Bishops interview with minors

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Bishops are not the answer to everything...especially those..(Not all....!!)  that have talkative wives.  Don't mind me...I had a horrible experience and I was an adult!

This is true about wives.  I think that bishops who tell their wives things should be released.  And wives who think they need to know everything should be ashamed of themselves.

[Jeanne]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

This is true about wives.  I think that bishops who tell their wives things should be released.  And wives who think they need to know everything should be ashamed of themselves.

Thank you.  In a repentance process to get to the Temple, the wife knew...then some women in the RS.  After all of this...many times I was told that I was not raising my children right.  One can condemn me...but never put my children in that conversation.  Good kids both of them.  I did the best I could do.

[Bob Crockett]

15 minutes ago, Calm said:

Someone who is professionally trained not to overreact and further traumatize an individual if they have been a victim or turn healthy guilt and repentance into toxic shame.

Not saying this happens a lot with bishops, I have no clue.  I think the interview can be a healthy part of adult child relationships as well as adult-adult.  I do think it could be improved with more training and ensuring leaders aren't called who are overly dogmatic in how they handle such things.

From my decades of handling sex abuse cases for schools and churches I can say that pedophiles include "professionally trained" people as well as lay persons.  In fact, I would say that "professionally trained" school teachers and counselors are more likely to be pedophiles than a lawyer, accountant, plumber or general contractor because pedophiles are drawn to professions where they come into contact with children.  Probably in large part unconsciously so.  

[Bob Crockett]

50 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Not a chance. This is a system that would not be accepted in any other area of life. Not in school, or boy scouts, or sports etc. I'm not aware of any situation where a school counselor, teacher etc would be alone with a student behind closed doors with no windows. It doesn't happen. It's dangerous for the kids and also for the adults. There is simply too much risk. The system is the problem, not the intentions.

You're really naive or disingenuous.   It happens all the time.  I've been handling sex abuse cases for 25 years and talk about all the times teachers are alone with students in the normal course of their work.  Do you imagine that a therapist talking to a child patient would do so out in the school cafeteria?   Priests and pastors are often behind closed doors with the youth.  We had a pastor of a mega church in our town booted when it was found he was grooming his youth interviews for homosexual encounters and was having them. It just isn't the LDS church.

Edited December 12, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[bsjkki]

Here is a link to a podcast discussing this issue. I hate podcasts but I may listen to this one. This is the issue that made me not trust church leaders. My faith is a less naive now but still intact. http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/12/12/mormon-land-therapist-former-bishop-discuss-lds-worthiness-interviews-how-they-help-and-how-they-can-hurt/

[bluebell]

5 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Thank you.  In a repentance process to get to the Temple, the wife knew...then some women in the RS.  After all of this...many times I was told that I was not raising my children right.  One can condemn me...but never put my children in that conversation.  Good kids both of them.  I did the best I could do.

People need to learn to keep their mouths shut.  Women seem to struggle with this weakness more than men.

[stemelbow]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

This is true about wives.  I think that bishops who tell their wives things should be released.  And wives who think they need to know everything should be ashamed of themselves.

We had a sad experience in our ward some years ago about this too.  It went to the SP and he came to our ward the next sunday and scolded everyone for questioning the bishop saying that he knew the bishop was supposed to be our bishop so everyone better get on board.  It was actually a pretty sad experience that I don't want to expound on.  The bishop's wife said to everyone that he told her everything.  I didn't care of course, because all that we had in our interviews was him getting mad at me for being unorthodox, but I guess it really caused some problems for others.  I'm guessing when she said that he just sat back and chuckled because there were probably a number of things he didn't tell her, but was happy enough she thought that.  I did offer the suggestion that she should just be included in any interviews from then on though.  No one seemed to be on board with that.  

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I hear you on this...but if this is the case...why go to the Bishop?  Why not a school counselor or the police...family services...for those who do not have bishops ..this is what they should do...and they do.  My heart breaks for this girl because she must of thought a bishop was her only option...I hope not.

 

Perhaps the bishop was the one she trusted the most.

[Bob Crockett]

56 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I think depends on the Bishop involved.  Some are great at dealing with this and others not so much.  There could actually be better training regarding this part of their calling, IMO.  

Everything depends on variables; that kind of response yields no benefits.  All things considered and equal, I suppose you would bring one-on-one confessions in all churches to an end, and that any confessions should not discuss a child's sexual misbehavior or abuse, right? 

Lawyers like me advise children who have abused other children.  Should that kind of counseling and defense come to an end?

[HappyJackWagon]

23 minutes ago, Calm said:

Someone who is professionally trained not to overreact and further traumatize an individual if they have been a victim or turn healthy guilt and repentance into toxic shame.

Not saying this happens a lot with bishops, I have no clue.  I think the interview can be a healthy part of adult child relationships as well as adult-adult.  I do think it could be improved with more training and ensuring leaders aren't called who are overly dogmatic in how they handle such things.

