Bishops interview with minors

[rongo]

14 hours ago, ttribe said:

Even if the 2nd person is another member of the bishopric?

(As explained to me by the hotline attorneys on more than one occasion): Only the bishop or stake president are legally-protected confessors. When other people hear the confession (any other people), then the legal protections/liability are void. 

This can be good or bad. One specific question I had was about the Church's potential exposure if it held a disciplinary council without a conviction or guilty plea. There was a man --- not in my ward, but the victims were --- who had lawyered up and was threatening legal action. The problem is that he had confessed in detail to many people (the victims' parents, five couples), via texts and surreptitious recording, but for a number of reasons, the police and county attorney were reluctant or pessimistic about the likelihood of success on trial. I was happy to learn that church discipline is not actionable for libel or slander (because the legal system hadn't found him "guilty") and could use its own standards of evidence. That is an internal church issue, and churches can regulate their members however they want without fear of a lawsuit. Ditto for record annotation (e.g., if a record is annotated but the person disputes the reasons or validity for the annotation. Annotation is an internal system for tracking and monitoring people who are a risk). The interesting thing to me that I hadn't thought about was that by its nature, a stake disciplinary council is not a confession situation because it involves at least 15 men other than the stake president (12 high councilors or substitutes, two SP counselors, a clerk, and in our stake, the bishop). There is no expectation of privacy or confessional under those circumstances. 

Obviously, the same would apply to a bishopric counselor, parent, youth leader, or whomever being present in a youth interview. As soon as there is someone other than the confessor and the confessee/penitent, it is not a confessional. 

Edited December 15, 2017 by rongo

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Counselors in the bishopric do not have the same ecclesiastical mantle of authority as the bishop. It has only been in recent years that they have been authorized to give temple recommend interviews, and even now, when a person begins to confess wrongdoing, the counselor is obliged to terminate the interview immediately and refer the individual to the bishop. 

I guess I'm curious how the law views the counselors to address Bob's point.

 

ETA: Looks like Rongo may have answered my question.

Edited December 15, 2017 by ttribe

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/12/15/sexual-abuse-survivors-group-of-spotlight-fame-calls-on-mormon-church-to-change-interview-system/

 

 

Thanks for the link, I read this article last night, and I'm glad that the Spotlight movie group is getting involved and it seems there is somewhat of a groundswell around this topic.  Often external pressure is needed to get church leaders to consider making changes on issues like this.  Lets hope shining the spotlight on disturbing practices helps motivate change on this issue as well.  

There was an article in Newsweek yesterday as well.  Titled "MASTURBATION WILL MAKE YOU GAY, WARNS LEAKED MORMON CHURCH DOCUMENT"

http://www.newsweek.com/masturbation-gay-leaked-mormon-church-lgtb-religion-sex-748201

Quote

The Mormon church hates self-love.

Masturbation should be strictly banned because it can turn young people into homosexuals and criminals, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints believes, according to a leaked guidebook issued to members.

The 1981 guidebook, released this week by the transparency group MormonLeaks, provides some insights into what many young Mormons have been taught about sexual development and homosexuality over the years.

“Early masturbation experiences introduce the individual to sexual thoughts which may become habit forming and reinforcing to homosexual interests,” the guidebook claims. “Self-masturbation is almost universal among those who engage in homosexual behavior, and is a very difficult habit for most to overcome.”

The Mormon church believes homosexuality is “of grave concern” because it may involve violent or criminal behavior and is as sinful as heterosexual adultery and fornication, the guidebook says. The book also claims that homosexuality is a learned behavior influenced by unhealthy development in early childhood, and says that absentee fathers and dominant mothers are among the main culprits for these developmental problems leading to homosexuality.

The Mormon church guidebook claims homosexuality is a learned behavior.

The guidebook also lays out guidelines for counseling Mormons with “homosexual problems.” Gay Mormons who do not renounce their sexual orientation will be prohibited from participating in the church, it adds. 

“Persons who have engaged in homosexual activities and who have not totally repented and forsaken these evil practices will not be admitted to study at or be employed by any church university, college, school, or program," the guidebook reads. 

