Bishops interview with minors

[Exiled]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

"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).

Haha, you apologists at it again. Anyway, thanks for the link. I'll listen to it on the way to work this morning.

[Eveline]

I think bisshops really need to stop asking anything intimate to children. Anything sexual is my job as parent and not the Church. Church needs to stear well Clear away from intergering with the sexual life of me or my children.

[Jane_Doe]

6 minutes ago, Eveline said:

I think bisshops really need to stop asking anything intimate to children. Anything sexual is my job as parent and not the Church. Church needs to stear well Clear away from intergering with the sexual life of me or my children.

Eveline, did you see my thoughts on this earlier?

On 12/12/2017 at 3:19 PM, Jane_Doe said:

Conversations like this irritate me.  

I'm a person who went through horrible sexual abuse as a kid, so I completely get that some folks simply can't be trusted.  That being said: I'm a supporter of having a bishop interview minors about their walk with Christ (which yes, that does include LoC).  Reasons:

- If a parent wants to be in the room, then walk in and take a chair.  No one is stopping you- take the reins if that's what you feel is right.  Or sit wherever else you want.  Or ask your intelligent child what things were talked about.  Take the reins yourself and quitting whining.

- "But the bishop might abuse my kid"- yes that's true.  It's true with every person in your kids life-- parents themselves being the most likely perpetrators.  Rather than trying impossibly wrap your offspring in a bubble for their entire lives, sit down with them and talk about what is appropriate and what is not.  Talk with them how to say "no" and seek help.  Keep the communication channels open.  That way, WHEN someone in your offspring's life inevitably crosses a line, they are prepared and have the tools/communication to deal with it.

- While it's fine for a parent to stay for a bishop's interview, it's also fine for the child to tell them to leave please.  Sometimes the most terrifying/embarrassing person in the world for a kid to talk to is their parent.  So if a teenager wants to have a private conversation, let them.  

[HappyJackWagon]

4 hours 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. 

You decry other people's real experiences as "straw man" arguments because they do not match your experience. Weird, and not an accurate understanding of what a straw man argument is, but ok.

Then you make a legitimate straw man argument by suggesting we shouldn't focus on one area of potential abuse (church leaders) because there are other areas of potential abuse (families). You are essentially saying we shouldn't focus on a bishop's potential for abusing children because families abuse children more. You make no sense. Look up the definition of straw man argument. Please.

[Tacenda]

7 minutes ago, Eveline said:

I think bisshops really need to stop asking anything intimate to children. Anything sexual is my job as parent and not the Church. Church needs to stear well Clear away from intergering with the sexual life of me or my children.

Listened last night. It's going to be a very difficult process to get the church to stop asking sexual questions, because they need to make sure the individual is worthy to go to the temple. I don't know how they'll work it out, but it definitely needs to be revamped with training, training, training. Because this is affecting thousands of lives. Patrick Mason was on this and agrees. Alot of LDS callers agree. We can't mess with the youth in their younger most impressive years. One thing that was said was they are exploring their sexuality, if we nip it and make them feel bad about their bodies that leads to years of pain when they marry. But it was explained better on the podcast. And witholding the sacrament is a huge problem, kind of a "Red Scarlet" punishment. A time when they need the sacrament, it's so backward. And many LDS have such a horrible experience, they leave the church. 

[Gray]

36 minutes ago, Calm said:

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.

What I mean is it's an excellent opportunity for abusers, when called to that position, to have unfettered access to children. I do think being called to the position helps, but once an abuser is in the calling, all bets are off.

Even beyond that, I consider invasive sexual questions a form of sexual harassment. It's fairly normalized in the church, so people don't even realize they're being abusive. It's a tradition that turns people who wouldn't normally abuse into abusers. They think they're just doing their religious duty.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Gray

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

What I mean is it's an excellent opportunity for abusers, when called to that position, to have unfettered access to children. I do think being called to the position helps, but once an abuser is in the calling, all bets are off.

And interesting that the church emphasizes no adults should be alone with children anywhere else. 

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

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 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.

Same with our building and frankly every bishop's office door I've ever seen. I've never seen a window in a bishop's door. It's also typical to have white noise speakers nearby precisely for the purpose of blocking out sound from the bishop's office so people can't hear personal conversations.

