Bishops interview with minors

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

You're not doing it right . . .  

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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. 

According to the handbook counselors are supposed to stop the interview if an individual has a sin to confess because only the bishop should hear the confessions. The confessor should be referred to the bishop at that point.

But to your point, open ended questions about sxual behaviors should be considered out of bounds. It's a sham to ask a question if you can't hear the answer.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

This is frequently true of institutions, but on what basis do you make this declaration about the LDS Church?  For example, the LDS Church always declares that families come first whenever there is a conflict with a Church schedule or priority. Do you consider this merely an unimportant exception (the exception which proves your rule)?  In other words, is the LDS Church hypocritical in applying Gospel principles when protecting the Church as an institution? We can certainly see, for example, that the Roman Catholic Church made a general practice of putting the Church before any  consideration of preventing child abuse.  Are you saying that all churches are the same in this respect, or are there good and bad churches?

[CA Steve]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

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. 

Not all sins are created equal. And it seems bizarre to place masturbation in the same category as adultery and fornication.

Personally I think the church is way over focused on sex of any sort and anything remotely associated with it. (Really? they felt the need to airbrush out the shoulders of a 10-12 year old girl wearing a sundress in a church magazine?) 

If you go back through old church magazines you can find instances of where prophets were lamenting the fact that women's hem lengths were showing their ankles and how playing cards led to husbands leaving their families, activities today that wouldn't raise an eyebrow. Has God changed his view of ankles and card playing? Does showing an ankle by a woman offend the spirit?

I believe that we are looking at here are leaders who are enforcing cultural norms and beliefs from 50 years or more ago, as doctrine, that, in another 50 years, will be seen just the same way we look at ankle displays and not regarded as anything important and will be defined as past policy.

 

 

 

[ksfisher]

25 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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. 

If I was doing an interview and a youth disclosed any type of sin that the bishop should be involved with I would move on.  After the interview I would let the bishop know and suggest he set up a time to meet with that youth. 

Personally I don't go much further than asking if they feel their relationships with the opposite sex are appropriate for a member of the church. 

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

 

Personally I think the church is way over focused on sex of any sort and anything remotely associated with it.

 

The church is concerned with the law of chastity because there are so many members of the church who struggle with it.

Of all the disciplinary councils I've been involved with there has only been one that did not involve the person breaking their temple covenants to obey the law of chastity.

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Sethbag said:

.......................................................
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.

Do you think that the entire question should also be avoided by a Hindu yogi or Buddhist monk/nun?  Is it just silly for anyone to attempt to learn self-control?

Are you familiar with experiments with children in which they are offered the choice of (1) immediate gratification, or (2) delayed but enhanced gratification?  It turns out that children who are able to delay gratification on promise of a greater reward are far more successful in life.  Why?  Because they have learned a valuable lesson in emotional restraint.  Those who do not learn that lesson tend to make precipitate and ill-considered decisions.

This is also a major problem for those with addictions and bad habits -- problems which become their masters.  When one becomes a slave to this or that drug or bad habit, his freedom goes by the boards and his choices in life greatly diminish.  This is true in a completely secular, godless universe, just as much as it is in godly universe.  Thus, it turns out that the teachings of traditional culture may have great value, even though some modern people pooh, pooh it.

[rongo]

17 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Do you think that the entire question should also be avoided by a Hindu yogi or Buddhist monk/nun?  Is it just silly for anyone to attempt to learn self-control?

Are you familiar with experiments with children in which they are offered the choice of (1) immediate gratification, or (2) delayed but enhanced gratification?  It turns out that children who are able to delay gratification on promise of a greater reward are far more successful in life.  Why?  Because they have learned a valuable lesson in emotional restraint.  Those who do not learn that lesson tend to make precipitate and ill-considered decisions.

This is also a major problem for those with addictions and bad habits -- problems which become their masters.  When one becomes a slave to this or that drug or bad habit, his freedom goes by the boards and his choices in life greatly diminish.  This is true in a completely secular, godless universe, just as much as it is in godly universe.  Thus, it turns out that the teachings of traditional culture may have great value, even though some modern people pooh, pooh it.

But all of this makes people feel bad by suggesting that they don't have self-control and should improve in it. How dare anyone do that in 2017!

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

But all of this makes people feel bad by suggesting that they don't have self-control and should improve in it. How dare anyone do that in 2017!

So, sexual orientation is reduced to an addiction and bad habit, and asking people to remain celibate and avoid relationships with people of their own gender is no big deal if one has a little self-control. 

Somehow, I don’t think minimizing these issues is helpful to anyone. 

Edited December 15, 2017 by jkwilliams

[Stargazer]

On ‎12‎/‎14‎/‎2017 at 4:00 PM, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

FWIW, about 20 years ago the bishop in my last ward had one of those abbreviated windows installed in the door between the bishop's and the clerk's office. He did it on his own initiative, and at his own expense. Just to avoid possible problems in the future.  Any time he interviewed youth or women he would make sure to have someone in the clerk's office to monitor, and subsequent bishops did the same.