The pamphlet was created in 1981, and the Mormon church has become somewhat more tolerant of homosexuality since it was issued. Nevertheless, some Mormons say the pamphlet reflects the beliefs of many Mormons about homosexuality.

“The church has never come out and said, ‘Throw away this manual; it is no longer relevant,'” Ryan McKnight, founder of MormonLeaks, told Newsweek. 

“That being said, if you were to track the rhetoric coming from the top leadership you will see somewhat of a shift in their views on the subject.”

The guidebook warns that teenage masturbation can make you gay.

“Many members of the Mormon church still believe many of the concepts and ideas put forth in the 1981 manual. Most of the shift has come in the form of simply not talking about the issue as much,” McKnight added.

In recent years, some Mormons have taken the position that homosexuality itself is not sinful but engaging in homosexual sex is. Given that reality, the website Mormon and Gay launched last year to help gay Mormons openly discuss maintaining their faith without practicing their sexuality.

The website is owned by the church and is the first time the church acknowledged that people do not choose to be gay. Still, it is unclear how many people are aware of the website or its teachings. 

Homosexuality is still contentious for many Mormons, but the church has become more tolerant. 

"The church still has a very, very long way to go to be LGBT affirming, but even the harshest critic must acknowledge the progress of the past decade," Dr. John Dehlin, a Mormon personal counselor and social activist told Newsweek. 

"The Mormon church has significantly softened its position on the origins of same-sexuality, and no longer overtly encourages reparative or conversion therapy," Dehlin added. 

 

Edited December 15, 2017 by hope_for_things

[stemelbow]

Anyone know when the practice of confessing to a bishop started in the church?  

[HappyJackWagon]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Anyone know when the practice of confessing to a bishop started in the church?  

Good question. I asked earlier (never saw a response) about the scriptural mandate for people confessing sins to ecclesiastical leaders. When did confessing to God become confessing to men?

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Anyone know when the practice of confessing to a bishop started in the church?  

I'd love to know as well. I think early early in the church you were supposed to confess your sins in public, as in to the congregation. Sounds like an awkward F&T meeting.

[rongo]

My opinion only:

I think the scriptural backing is Christ's mention of authority to seal and loosen in heaven and on earth. Not the sealing keys for performing sealings in temples, but the authority to bind or loosen sins on earth. People get apoplectic about this approaching Catholicism (having to go through "a man" to access forgiveness), but I think their understanding of this principle is correct, as is ours: part of God's way with us is to delegate keys to leaders on earth who have the authority to bind or loosen sins. This doesn't usurp anything from either the atonement (through which forgiveness is possible, and without which it isn't) or the Holy Ghost (who sanctifies and plays a key role in the remission of sins). I think it is a great comfort for most, who sometimes question whether or not they have really been forgiven or not. Going through the priesthood helps develop confidence, even if there is a possibility that the priesthood leader might not be inspired. The penitent has put everything on the table, and God will own decisions of his duly authorized representatives. 

See John 20:23, among others: "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained." 

I think it's clear that the LDS understanding of priesthood keys is that this is one of the key roles of bishops and stake presidents: to remit or retain serious sin. When sins are retained or remitted through those keys, then this is regarded as valid on earth and in heaven.

This is why worthiness interviews and confessing to church leaders is such an important thing in this church. Clearly, this is applied in the Church through a) disciplinary councils, and b) worthiness interviews and the application of informal church discipline. 

[Robert F. Smith]

3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

No.   The question could be reframed as:  Can a bishop be arrested criminally or sued civilly for failure to report a threatened crime?  No.  Normal people don't have that duty.   The exception is when a bishop learns of a child abuse in a non-confessional setting and then, yes, he can be arrested and sued for failure. 

As I mentioned, Rex Lee prevailed in the California Supreme Court for a local megachurch here.  A church counselor was asked by a young man threatening suicide:  "Once saved, always saved.  Does that apply to suicides?"  The pastor said:  "Yes."   The guy then went out and killed himself and the church was sued.

