[jkwilliams]

8 hours ago, ksfisher said:

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. 

Concerned, yes. Inappropriately intrusive, no.

[jkwilliams]

17 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Jk, it is not that I think you are not telling the truth or that you are lying; I do think that those who have been critical are using straw man arguments and exaggerating.  Your edit is an exaggeration of my comments and has nothing to do with reality. 

Studies prove that it is family members that abuse children far more often than ecclesiastical staff/leaders, etc.  If these studies are true why wouldn't each of us be far more concerned about family members than bishops?  Why the focus on bishops?  When anyone takes the exception to the rule and then tries to make the standard nothing they say is worth salt because their position is not based on reality. 

The problem, it seems, is there is no rule here, just a vague notion that whatever church leaders feel is appropriate in a youth interview is just fine. In this thread we have a current bishop's counselor who asks open-ended questions about how kids define chastity, and then he may or may not delve into discussing specific sex acts, and frankly, that skeeves me out more than a little. Another bishop's counselor and a former bishop have expressed the same concerns I have. 

One response to these concerns was to describe them as "politically correct" and a threat to the church's penitent-cleric privilege. Your response was to dismiss the concerns as exaggerations, if not outright lies, leveled by critics whose main goal is to attack. 

As for the potential for abuse, it is greater among family members, obviously. That said, why provide opportunities for abuse outside the home? People do abuse their positions in the church (see this guy, for example), and it stands to reason that policies that minimize potential for abuse ought to be pursued. There have been some reasonable suggestions for improvement in this thread. It's just baffling to me that anyone would consider those suggestions some kind of attack that must be defended at all costs.

For the record, I did not edit your comments at all, and I did not to my knowledge exaggerate what you said. 

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, jkwilliams said:

The problem, it seems, is there is no rule here, just a vague notion that whatever church leaders feel is appropriate in a youth interview is just fine. In this thread we have a current bishop's counselor who asks open-ended questions about how kids define chastity, and then he may or may not delve into discussing specific sex acts, and frankly, that skeeves me out more than a little. Another bishop's counselor and a former bishop have expressed the same concerns I have. 

One response to these concerns was to describe them as "politically correct" and a threat to the church's penitent-cleric privilege. Your response was to dismiss the concerns as exaggerations, if not outright lies, leveled by critics whose main goal is to attack. 

As for the potential for abuse, it is greater among family members, obviously. That said, why provide opportunities for abuse outside the home? People do abuse their positions in the church (see this guy, for example), and it stands to reason that policies that minimize potential for abuse ought to be pursued. There have been some reasonable suggestions for improvement in this thread. It's just baffling to me that anyone would consider those suggestions some kind of attack that must be defended at all costs.

For the record, I did not edit your comments at all, and I did not to my knowledge exaggerate what you said. 

Please show me where I said it was a lie - I missed it. 

You state yourself that you have on counselor - and I think I read his comments and did not get the same thing out of you did at all; it makes me think you might be projecting just a little - and others leaders who did not support his position.  I also stated that my experience was so benign that I cannot really remember any of the interviews specifically other than I know I had them. 

If the home is clearly the greater threat why would you not want an objective third party to have an interview with children who can plead for help in a safe environment?  See, you are making the safe space out to be another space as dangerous as the home, which it clearly is not.  Instead of seeing the bishop's interview as a positive for children who might be abused, you want to make it dangerous and anything but a place where children can go for help. 

This conversation puts the primary motive for interviews on forgiveness and repentance.  Last time I checked I had never met any perfect people and all were sinners in need of help.  Most don't need assistance, but for those that do a bishop is there to assist.

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Please show me where I said it was a lie - I missed it. 

You state yourself that you have on counselor - and I think I read his comments and did not get the same thing out of you did at all; it makes me think you might be projecting just a little - and others leaders who did not support his position.  I also stated that my experience was so benign that I cannot really remember any of the interviews specifically other than I know I had them. 

If the home is clearly the greater threat why would you not want an objective third party to have an interview with children who can plead for help in a safe environment?  See, you are making the safe space out to be another space as dangerous as the home, which it clearly is not.  Instead of seeing the bishop's interview as a positive for children who might be abused, you want to make it dangerous and anything but a place where children can go for help. 

This conversation puts the primary motive for interviews on forgiveness and repentance.  Last time I checked I had never met any perfect people and all were sinners in need of help.  Most don't need assistance, but for those that do a bishop is there to assist.