2 deep leadership sounds like a solid and safe plan for interviews. I've seen a few suggestions for compromise proposed from one side of this discussion. If there is a risk to children, youth, or women, allow another individual into the room. Perhaps the parent, perhaps a relief society president, or YM/YW leader of the youth's choosing. Or... require leaders to stick to very specific and appropriate questions without improvising new questions or probing about sxual practices. Seems reasonable. On the other hand we have total rigidity with no possibility for compromise considered. The bishop must  be alone with kids and youth. The bishop should have total freedom to ask whatever question he feels is appropriate. Some feel this is so important that they would even refuse to allow a parent into the room with their child. Short of a court order, imagine a school, a scout troop, or a coach refusing to allow a parent into a private discussion with the youth.  The refusal to allow greater protections for youth, and the rejection of a parent's participation are huge red flags.

Edited December 14, 2017 by HappyJackWagon

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And interesting that the church emphasizes no adults should be alone with children anywhere else. 

Yes. They need to stop making exceptions for bishops.

[clarkgoble]

35 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You decry other people's real experiences as "straw man" arguments because they do not match your experience. Weird, and not an accurate understanding of what a straw man argument is, but ok.

I'm not sure the argument is a strawman. Surely it is relevant to ask what is a bigger problem - abusive Bishops asking sexual questions to "groom" potential victims or children who are being victimized by family members. Now I do think it's a bit more complicated. After all perhaps a Bishop could discover abuse more easily without talking about sex. But I'm skeptical.

Don't get me wrong. I think Bishops definitely need more training - although given the time issues there are inherent problems there already. i.e. how much time does a Bishop have for training given how much is already asked of them on top of their work and family commitments. Also I think there are potential middle grounds that just haven't been discussed. Things like having a councilor there during the interview of teens.

Finally I also think there's a bit of blurring of lines. Surely there's a middle ground between child and young adult. Someone 14-18 simply is at a very different level of maturity than someone 11-13. Further I think we simply have to acknowledge that there's a lot of sexual activity among youth. 

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

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.

Actually the bishop is also required by law to inform the authorities about abusers (just like doctors, nurses, etc.).  And, if an abuser confesses to a bishop under the clerical confidentially rule, the bishop can still report to the the authorities if he believes that the abuser is a continuing threat.

[Robert F. Smith]

13 hours ago, Calm 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).

My comments already dealt with that.  My reply had to do with the problem of having an abusive father in the room with his daughter and the bishop.  There is no comfort or catharsis there.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Robert F. Smith

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure the argument is a strawman. Surely it is relevant to ask what is a bigger problem - abusive Bishops asking sexual questions to "groom" potential victims or children who are being victimized by family members. Now I do think it's a bit more complicated. After all perhaps a Bishop could discover abuse more easily without talking about sex. But I'm skeptical.

Don't get me wrong. I think Bishops definitely need more training - although given the time issues there are inherent problems there already. i.e. how much time does a Bishop have for training given how much is already asked of them on top of their work and family commitments. Also I think there are potential middle grounds that just haven't been discussed. Things like having a councilor there during the interview of teens.

Finally I also think there's a bit of blurring of lines. Surely there's a middle ground between child and young adult. Someone 14-18 simply is at a very different level of maturity than someone 11-13. Further I think we simply have to acknowledge that there's a lot of sexual activity among youth. 

Like I said, his claim of a straw man argument isn't valid and then makes one himself.

Is it the purpose of a bishop's interview to discover abuse? So when the bishop calls my 13 year old daughter in for a worthiness interview is his purpose also to discover if her parents are abusing her? Don't get me wrong, if he discovers that, it's a good thing and hopefully he'll do the right thing to protect the youth and children. But that's not the stated purpose of interviews, so stating that a parent can't sit in because the bishop won't be able to discover something that isn't even the purpose of the interview seems a bit flimsy.

There have been many middle ground suggestions, as I noted. Personally I'd prefer the youth be provided the option of choosing the 3rd party instead of it being a bishopric counselor. But I only see those middle ground options being considered by one side. The other side seems offended by the suggested compromise.

Sure, there's a difference between an 8 year old going in for a baptism interview and a 17 year old getting ready to graduate high school. But, it's not the church's role to cut parents out of the interview process for their minor children at any point or time.

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually the bishop is also required by law to inform the authorities about abusers (just like doctors, nurses, etc.).  And, if an abuser confesses to a bishop under the clerical confidentially rule, the bishop can still report to the the authorities if he believes that the abuser is a continuing threat.