Same rule applies to psychotherapists, although if a therapist goes out and warns a potential victim he or she is immunized from claims of breach of ethics.

So, if I understand you correctly, a person confessing that he will attack and kill people at a specific location does not obligate his clerical confessor to report that to the authorities.  Similarly, a serial child abuser need not fear being reported to authorities by his bishop, even though he has informed his bishop of his intent to abuse a specific child.  That is the legal principle which Rex Lee established in California?

[rongo]

16 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, if I understand you correctly, a person confessing that he will attack and kill people at a specific location does not obligate his clerical confessor to report that to the authorities.  Similarly, a serial child abuser need not fear being reported to authorities by his bishop, even though he has informed his bishop of his intent to abuse a specific child.  That is the legal principle which Rex Lee established in California?

I once asked the hotline attorney, after being told that I had "no legal obligation to report," yes, but what about a moral obligation to report? He repeated, "You have no legal obligation to report." And that's all he would say.

I think sometimes (like in your hypothetical) priesthood leaders need to do the right thing. I think they can voluntarily choose to break the confidence of the confession if people are in imminent danger of harm. 

[Sethbag]

On 12/13/2017 at 12:04 PM, rongo said:

Do you personally believe that masturbation is not a sin?

Do you think that your own children should attend the temple if they are doing this and haven't repented (with or without consulting the bishop. As I've said, for most people I don't think this needs to involve the bishop at all).

It seems to me that most people who don't like bishops asking about this don't think it's actually a sin in the first place. Just wondering. 

I don't believe it's a sin, and I don't believe bishops should be asking about it. Of course, I believe bishops are just guys with no particular powers, authorities, etc. save whatever authorities their congregants cede to them voluntarily. If folks wish to walk into the office of some guy and discuss their sex lives then I guess that's up to them; it's a free country.

Personally I think the guilt, shame, self-loathing, etc. that can build up in religious youth (it's not just a Mormon thing, though it's also a big Mormon thing) over being made to believe that any sexual response outside of direct interactions with a married spouse is evil and hated by the invisible man behind the whole universe are way more destructive than in any way helpful. 

Asking kids if they masturbate is stupid. Yes, they do. They always have. They always will. The only question is whether you'll contribute to the "problem" by raking them over the coals about it and making them feel like an invisible man somewhere somehow hates what they do. You should do that cliche "pounding the nail into the board" thing and remind them that Jesus also sweat an extra drop of blood on the cross for every time they masturbated, just to ratchet the guilt up even more.

Yeah, I know there are occasional exceptions to the rule that everyone masturbated. Those are the guys you probably have to be especially wary of, because never having done it is actually aberrant behavior. There's a reason the joke "90% of men admit to having masturbated - 10% are liars" is funny to people: because they know it's true.

One thing that shocked me quite a bit as I was exposed to more people discussing the church after having left is to find out just how many people now admit to having lied their butts off to church leaders growing up about the M-word. It honestly never occurred to me to lie about it because I actually believed, and the shame and guilt ate me alive.

I think the first breath of fresh air I ever got on the whole subject, that calmed me down quite a bit, was when I called up my first mission president this one time, nearly halfway through my mission, and confessed over the phone. His response was: "welcome to the club." He then said it was something I should work on avoiding, etc. but that I shouldn't beat myself up too much about it, and that it was something almost everyone struggles with to one degree or another. And here I thought I was the main evil-doer.

I no longer believe in the church, or God, so you'll probably just reject anything I say or think out of hand, but there it is. This whole subject is only a big deal if you make it a big deal. And making it a big deal is itself a big deal. I think it's better avoided.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Sethbag

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Sethbag said:

This whole subject is only a big deal if you make it a big deal. And making it a big deal is itself a big deal. I think it's better avoided.

Agreed. It's not so much the idea that such things are "sinful" but the complete lack of perspective given to them. When we're taught that sexual sin is second only to murder, it tends to be a big deal. But are we saying that premarital or extramarital sex is more serious than child abuse or swindling someone out of their life savings? The guilt and shame over these issues, particularly masturbation. is disproportionate to their significance. If nothing else, these kinds of discussions are a good reminder of what I left behind. 