I totally agree with the first sentence.

I totally disagree with the 2nd part. I find nothing healthy about creating an adult-child relationship in which the child confesses sexual sins. There is nothing healthy about a grown man asking a young girl about her mstrbation practices. The only training I received as a bishop was a Stake bishop's Council in which we were told we should be asking young men and girls the mstrbation questions. There is nothing healthy about that kind of conversation behind closed doors between youth and adults in which there is a clear power differential. It's absolutely terrible that this occurs but it will continue as long as youth are pulled in to interviews in which they are asked intimate questions and interrogated to the point of confession

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I hear you on this...but if this is the case...why go to the Bishop?  Why not a school counselor or the police...family services...for those who do not have bishops ..this is what they should do...and they do.  My heart breaks for this girl because she must of thought a bishop was her only option...I hope not.

Bishops are not the answer to everything...especially those..(Not all....!!)  that have talkative wives.  Don't mind me...I had a horrible experience and I was an adult!

This girl was shy. She trusted and knew the bishop. I doubt she had similar trust in her teachers or a school counselor she had probably never met before.

That bishop still feels he let her down.

Bishops May not be the ideal. One thing I learned early in volunteering is that I am not the ideal. But I am better than no volunteer and no volunteer is what they would have without me.

[ALarson]

19 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

You're really naive or disingenuous. 

I serve in a Bishopric and yet I'm quickly coming to the opinion that no sexual discussions should take place with an adult male while being behind closed doors alone with a youth.  I know there are circumstances where this can be a positive in the lives of those involved, but I'm to the point where I feel there are other ways to resolve sin.  You can disagree....but don't accuse others of what you just did above.

Edited December 12, 2017 by ALarson

[ksfisher]

3 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm neither.  I serve in a Bishopric and yet I'm quickly coming to the opinion that no sexual discussions should take place with an adult male while being behind closed doors alone with a youth.  I know there are circumstances where this can be a positive in the lives of those involved, but I'm to the point where I feel there are other ways to resolve sin.  You can disagree....but don't accuse me of what you just did above.

How do you suggest the church handle serious sin other than through priesthood leaders? 

[HappyJackWagon]

8 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

You're really naive or disingenuous.   It happens all the time.  I've been handling sex abuse cases for 25 years and talk about all the times teachers are alone with students in the normal course of their work.  Do you imagine that a therapist talking to a child patient would do so out in the school cafeteria?   Priests and pastors are often behind closed doors with the youth.  We had a pastor of a mega church in our town booted when it was found he was grooming his youth interviews for homosexual encounters and was having them. It just isn't the LDS church.

sigh.

Did I ever say this was only a problem in the LDS church? No. But from where I'm sitting right now it's only those in the LDS church I hear defending the practice of having adult men sitting alone with youth behind closed doors, without windows, asking sexual questions. You mentioned grooming. Very appropriate. Even if the leader isn't intending to groom a young person, it could be interpreted that way. It is a danger first and foremost for the youth, but also for the leader who may have his honest intentions questioned. If the school did this, there would be law suits. I don't believe for a second that any legit school counselor will sit alone with a student behind closed doors, no window, and ask sxual questions. I'm being neither naïve nor disingenuous in stating that. I have a hard time believing an attorney would defend such a reckless practice. But I don't think you're naïve and disingenuous, just stuck in a mindset that has been abandoned by society 20+ years ago.

AGAIN- as I've stated previously, there is a problem with the system in which youth are systematically called in to discuss these things. These youth aren't approaching the bishop to confess a sin. They're going in for a birthday interview or priesthood advancement or temple recommend interview. Then the leaders asks sxual questions. The church will face a reckoning one day for this practice but you'll be able to fondly remember the way you defended the foolish practice. Start the countdown clock.

[HappyJackWagon]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

How do you suggest the church handle serious sin other than through priesthood leaders? 

Members should be taught how to confess to God and seek forgiveness through repentance. The end.

[bsjkki]

From the podcast, "The antidote to shame is empathy."

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

How do you suggest the church handle serious sin other than through priesthood leaders? 

I'm not sure I'm convinced that most sin can't be taken care of between them and the Lord (or their parents if they feel comfortable talking to them).  I'm talking masturbation, etc...and even other sexual sin.....I don't feel these should be discussed with young girls and young boys with an adult male when they are alone behind closed doors.  With all that's now happening with sexual accusations and abuse, I feel this is a good thing to avoid out of protection for the adult as well.  

Edited December 12, 2017 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm neither.  I serve in a Bishopric and yet I'm quickly coming to the opinion that no sexual discussions should take place with an adult male while being behind closed doors alone with a youth.  I know there are circumstances where this can be a positive in the lives of those involved, but I'm to the point where I feel there are other ways to resolve sin.  You can disagree....but don't accuse me of what you just did above.

