Bishops interview with minors

[Jeanne]

45 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

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.

Thank  you for your reply.  I do empathize for this girl and  her situation...for sure!  For all  the sad/bad stories of bishops...I believe that most are doing their very best. 

[ksfisher]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

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

 

Yes, there are some who do. 

[hope_for_things]

15 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? 

 

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

Bishops would be responsible to pay attention to the activities of its members, but putting policies and controls in place to protect people from dangerous situations.  Just like other organizations, like the scouts and the rules around two deep leadership and other things that help protect individuals.  Bishops would also need to know if individuals have been convicted of any crimes and would need to keep track of those individuals and keep them out of positions that would be dangerous.  Just like other organizations do. 

This really isn't rocket science.  You think an abusive person will honestly confess their abuse to a bishop anyway?  I'm not sure how you think the current practice of interviewing is helping to protect people from dangerous individuals.  

BTW, the "Lord's program" in your eyes is the current program.  In my eyes, the "Lord's program" is very different.  Lets talk about actual ideas, and not get into the kindergarten sand box kind of conversation that things often devolve into, my Dad is tougher than your Dad kind of back and forth.  

 

[Storm Rider]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Anytime a third party is present in a conversation it changes the nature of the conversation. 

When a 3rd person is involved it is no longer an interview, but a conversation.  The individual being interviewed is no longer the object of ministering by the bishop.  It becomes a discussion about topics that have already been cleared with the parent. 

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, ksfisher said:

Yes, there are some who do. 

Rarely does an adult come in and state: "I'm abusing a child."  I'm not saying it's never happened, but not in my experience.

We've had two cases of child abuse in our ward since I began serving and the adult accused of the abuse denied it and denied it until physical evidence was presented.  The child is the one who reached out for help in both cases, not the person inflicting the abuse.

Even if it does rarely happen, I don't believe that has much sway regarding the opinions on this topic (mine included).  

[Jane_Doe]

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.  

[Storm Rider]

2 hours 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. 

The law presumes that confessions (where a religion has them) are one-on-one, and that children may be penitents. 

Confessions have to be in private and have to be one-on-one; otherwise, the laws of almost all states would hold that the confession is not privileged and thus must be divulged to a parent or law enforcement or civil litigation.   If I have my Catholic doctrine correct, it is a mortal sin for a priest to divulge a confession.    Confessions should not be denied minors merely because of political agitation which is really just a part of a broad attack on the church by nonbelievers who would never be confessing anything, anyways.  For critics to demand that children not be subject to discussion of sexual misbehavior is to deny them a sacral rite.   School counselors and psychiatrists and other therapists, doctors, nurses and law enforcement officers talk to minors one on one about sexual matters -- why demand that a church cleric not?

Thus, a confession with somebody listening in, with a parent, with a sibling or a spouse, is not a confession under the law.  Could be under the church's rules, but the bishop and the penitent lose all sorts of legal protections.  

Many other faiths have penitential relations like ours.  I represent or have represented four major world faiths in my legal practice, and three of them have one-on-one penitential confessions.  The number of congregants in these other three religions are probably 100 times the size of the LDS church numbers.  

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.

Certainly, there is potential for abuse when there is an adult one-on-one with a child talking about sexual sins or sexual abuse.  But who better to deal with this than an LDS bishop?  As a lawyer, I've advised parents and children about sexual abuse and how to deal with it.  What makes me better than a bishop?  Should a child be prevented from speaking with a lawyer privately about sexual abuse?

In one of the most sexually permissive cultures in the history of the world we are now to understand that children have a sexual tabula rasa when it comes to church interviews and are in desperate need of protection from a "well meaning" parent or guardian. 

My PC gills are being deluged by this new gross exaggeration of what is and what is not appropriate.  The last time I read any information on sexual abuse it was parents and other family members that are far more likely to abuse a child rather than an ecclesiastical authority.  Who is protecting the child from these parents?  Exactly who does the child turn to when the abuser is sitting in front of them as they talk with their bishop? 

This life is turning into a farce of the highest order.

[stemelbow]

As I see it, and perhaps you can all call me crazy, but parents have far more responsibility for a kid and his/her mistakes and actions then some randomly called dude who may or may not live near you, but is called to lead your church group.  I'm confused why people think it best for the kid to tell a bishop he/she sinned then it is to tell a parent.  I mean it's fun to keep secrets from your parents I guess.  Some parent/child relationships, I suppose, don't really work well with openness.  But I'd rather encourage parents to get to know their kids and accept them for who they are and love them rather than have them go tell a bishop he/she sinned.  