[Tacenda]

19 minutes ago, Sethbag said:

I don't believe it's a sin, and I don't believe bishops should be asking about it. Of course, I believe bishops are just guys with no particular powers, authorities, etc. save whatever authorities their congregants cede to them voluntarily. If folks wish to walk into the office of some guy and discuss their sex lives then I guess that's up to them; it's a free country.

Personally I think the guilt, shame, self-loathing, etc. that can build up in religious youth (it's not just a Mormon thing, though it's also a big Mormon thing) over being made to believe that any sexual response outside of direct interactions with a married spouse is evil and hated by the invisible man behind the whole universe are way more destructive than in any way helpful. 

Asking kids if they masturbate is stupid. Yes, they do. They always have. They always will. The only question is whether you'll contribute to the "problem" by raking them over the coals about it and making them feel like an invisible man somewhere somehow hates what they do. You should do that cliche "pounding the nail into the board" thing and remind them that Jesus also sweat an extra drop of blood on the cross for every time they masturbated, just to ratchet the guilt up even more.

Yeah, I know there are occasional exceptions to the rule that everyone masturbated. Those are the guys you probably have to be especially wary of, because never having done it is actually aberrant behavior. There's a reason the joke "90% of men admit to having masturbated - 10% are liars" is funny to people: because they know it's true.

One thing that shocked me quite a bit as I was exposed to more people discussing the church after having left is to find out just how many people now admit to having lied their butts off to church leaders growing up about the M-word. It honestly never occurred to me to lie about it because I actually believed, and the shame and guilt ate me alive.

I think the first breath of fresh air I ever got on the whole subject, that calmed me down quite a bit, was when I called up my first mission president this one time, nearly halfway through my mission, and confessed over the phone. His response was: "welcome to the club." He then said it was something I should work on avoiding, etc. but that I shouldn't beat myself up too much about it, and that it was something almost everyone struggles with to one degree or another. And here I thought I was the main evil-doer.

I no longer believe in the church, or God, so you'll probably just reject anything I say or think out of hand, but there it is. This whole subject is only a big deal if you make it a big deal. And making it a big deal is itself a big deal. I think it's better avoided.

What about a husband that needs the wife to make him feel good because he's been taught that he shouldn't. Kind of puts the pressure on the wife to take care of her husband all the time. Oops, I meant this for Rongo!!

Edited December 15, 2017 by Tacenda

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, Sethbag said:

Asking kids if they masturbate is stupid. Yes, they do. They always have. They always will. The only question is whether you'll contribute to the "problem" by raking them over the coals about it and making them feel like an invisible man somewhere somehow hates what they do. You should do that cliche "pounding the nail into the board" thing and remind them that Jesus also sweat an extra drop of blood on the cross for every time they masturbated, just to ratchet the guilt up even more.

Wow. I certainly don't approach it that way. I try to help them feel and know that God loves them, regardless of their struggles and successes and failures. I also try to offer counsel and advice as to how they can gain control and self-mastery. I emphasize that if they slip up as they work on this, that they can and should pray and ask for forgiveness and strength. I encourage them to talk with their parents and garner their experience and help. I also emphasize that this isn't a sin they have to come to me about, unless they feel that they need to. It can be worked on and repented of between them and God. 

Your nail in the board analogy seems like the most over-the-top caricature of the evils of clueless Mormon leaders. 

Yeah, I know there are occasional exceptions to the rule that everyone masturbated. Those are the guys you probably have to be especially wary of, because never having done it is actually aberrant behavior. There's a reason the joke "90% of men admit to having masturbated - 10% are liars" is funny to people: because they know it's true.

I know that it is common, and that good people have done it before or even struggle with it. But it is absolutely not true that there are no people who have ever done it, or that if there are, that this is "aberrant behavior." My dad and I were talking about this (he was a YSA bishop at the same time I was a bishop of another ward). There are at least two men who have never done it. I was aware of it as a concept as a teenager, but didn't know how to go about doing it, and didn't dwell on it or obsess over it. I had been taught that it was a sin, and I wasn't going to do it. There are indeed others like that as well. It is not an irresistible biological imperative, and people actually can control themselves and not do it. 