I completely agree.  The risks by far outweigh any perceived benefit.  The perceived benefit is derived from a theological construct that certain types of sin must have ecclesiastical confession in order for someone to be forgiven by God.  This is a construct that ought to be flexible as the our restoration theology is flexible. 

I think the idea that a trusted and wise church leader may have good advice and that God may be able to work through a leader to bless the lives of individuals is a potentially fruitful concept, but as soon as it crossed the line from voluntary inspiration into a requirement for forgiveness, that is when this concept turned from one with good fruit into a negative power dynamic with bad fruit.  This is one tradition that we need to kick to the curb.  

[bsjkki]

From the podcast...Bishops with a "look of disgust" as people repent...perceived or factual-damages the repentance process. Bishops can add to people's loads as they are trying to do better. (summary) This Bishop posted love for his gay ward members on facebook. Other congregants felt that, if he can show love to lgbtq people publicly, then more kids felt they could talk to him about anything because they felt they could trust him. Often sexual sin was the only way some of the girls knew how to feel loved. There was no prescribed way to repent and  things to do. Must be thoughtful that often there is more going on with sexual sins. No "fix sin" guidelines. 

Edited December 12, 2017 by bsjkki

[MiserereNobis]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

Plus, there are many circumstances in which children are one-on-one with adults, and it would be ludicrous to eliminate these:  school counselor, teacher, sport coach, etc.

I'm a teacher and my one-on-one interactions with students are very different than a confessional situation. I have large windows in my classroom, I always have the door open (for my protection), and I don't ask them personal questions, especially about sex.

Your comparison of religious interviews/confessions to student-teacher interactions doesn't work.

[hope_for_things]

14 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

How do you suggest the church handle serious sin other than through priesthood leaders? 

The church doesn't need to handle serious sin, the individuals do.  The only thing the church ought to police when it comes to sin is when individuals are a danger to children or members in general because of their past behavior, the church has a responsibility to protect its members from dangerous individuals.  

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, Bob Crockett said:

I think this is a situation where we must stand up for the Church and its penitential system and defend it against political correctness. 

 

There are certain strains of ex/anti-Mormons that take exception not just to the idea of a Bishop conducting a worthiness interview with a teenager, but to the very idea that the teenager could be "unworthy" in any way that would need to be discussed with a Bishop (and by extension, with the idea that there is a God who has standards that need to be discussed with a Bishop as well).

Already, some people are marketing their outrage with the insistence that Bishops are "interrogating" seven-year-olds about masturbation before they get baptised, even though there is a dearth of even anecdotal evidence backing it up (their outrage seems based on the idea that it could happen.)

So to your point, this isn't a battle the Church can win just by putting windows in some doors or softening the language in the worthiness interviews.  As long as a teenage boy or girl is made to feel that she can in any way "sin" by breaking the Law of Chastity and that she needs to "repent" by talking to a Bishop, umbrage will be taken and petitions will be signed.

That being said, if even a fraction of the "horror stories" being told about overly detailed Bishop's interviews regarding immorality are true, then the Church would do well to do some training on the proper scope and detail of such discussions.

 

Edited December 12, 2017 by cinepro

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, hope_for_things said:

The church doesn't need to handle serious sin, the individuals do.  The only thing the church ought to police when it comes to sin is when individuals are a danger to children or members in general because of their past behavior, the church has a responsibility to protect its members from dangerous individuals.  

So if members aren't going to a bishop to confess a serious sin, as you and others are suggesting, how would a bishop know when a member was a danger to others? 

 

The best suggestion, in my mind, would be that we stick with the Lord's program as he's revealed it through his prophets. 

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

So if members aren't going to a bishop to confess a serious sin, as you and others are suggesting, how would a bishop know when a member was a danger to others?  

Do you think members confess that they are the ones who are a danger to others?  

There's a difference between a child or youth going to their Bishop (or another adult) to ask for help because they are being abused and a Bishop asking the youth sexual questions about their own personal life.

[stemelbow]

13 minutes ago, cinepro said:

There are certain strains of ex/anti-Mormons that take exception not just to the idea of a Bishop conducting a worthiness interview with a teenager, but to the very idea that the teenager could be "unworthy" in any way that would need to be discussed with a Bishop (and by extension, with the idea that there is a God who has standards that need to be discussed with a Bishop as well).

 

Yeah I guess so.  How do you define need?  I'd wonder about that since most of humanity doesn't have an LDS bishop in his or her life and many have likely sinned to the extent that an average Mormon would say "needs" to be confessed to an LDS bishop.  But that fact leads me to wonder why we speak with such desperation with this stuff.  What need?  People get along fine without having to tell a man who claims authority over them that he/she touched a body part.  There are also communities and people who perhaps do fairly well in keeping their kids from acting like jack rabbits without having their kids feel the "need" to tell a superior the bad things he/she did.  

In other words, there's a point to consider from these "ex/anti-momons"

Edited December 12, 2017 by stemelbow