[rongo]

1 minute ago, 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.  

It's also fine for a bishop to refuse to interview a youth if the parents insist that they be present. This has never happened to me, but if a parent did insist on this, I would (trying to make it as non-awkward as possible for all involved) inform them that there wouldn't be any youth interviews for their children. A chaperoned interview is not an interview at all, and I wouldn't be a party to pretending that it is. This would mean no temple recommends for the children, but that's the choice the parents make by insisting on that. 

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's also fine for a bishop to refuse to interview a youth if the parents insist that they be present. This has never happened to me, but if a parent did insist on this, I would (trying to make it as non-awkward as possible for all involved) inform them that there wouldn't be any youth interviews for their children. A chaperoned interview is not an interview at all, and I wouldn't be a party to pretending that it is. This would mean no temple recommends for the children, but that's the choice the parents make by insisting on that. 

This kind of stubborn position would drive people like me away from attendance.  I made it clear with my last bishop that interviews with my kids would all include myself or my wife, and that it was non-negotiable.  If you were my leader you would lose my activity over this one stubborn position, which is really sad.  

[ALarson]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's also fine for a bishop to refuse to interview a youth if the parents insist that they be present. This has never happened to me, but if a parent did insist on this, I would (trying to make it as non-awkward as possible for all involved) inform them that there wouldn't be any youth interviews for their children. A chaperoned interview is not an interview at all, and I wouldn't be a party to pretending that it is. This would mean no temple recommends for the children, but that's the choice the parents make by insisting on that. 

So, you'd punish the child and have them excluded from temple baptisms.  I can't tell you how much I disagree with handling it in that manner.

 

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

This kind of stubborn position would drive people like me away from attendance.  I made it clear with my last bishop that interviews with my kids would all include myself or my wife, and that it was non-negotiable.  If you were my leader you would lose my activity over this one stubborn position, which is really sad.  

Take it or leave it.  

Just how active are you now, hope?

The thing is, parents aren't the only ones who can give out ultimatums. And where the gatekeeping to the temple is concerned, it isn't the parents who say whether or not their kids get to go. Effectively preventing an interview is effectively preventing access to the temple. 

[CV75]

3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

So if you were going to rewrite the rules on Worthiness interviews with minors...what changes would you make?

I wouldn't presume that this isn't happening, and it isn't a "rule," but bishops do have monthly training where this topic can be discussed in a council setting where they receive instruction but can also share experiences, questions and challenges, and hard-learned lessons. I would suggest that take place where it might not be happening.

As important as getting to the facts of a situation is, in order to properly understand from the point of view of the person needing counsel, sometimes faith is needed more than than facts.

Edited December 12, 2017 by CV75

[rongo]

1 minute ago, ALarson said:

So, you'd punish the child and have them excluded from temple baptisms.  I can't tell you how much I disagree with handling it in that manner.

They don't get to go through a real interview. Youth confess things all the time that makes them unable to go to the temple, and then we work on getting them ready and able to. 

They will not be resolving any of these things with their parents there. 

"Punishing the children" sounds like the complaints with the November 2015 policy . . .

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's also fine for a bishop to refuse to interview a youth if the parents insist that they be present. This has never happened to me, but if a parent did insist on this, I would (trying to make it as non-awkward as possible for all involved) inform them that there wouldn't be any youth interviews for their children. A chaperoned interview is not an interview at all, and I wouldn't be a party to pretending that it is. This would mean no temple recommends for the children, but that's the choice the parents make by insisting on that. 

I'm not sure why you would assume that a chaperoned interview isn't an interview?  

My 15 year old, for example, has always told me about things before he went in and confessed them to his bishop (seeking guidance, mostly) and would be as honest in an interview if i were present as he would be if i weren't.  I know that not all kids would be, but why automatically assume that an interview would have no worth if the parent was present?

To say nothing of the other purposes of an interview, which are also to get to know the youth better, and could be done just as well with a parent present.

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, 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.  

I'm sincerely sorry for what you went through, Jane.  I'm glad you survived and are here to express your views.