I no longer believe in the church, or God, so you'll probably just reject anything I say or think out of hand, but there it is.

How do you know? Are you preemptively poisoning the well, or what? I agree with you that many people have done it before, and many continue to struggle with it into adulthood. Obviously, I disagree with you about "the invisible man somewhere" hating people. And, I disagree with you that people who have never done it or had a problem with it are either liars or aberrant. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

So, if I understand you correctly, a person confessing that he will attack and kill people at a specific location does not obligate his clerical confessor to report that to the authorities.  Similarly, a serial child abuser need not fear being reported to authorities by his bishop, even though he has informed his bishop of his intent to abuse a specific child.  That is the legal principle which Rex Lee established in California?

This is why states need to enact stronger laws requiring disclosures of clergy for the protection of victims.  The LDS church will always put their institutional priorities first and foremost and the needs of the people are secondary.  Sometimes individual needs align with institutional ones, and there isn't a problem in those cases, but when the two priorities come into conflict, the institution takes precedent and the people are secondary.  

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

What about a husband that needs the wife to make him feel good because he's been taught that he shouldn't. Kind of puts the pressure on the wife to take care of her husband all the time. Oops, I meant this for Rongo!!

Do you mean a wife whose husband still has a problem with it and can't stop? 

Do you believe that people just can't not do it, like they are being pulled into a black hole and the gravitational pull cannot be resisted? I don't believe that. 

It can be very hard on wives when their husband struggles with masturbation and pornography. To the extent that Mormon culture drives this into the underground and secretive behavior. lying, deception, that is bad (and I think the culture is improving in this regard). But, I don't believe people simply can't stop doing it, and that encouraging them to makes them feel guilty, so we shouldn't encourage them to. There are effective and less-effective ways to encourage and uplift people, to be sure. 

[Eveline]

18 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

What about a husband that needs the wife to make him feel good because he's been taught that he shouldn't. Kind of puts the pressure on the wife to take care of her husband all the time. Oops, I meant this for Rongo!!

Listen, sexuality is not much more then mutual masturbation. I have the feeling Americans have a much bigger "hangup" about this then us little people in Europe. A cultural issue. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

5 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

Interesting. If you're correct, these intrusive interviews may be even more out of bounds than I thought. Either way, I'm glad I set some boundaries with my children. 

"Intrusive interviews"? "Out of bounds"? Give me a break.

My view is pretty much the opposite of yours. The number people in a local Church organization authorized to hear and adjudicate confessions of wrongdoing ought to be as limited as is feasible. Counselors in a bishopric don't need -- and should not -- hear confessions except where a disciplinary council has been called.

Edited December 15, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Crockett]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

I think sometimes (like in your hypothetical) priesthood leaders need to do the right thing. I think they can voluntarily choose to break the confidence of the confession if people are in imminent danger of harm. 

 

Which I have been saying, but it could be that doing so might expose the pastor to an action for breach of the right of privacy.

[Bernard Gui]

We made a mistake in dealing with one of our children’s drug and related issues by insisting he meet with the bishop. We know other parents who have had the same experience. The mistake was not wanting him to meet with the bishop, but insisting on it before he was ready. In our desperate attempts to rescue him, we were passing our son’s problems on to the bishop, unfairly expecting that he could succeed where we had failed. 

Forced confession does not necessarily lead to repentance. In fact, it may reinforce the feelings of defiance and self-justification that accompany such behaviors. Such was our experience.

Certainly, abusive or criminal behavior cannot be tolerated and must be confronted and stopped. Sins being revealed and the resulting humiliation, guilt, and remorse can be a motivator for change, but it’s a fine line we walk between justice and mercy. Hopefully all involved are in a position to receive the wisdom and guidance of the Spirit. There’s a lot at stake.