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

So, sexual orientation is reduced to an addiction and bad habit, and asking people to remain celibate and avoid relationships with people of their own gender is no big deal if one has a little self-control. 

Somehow, I don’t think minimizing these issues is helpful to anyone. 

I thought we were talking about masturbation? Where are you getting sexual orientation from?

[Thinking]

30 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Are you familiar with experiments with children in which they are offered the choice of (1) immediate gratification, or (2) delayed but enhanced gratification?  It turns out that children who are able to delay gratification on promise of a greater reward are far more successful in life.  Why?  Because they have learned a valuable lesson in emotional restraint.  Those who do not learn that lesson tend to make precipitate and ill-considered decisions.

This is irrelevant because in Mormonism there is no delayed gratification for homosexuals. Heterosexual members can look forward to marriage for gratification. Homosexuals have nothing to look forward to in Mormonism (unless you still believe that they will somehow be transformed into heterosexuals).

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, Thinking said:

This is irrelevant because in Mormonism there is no delayed gratification for homosexuals. Heterosexual members can look forward to marriage for gratification. Homosexuals have nothing to look forward to in Mormonism (unless you still believe that they will somehow be transformed into heterosexuals).

All who overcome the world are promised an eternal reward.

"He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son." (Rev 21:7)

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, Thinking said:

This is irrelevant because in Mormonism there is no delayed gratification for homosexuals. Heterosexual members can look forward to marriage for gratification. Homosexuals have nothing to look forward to in Mormonism (unless you still believe that they will somehow be transformed into heterosexuals).

Some actually do live a Proclamation on the Family life. I've shared this before, but this is a blog of a gay man (who has been gay his whole life) who married a girl from my previous ward (I sent her out as a missionary). 

http://beingoutisin.blogspot.com/

They aren't the only people I know who are making this work. I know men and women whose testimony and commitment to their covenants is the most important thing in their lives. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

This is frequently true of institutions, but on what basis do you make this declaration about the LDS Church?  For example, the LDS Church always declares that families come first whenever there is a conflict with a Church schedule or priority. Do you consider this merely an unimportant exception (the exception which proves your rule)?  In other words, is the LDS Church hypocritical in applying Gospel principles when protecting the Church as an institution? We can certainly see, for example, that the Roman Catholic Church made a general practice of putting the Church before any  consideration of preventing child abuse.  Are you saying that all churches are the same in this respect, or are there good and bad churches?

I believe institutions will put their institutional interests first, that is my observation of the way human nature works and historically how I observe things with respect to institutions and from my reading of LDS history it is no different.  The statement that families come first is an aspirational statement that I believe the leaders take seriously, but unfortunately if it comes down to putting families first or putting the institutional needs first, I believe they will put the institutional needs first.  

Whether this is hypocritical or not, or is just the nature of things with respect to the values and priorities of institutions, is up to observers to determine for themselves.  I typically don't like throwing out the hypocrisy charge.  I do think that some institutions have more egregious examples of putting the institution first, and I think public awareness of this has at times shamed institutions into changing their collective behavior.  But every situation is different.  Do I think the LDS church needs to improve with respect to this important subject of interviews of minors, yes, absolutely, the current practice is not acceptable to me and I think is increasingly out of step with our cultural awareness of what is appropriate.   

[Jeanne]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I believe institutions will put their institutional interests first, that is my observation of the way human nature works and historically how I observe things with respect to institutions and from my reading of LDS history it is no different.  The statement that families come first is an aspirational statement that I believe the leaders take seriously, but unfortunately if it comes down to putting families first or putting the institutional needs first, I believe they will put the institutional needs first.  

Whether this is hypocritical or not, or is just the nature of things with respect to the values and priorities of institutions, is up to observers to determine for themselves.  I typically don't like throwing out the hypocrisy charge.  I do think that some institutions have more egregious examples of putting the institution first, and I think public awareness of this has at times shamed institutions into changing their collective behavior.  But every situation is different.  Do I think the LDS church needs to improve with respect to this important subject of interviews of minors, yes, absolutely, the current practice is not acceptable to me and I think is increasingly out of step with our cultural awareness of what is appropriate.   

What I find sad is that it is not just families..there is a segregation peoples in their very own institution.  We need to understand and perhaps fix the very nature of things.

[Robert F. Smith]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I believe institutions will put their institutional interests first, that is my observation of the way human nature works and historically how I observe things with respect to institutions and from my reading of LDS history it is no different.  The statement that families come first is an aspirational statement that I believe the leaders take seriously, but unfortunately if it comes down to putting families first or putting the institutional needs first, I believe they will put the institutional needs first.  

The murdering forger Mark Hofmann certainly agreed.  He said:

Quote

"My personal opinion is any man would do what he could to protect himself.  That is the moral thing to do, seems to me."  Office of Salt Lake County Attorney, Mark Hofmann Interviews, 389.

As you know, Jesus took a very different view, believing that self-sacrifice is a higher value.  So, do you believe that the LDS Church has jettisoned that higher value?  Does the research of Mike Quinn (and other scholars) demonstrate the correctness of your view?  Or are you just venting?