No.

That may be true in some states, but not all. That is precisely why there is an abuse hotline bishop's are instructed to call so an attorney can advise them if they should report a confessed abuse. It is my experience that the church only reports if it is absolutely necessary to be in compliance with law.

[Tacenda]

 

 

12 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not sure the argument is a strawman. Surely it is relevant to ask what is a bigger problem - abusive Bishops asking sexual questions to "groom" potential victims or children who are being victimized by family members. Now I do think it's a bit more complicated. After all perhaps a Bishop could discover abuse more easily without talking about sex. But I'm skeptical.

Don't get me wrong. I think Bishops definitely need more training - although given the time issues there are inherent problems there already. i.e. Bishop have for training given how much is already asked of them on top of their work and family commitments. Also I think there are potential middle grounds that just hahow much time does a ven't been discussed. Things like having a councilor there during the interview of teens.

Finally I also think there's a bit of blurring of lines. Surely there's a middle ground between child and young adult. Someone 14-18 simply is at a very different level of maturity than someone 11-13. Further I think we simply have to acknowledge that there's a lot of sexual activity among youth. 

bold mine

You appear to have missed how serious this is. How much of the other training the bishops get could be above the training in giving youth/adults interviews. When youth and adults believe that their bishop is an authoratative figure or even speaks for God, then it has a significant and life changing affect. It can change lives, not always for the good, more often it doesn't help but hinders growth, self-esteem, you name it.

Why would this not be at the top of the list of trainings, because that's where it belongs. I have a hunch that you've not listened or read many stories of those affected. I hope my hunch is wrong. 

Your comment here..."Further I think we simply have to acknowledge that there's a lot of sexual activity among youth." may be true, but part of it may be the way their interview was handled. Many youth learn things they've never heard of during an interview, and may have been introduced to sexual things for the first time. Don't laugh, it's happened. And if they feel like they've committed a sin next to murder, they probably feel rather like a hopeless case and why not just throw it all away come what may. Do you see why a trained person needs to handle these interviews? Or not bring up sex at all? But as I heard on the Radiowest podcast. Bishops are the judge of members' worthiness. So really I don't think these interviews will ever go away and I feel for members that believe wholeheartedly in the church that they may be hurt by that faithfulness. 

[Bernard Gui]

34 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually the bishop is also required by law to inform the authorities about abusers (just like doctors, nurses, etc.).  And, if an abuser confesses to a bishop under the clerical confidentially rule, the bishop can still report to the the authorities if he believes that the abuser is a continuing threat.

Perhaps it has already been mentioned that the Church has a hotline for bishops to call for legal advice. In my state, clergy are not required by law to report.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Bernard Gui

[Tacenda]

15 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually the bishop is also required by law to inform the authorities about abusers (just like doctors, nurses, etc.).  And, if an abuser confesses to a bishop under the clerical confidentially rule, the bishop can still report to the the authorities if he believes that the abuser is a continuing threat.

Apparently in this case the authorities were not contacted and the abuse was allowed to go on. http://kutv.com/news/local/several-virginia-families-suing-lds-church-over-alleged-cover-up-of-child-sexual-abuse

[Storm Rider]

57 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You decry other people's real experiences as "straw man" arguments because they do not match your experience. Weird, and not an accurate understanding of what a straw man argument is, but ok.

Then you make a legitimate straw man argument by suggesting we shouldn't focus on one area of potential abuse (church leaders) because there are other areas of potential abuse (families). You are essentially saying we shouldn't focus on a bishop's potential for abusing children because families abuse children more. You make no sense. Look up the definition of straw man argument. Please.

There you go jumping off into a straw man - I never, not once, belittled the experience of others. I never said they were not valid or real.  What I have been advocating is that while a bishop is not perfect they have a spiritual role to play in the lives of his flock - even teenagers. 

Statics show that family members are the most significant abusers of children.  What is being proposed is that because bishops are abusers - an allegation unaccompanied by any statistics then a family member should be present in the all interviews that the bishop has with youth.  We are talking about the same set of people that have a probability of actually being child molesters and they need to be present in the interview.  Hmm, yup, must be a straw man argument to consider that the group actually doing the most abuse is now going to "protect" the child from the abuser bishops.  Yeah, that bit of logic is really going to fly.  May actually want to look up definition of straw man.