Here's where you said it: 

Quote

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.

I stand by what I said. The counselor described asking an open-ended question and using that to start a conversation about specifics. Yes, he said he didn't always delve into specifics, but the question was asked to help him determine whether he should. I don't think that's appropriate. Obviously, you disagree.

As for the bishop being someone children can go to for help, that is not what this thread is about. Of course, children should be able to go to their bishops when they are being abused, but that is irrelevant to this thread. The question is whether it's appropriate for an adult male priesthood leader and a minor to discuss the latter's sexual activities behind closed doors as part of an interview done (regularly) at the leader's request, not the child's. 

But suppose this were a discussion about children seeking out the bishopric because they are being abused or want to repent from sexual sin. What is the harm of setting ground rules for what can and cannot be discussed and who needs to be in the room? 

As I said, we never had this issue (at least involving interviews, the standards night being something I hadn't anticipated) because we explained to our children appropriate boundaries in these interviews and advised them to leave if lines were crossed. I had two kids walk out of interviews for that reason, and there were no "worthiness" consequences, just me having a word with a church leader about what I expected from such interviews. But most parents, like most kids in the church, trust the bishop, and lines may be crossed and no one will ever say anything about it. I shouldn't have had to tell my kids to be wary of church interviews. It's the church's responsibility to ensure that children are safe and lines are not crossed.

So, no, asking for some common-sense ground rules is not attacking the church or being politically correct. It's being a decent parent and grandparent. 

[Kenngo1969]

On 12/12/2017 at 3:20 PM, Storm Rider said:

... The last time I read any information on sexual abuse it was parents and other family members that are far more likely to abuse a child rather than an ecclesiastical authority.  Who is protecting the child from these parents?  Exactly who does the child turn to when the abuser is sitting in front of them as they talk with their bishop? ...

Yep.  As others pointed out earlier in the thread, it would be rather difficult for a young person to say the young person's equivalent of "Bishop, I'm being abused" while the abuser is sitting right there.  And I admit, I don't know anything about juvenile law and procedure, but what if a young person, say, an older teen, were to confess to being an abuser?  In the adult system, the presence of a third party may well destroy the priest-penitent privilege that otherwise would apply to that conversation.

I don't think the people who champion the presence of a third party in interviews have thought through all of the ramifications of their proposed "solution" to the "problem." 

 

Edited December 14, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Gray]

9 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Nonsense.  Doug Fabrizio's "Radio West" had a full program today on that very subject.  In one case, a young woman who had been molested by her father could not confess that to the bishop, and having a parent present may have made that even less likely.  In another case, a man with a psych degree became a bishop and found that his degree did not enable him to handle matters well -- indeed, he and his subjects were traumatized, and he is still troubled by it.  One suggestion was that a female do the interview with young women.  http://radiowest.kuer.org/  (Wednesday Dec 13, 2017).

We probably underestimate the degree of difficulty such worthiness interviews can entail.  And we may overestimate the value of some training in family counseling, etc.  Even a graduate degree in counseling does not really prepare one for such difficulties.  The only therapist able to handle such problems well is a trained therapist who has specialized in such problems for quite awhile under the tutelage of experts, and no bishop is going to be of that caliber.  I would advise any bishop to immediately terminate an interview which seems to be going off the rails and refer the child to a professional therapist who is actually qualified and experienced -- with the parents' permission, and at Church expense, if necessary.  I  know of one case in which an entire family was referred by a bishop, and the good results took about a year of therapy.

Some bishops will protect the abusers to keep scandals hushed up. Far better for victims to tell a teacher, who by law must report to the authorities.

[Gray]

The tradition of bishops/counselors conducting worthiness interviews alone with kids provides an ideal playground for abusers.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865683563/Former-Mapleton-LDS-bishop-accused-of-drugging-assaulting-2-teens.html

[Gray]

2 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

The problem, it seems, is there is no rule here, just a vague notion that whatever church leaders feel is appropriate in a youth interview is just fine. In this thread we have a current bishop's counselor who asks open-ended questions about how kids define chastity, and then he may or may not delve into discussing specific sex acts, and frankly, that skeeves me out more than a little. Another bishop's counselor and a former bishop have expressed the same concerns I have. 

One response to these concerns was to describe them as "politically correct" and a threat to the church's penitent-cleric privilege. Your response was to dismiss the concerns as exaggerations, if not outright lies, leveled by critics whose main goal is to attack. 