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Whether this is hypocritical or not, or is just the nature of things with respect to the values and priorities of institutions, is up to observers to determine for themselves.  I typically don't like throwing out the hypocrisy charge.  I do think that some institutions have more egregious examples of putting the institution first, and I think public awareness of this has at times shamed institutions into changing their collective behavior.  But every situation is different.  Do I think the LDS church needs to improve with respect to this important subject of interviews of minors, yes, absolutely, the current practice is not acceptable to me and I think is increasingly out of step with our cultural awareness of what is appropriate.   

So you agree that there are gradations in this sort of institutional criticism and analysis. However, are you at all interested in holding the LDS Church up to the standards of academic scholarship on organizational behavior?  Or is this just a by-gosh and by-golly determination?

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Thinking said:

This is irrelevant because in Mormonism there is no delayed gratification for homosexuals. Heterosexual members can look forward to marriage for gratification. Homosexuals have nothing to look forward to in Mormonism (unless you still believe that they will somehow be transformed into heterosexuals).

I didn't say anything about sexual needs or gratification, but was dealing with the larger principle of developing mature behavior, which covers a very broad range of kinds and types of gratification.  You are the only person I have ever encountered who thinks that learning such elementary lessons is irrelevant.  Certainly psychologists think that learning self-restraint is absolutely essential to developing a mature  and well-integrated personality -- without which happiness is unlikely.  This is true across the board, and has nothing to do with whether this or that religion or POV is superior to some other.

The notion that the purpose of marriage is to achieve sexual gratification is, of course, a shallow and doomed POV.  Moreover, the notion that the only purpose of Mormonism is to find sexual gratification in a marriage is also a rather sad commentary on sincere efforts to teach the Gospel of Jesus Christ -- which should be the primary motivating force in our lives.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, rongo said:

But all of this makes people feel bad by suggesting that they don't have self-control and should improve in it. How dare anyone do that in 2017!

Yeh, especially since the top dog in the WH has no restraint and is so successful.  

[Robert F. Smith]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

What I find sad is that it is not just families..there is a segregation peoples in their very own institution.  We need to understand and perhaps fix the very nature of things.

Does that  mean that we all need to go grad school and study Organizational Behavior?  

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Stargazer said:

FWIW, about 20 years ago the bishop in my last ward had one of those abbreviated windows installed in the door between the bishop's and the clerk's office. He did it on his own initiative, and at his own expense. Just to avoid possible problems in the future.  Any time he interviewed youth or women he would make sure to have someone in the clerk's office to monitor, and subsequent bishops did the same.

As i understand it, that is a general rule -- a bishop does not do interviews with youth or women without someone in the adjoining office.

[RevTestament]

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Is it always about exercising the sacred power of procreation?

Well, tbh I'm only 3 for 3 there - the rest of the time it has to be controlled... but still had spiritual fun controlling those powers.

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

So, sexual orientation is reduced to an addiction and bad habit, and asking people to remain celibate and avoid relationships with people of their own gender is no big deal if one has a little self-control. 

Somehow, I don’t think minimizing these issues is helpful to anyone. 

I thought rongo was being ironically sarcastic, but what do I know?  And I have always considered you to be far more sophisticated than that, Brother John.

However, I was discussing the larger issue of developing character through self-discipline, which does not necessarily entail any one tendency.  All of us have weaknesses of one type or another, and the strange belief that it all boils down to sexuality is rather silly.  Children who do not learn elementary lessons of self-control do not have a good prospect for success in any area of life.  That is the lesson which is learned from simply placing a cookie before a child and telling him that he can have that cookie now, or he can wait a few minutes and he will then have two cookies.  From that simple experiment, the character differentiation is stark, and can tell us who is more likely to be a victim of opioid overdose or other ill-considered behavior.  The same applies across the board -- doing homework instead of texting or sexting, taking out the garbage without grumbling, etc.

[Jeanne]

11 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Does that  mean that we all need to go grad school and study Organizational Behavior?  

No...but in church classrooms and in lessons...individuals can make gradual changes to their behavior.  Teaching inclusion as representative of the Savior would be a good thing..

[hope_for_things]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The murdering forger Mark Hofmann certainly agreed.  He said:

As you know, Jesus took a very different view, believing that self-sacrifice is a higher value.  So, do you believe that the LDS Church has jettisoned that higher value?  Does the research of Mike Quinn (and other scholars) demonstrate the correctness of your view?  Or are you just venting?

So you agree that there are gradations in this sort of institutional criticism and analysis. However, are you at all interested in holding the LDS Church up to the standards of academic scholarship on organizational behavior?  Or is this just a by-gosh and by-golly determination?

This is bad form on your part Robert, very low brow.  I’m not just venting, and I’m not using appeals to authority.  I’m sure you’re aware of scholars who’ve written about institutions looking out for their institutional interests.  I have no recollection which Mormon studies scholars have written on that subject, but I’m sure some have.  And I’m not sure what you mean by much of your second paragraph.  

I’m sharing my personal opinion, and that is all I’m doing.  I believe the LDS church has room from improvement on this subject, yes.