[Bob Crockett]

21 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Actually the bishop is also required by law to inform the authorities about abusers (just like doctors, nurses, etc.).  And, if an abuser confesses to a bishop under the clerical confidentially rule, the bishop can still report to the the authorities if he believes that the abuser is a continuing threat.

Incorrect.  With the exception of Texas (maybe more, but I don't know today) all states keep the priest-penitential relationship privileged.  No duty to report.  It stems from canonical law.  A mortal sin to breach the confessional seal.

Pastors usually are mandated reporters, but not from the confessional. Thus, if a parent seeks counsel with a bishop and says that her son might have been molested by another church member, or even a stranger, the Bishop must report.   Pastors get into trouble when they don't believe the story (as in, it is the report of a bitter ex-wife) and they don't report.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

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.

Nope, bishops are not therapists and they should not be perceived as therapists.  I never said they should be. 

If we must assume a bishop is not objective - then what are you proposing they are?  You have lost me.

[Bernard Gui]

This articles discusses mandatory reporting requirements for clergy as of 2015.

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Listened last night. It's going to be a very difficult process to get the church to stop asking sexual questions, because they need to make sure the individual is worthy to go to the temple. I don't know how they'll work it out, but it definitely needs to be revamped with training, training, training. Because this is affecting thousands of lives. Patrick Mason was on this and agrees. Alot of LDS callers agree. We can't mess with the youth in their younger most impressive years. One thing that was said was they are exploring their sexuality, if we nip it and make them feel bad about their bodies that leads to years of pain when they marry. But it was explained better on the podcast. And witholding the sacrament is a huge problem, kind of a "Red Scarlet" punishment. A time when they need the sacrament, it's so backward. And many LDS have such a horrible experience, they leave the church. 

One way of changing this would be a shift in the perceptions of worthiness as a principle.  The current correlated Mormon teachings around worthiness and repentance are not the same they have been throughout history in Mormonism, let alone in Judaeo / Christian traditions.   The hyper focus on purity of thoughts is an emphasis that could change, the ways sexuality and modesty are viewed could change, the idea of how a person gains access to the spirit could change.  All these things have changed in the past and they can change again in the future.   

[ALarson]

36 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

Perhaps it has already been mentioned that the Church has a hotline for bishops to call for legal advice. In my state, clergy are not required by law to report.

The problem is that many Bishops take pity on the abuser and try to work with him rather than report him.  I have personally seen this happen several times and all have been disastrous.  The child was left in the home, the Father is called in and confesses, cries and promises never to do it again.  The Bishop does not want to take the child away from the home (and Mother, etc.) or cause the family embarrassment (or whatever the reasons), he believes the Father (or other abuser) and tries to help him through the repentance process without notifying the authorities.  In every case I have known of like this, the abuser continues to abuse.  In one case it eventually came out that this man had abused older children and some even outside of their family.

There has to be a more strict enforcement from the leaders of the church instructing local leaders to immediately report the abuse (or even suspected abuse) and remove the child from danger.  Leaders need to stop caring so much about the abuser (even though many times the Bishop is personally acquainted with him and of course should still care about him) and put the child or youth first.

Edited December 14, 2017 by ALarson

[ttribe]

6 hours 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. 

Seriously?  How deep is that hole into which you've buried your head.  There are DOCUMENTED occurrences linked in this very thread.

[clarkgoble]

58 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Why would this not be at the top of the list of trainings, because that's where it belongs. I have a hunch that you've not listened or read many stories of those affected. I hope my hunch is wrong. 

I think I'm advocating balancing issues. I think there needs to be more training and I agree it should be near the top. However I also think the solution some have - don't ask questions - is unworkable.

Quote

Your comment here..."Further I think we simply have to acknowledge that there's a lot of sexual activity among youth." may be true, but part of it may be the way their interview was handled. Many youth learn things they've never heard of during an interview, and may have been introduced to sexual things for the first time. Don't laugh, it's happened. And if they feel like they've committed a sin next to murder, they probably feel rather like a hopeless case and why not just throw it all away come what may. Do you see why a trained person needs to handle these interviews? Or not bring up sex at all? But as I heard on the Radiowest podcast. Bishops are the judge of members' worthiness. So really I don't think these interviews will ever go away and I feel for members that believe wholeheartedly in the church that they may be hurt by that faithfulness. 

Again I think training needs to be there and I think what's appropriate needs to be adjusted for age. However I also think the alternatives many have presented are worse than the current problem.