 

[RevTestament]

34 minutes ago, Eveline said:

Listen, sexuality is not much more then mutual masturbation. I have the feeling Americans have a much bigger "hangup" about this then us little people in Europe. A cultural issue. 

If that's all Europeans think of intercourse, that's a sad thing. I believe it to be a very spiritual thing, and an exercise of the sacred power of procreation. You simply cannot say the same for MM - that's a let down in my book. 

[Bernard Gui]

46 minutes ago, Eveline said:

Listen, sexuality is not much more then mutual masturbation. I have the feeling Americans have a much bigger "hangup" about this then us little people in Europe. A cultural issue. 

 

How sad that one of the most the most joyous gifts given to us by God can be reduced to this.

[CA Steve]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Wow. I certainly don't approach it that way. I try to help them feel and know that God loves them, regardless of their struggles and successes and failures. I also try to offer counsel and advice as to how they can gain control and self-mastery. I emphasize that if they slip up as they work on this, that they can and should pray and ask for forgiveness and strength. I encourage them to talk with their parents and garner their experience and help. I also emphasize that this isn't a sin they have to come to me about, unless they feel that they need to. It can be worked on and repented of between them and God. 

Your nail in the board analogy seems like the most over-the-top caricature of the evils of clueless Mormon leaders. I

Not matter how you approach it, in the end you are telling them they need to repent and seek forgiveness for masturbating. I see this same approach when some are defending their attitudes toward gay people; it is the "love the sinner but hate the sin" line, which, sounds great to the person saying it, but to those hearing it, it sounds exactly like what it is, telling someone they are a sinner, that they lack self control and need to change their ways, that God does not approve of their behavior.  So while you may think you are approaching this in a loving and gentle way, the teenager on the other end of this discussion is hearing a person in authority telling him he/she is sinning, failing, lacking self mastery, needs to repent and to seek forgiveness, all of which simply increase the guilt they feel.

 

 

 

 

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Not matter how you approach it, in the end you are telling them they need to repent and seek forgiveness for masturbating. I see this same approach when some are defending their attitudes toward gay people; it is the "love the sinner but hate the sin" line, which, sounds great to the person saying it, but to those hearing it, it sounds exactly like what it is, telling someone they are a sinner, that they lack self control and need to change their ways, that God does not approve of their behavior.  So while you may think you are approaching this in a loving and gentle way, the teenager on the other end of this discussion is hearing a person in authority telling him he/she is sinning, failing, lacking self mastery, needs to repent and to seek forgiveness, all of which simply increase the guilt they feel.

Isn't that true of any sin, though? Replace masturbation with anything else that someone needs to be told/taught to repent about. Using your logic above, all of these would also "tell someone they are a sinner and need to change their ways and that God doesn't approve of their behavior." 

It seems really snowflake-encouraging to say that Church leaders shouldn't preach repentance. I'm definitely within the mainstream of the Brethren when I teach that masturbation (and all other sex sins) offend the Spirit and separate us from God. I get that those who don't like this don't believe it. But normative Church members do. 

[HappyJackWagon]

52 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

If that's all Europeans think of intercourse, that's a sad thing. I believe it to be a very spiritual thing, and an exercise of the sacred power of procreation. You simply cannot say the same for MM - that's a let down in my book. 

Come on, man. Is it always a spiritual thing? Is it always about exercising the sacred power of procreation? Or sometimes is it just for fun?

I know my answer.

[jkwilliams]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

"Intrusive interviews"? "Out of bounds"? Give me a break.

My view is pretty much the opposite of yours. The number people in a local Church organization authorized to hear and adjudicate confessions of wrongdoing ought to be as limited as is feasible. Counselors in a bishopric don't need -- and should not -- hear confessions except where a disciplinary council has been called.

Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that counselors are not supposed to delve into ‘wrongdoing’ discovered during an interview. If that’s the case, counselors conducting open-ended interviews exploring specific sexual behavior would be ‘out of bounds’ as far as the church’s guidelines go. I think such interviews are intrusive, too, but perhaps you don’t. 

Again, I’m grateful I set some boundaries with my children.