As for the potential for abuse, it is greater among family members, obviously. That said, why provide opportunities for abuse outside the home? People do abuse their positions in the church (see this guy, for example), and it stands to reason that policies that minimize potential for abuse ought to be pursued. There have been some reasonable suggestions for improvement in this thread. It's just baffling to me that anyone would consider those suggestions some kind of attack that must be defended at all costs.

For the record, I did not edit your comments at all, and I did not to my knowledge exaggerate what you said. 

I think one finds the same defensive posture when discussing abuse and practices that lead to abuse in the Catholic church. Pretty sad.

[Gray]

5 hours ago, rchorse said:

As an FYI, having another person nearby when interviewing children, youth, or women is not just recommended, it's required. Per Handbook 1, "When a member of a bishopric or stake presidency meets with a child, youth, or woman, he asks a parent or another adult to be in an adjoining room, foyer, or hall. A parent would usually be available for a child. The leader should avoid all circumstances that could be misunderstood." 

What more could be done to protect children, youth, and women is not so easy to answer. The critics naturally just want to end all worthiness interviews, but for those that believe in a scriptural/doctrinal/revelatory mandate to ensure worthiness for ordinances, etc. that solution doesn't work. I think clearer guidelines for bishops on what constitutes an appropriate level of discussion on chastity issues would help. But there will always be bishops who think they know better and don't follow the rules/guidelines. Allowing parents or others in interviews could help, but introduces its own problems. There is no perfect solution.

 

In our building the bishop's office has heavy doors with no windows. Another person in the other room will not protect a child from abuse.

Cub Scouts den leaders and primary teachers are required to have two adults in the room at all times when interacting with children. That's a good minimal safety standard, but for some reason that goes out the window with this tradition of worthiness interviews.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Gray

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Gray said:

I think one finds the same defensive posture when discussing abuse and practices that lead to abuse in the Catholic church. Pretty sad.

I'm beginning to think that some people believe the church to be infallible as an institution. Every policy, every practice, every teaching, it seems, is the revealed word and will of God and must be defended as such. I don't understand it.

[Gray]

8 hours ago, Exiled said:

So, what if there were a loosening of the bishop interview requirements, e.g. not interviewing until 18?  Do think that would be harmful to the church? helpful?  What about for the members?  What if the church took more of a sideline role and simply taught the young members and let their families take on a bigger role?  Does the church really need to do youth interviews?

I've been told that children of gay parents don't lose out on anything by not being baptized until they're 18. So the same must hold true for worthiness interviews. yes?

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

I've been told that children of gay parents don't lose out on anything by not being baptized until they're 18. So the same must hold true for worthiness interviews. yes?

I, personally, would have no problem whatsoever only having temple interviews, and doing away with annual and semi-annual youth interviews, if the Church did that. I have over 60 young men and young women in my ward (and 120 primary-age children). This wouldn't just lighten the interview docket for the bishopric, it would put more of the weight for monitoring youth growth and development with their parents, who are actually primarily responsible for that. 

That wouldn't eliminate the need for bishoprics to ensure (as best they can) that youth going to the temple are worthy and prepared, but it would greatly reduce "routine" interviews. 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Storm Rider said:

 why would you not want an objective third party to have an interview with children who can plead for help in a safe environment?  

Why do you assume a bishop would be objective?

A bishop's office is not automatically a safe place.  Some, hopefully most, bishops are able to create a safe space in their office (wasn't my experience growing up, but then the only place outside my home that was a safe place for me was the library).  But most likely even in those cases that only goes so far.

Getting LDS counselors specially and professionally trained in the crucial area to act as a resource for bishops, including teaching them how to create a safe space that is perceived as such by both child and adult would be intelligent and when counseling needed to move beyond the basics and into therapy and therefore to someone else, imo.

Bishops are not therapists.

[Calm]

59 minutes ago, Gray said:

The tradition of bishops/counselors conducting worthiness interviews alone with kids provides an ideal playground for abusers.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/865683563/Former-Mapleton-LDS-bishop-accused-of-drugging-assaulting-2-teens.html

Not quite.  Bishops and counselors are called into the position, they do not choose the job for themselves.  So they can take advantage of the opportunity if it presents itself, but given the calling system isn't random, it may lead to extremely low numbers of potential abusers being placed in the positions.

It would be interesting to do a lit review on attributes of abusers and compare that to attributes of local church leaders.