But, I haven't seen anyone whining here.  It's an open discussion which means people can share opinions and disagree.

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

They will not be resolving any of these things with their parents there. 

You don't know that though, do you?

[ALarson]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

They don't get to go through a real interview. .

Meaning one where you ask them questions regarding sex and other personal questions?  Or do you just wait and see if they bring it up?

(Just trying to know what you mean by a "real interview").  What questions could you not ask in front of the parents that you'd ask if they weren't there?

[ksfisher]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

Take it or leave it.  

Just how active are you now, hope?

The thing is, parents aren't the only ones who can give out ultimatums. And where the gatekeeping to the temple is concerned, it isn't the parents who say whether or not their kids get to go. Effectively preventing an interview is effectively preventing access to the temple. 

I would feel very loathe to conduct a temple recommend interview (even limited) with a third party present. 

[Jane_Doe]

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

It's also fine for a bishop to refuse to interview a youth if the parents insist that they be present. This has never happened to me, but if a parent did insist on this, I would (trying to make it as non-awkward as possible for all involved) inform them that there wouldn't be any youth interviews for their children. A chaperoned interview is not an interview at all, and I wouldn't be a party to pretending that it is. This would mean no temple recommends for the children, but that's the choice the parents make by insisting on that. 

That's perfectly ok.  

You remind me of another reason this conversation irritates me: "A [must be] chaperoned interview is not an interview at all" (you said it nearly perfectly- this ties back into my earlier point about a person having the right to have a private conversation).   For example, what if that young person has been in a bad situation (voluntary or not) and really doesn't want to talk about it with their parents around -- heck, it is possible a parent is a sexual abuser themselves.    Another possible location for a parent is the hallway right outside (which is even suggested in official church materials).

Or, moving beyond the topic of sex: what if that young person doesn't have a testimony that matches their parent's pre-determined script?  Having a script-giving parent in the room stifles any possibilities of that person saying something.    (Obviously not all parents are script-givers, but some are).

Edited December 12, 2017 by Jane_Doe

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

I'm sincerely sorry for what you went through, Jane.  I'm glad you survived and are here to express your views.

But, I haven't seen anyone whining here.  It's an open discussion which means people can share opinions and disagree.

I was talking in general.  This isn't the first time this conversation has been had.

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

Take it or leave it.  

Just how active are you now, hope?

The thing is, parents aren't the only ones who can give out ultimatums. And where the gatekeeping to the temple is concerned, it isn't the parents who say whether or not their kids get to go. Effectively preventing an interview is effectively preventing access to the temple. 

I'm semi-active right now, but I was more active earlier this year, its fluid, but I'm not sure why that matters unless you want to dismiss my opinion based on my activity level.  

The point is that my position was respected by my last two bishops, and I think should be respected by any leaders.  Parents are responsible for their kids.  If you were my bishop and you put your foot down on an issue like this, I would talk to the stake president next and if he didn't give me the approval I would take it up to the Area authority.  And if that didn't help, I would make a public stink about it.  This kind of idea that a bishop can make an ultimatum because they have a personal theological interpretation that they are the gatekeeper of my kids worthiness is quite infuriating to me, and I personally believe it is in violation of D&C 121. 

I wouldn't take it sitting down, I can tell you that much.  

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

You don't know that though, do you?

And you don't *know* that it would, either, do you? Including how your son would or would not react and act if you were present. I believe you that he has shared how interviews have gone, but you weren't there with him. It's like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for ecclesiastical interviews. You can't say, "See? I was there and the interview went well," because . . . you were there. You have no way of knowing if or how the interview would have been different if you weren't there. 

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Meaning one where you ask them questions regarding sex and other personal questions?  Or do you just wait and see if they bring it up?

(Just trying to know what you mean by a "real interview").  What questions could you not ask in front of the parents that you'd ask if they weren't there?

I am not voyeuristic or prurient in my interviews. Almost always, when it comes up, it is brought up by the youth (boys and girls) when they have questions or want to get something off of their chest. 

I ask them to explain what the LoC means, and go from there. Some have no clue, others have a good grasp. I actually have tried in both wards to get the parents to teach their kids about this so I don't have to. It is really the parents' job, not the bishop's, unless they haven't done theirs. If I need to teach about it, I use the FtSoY pamphlet, which words it very well and gets the idea across without being overly descriptive. 

I can't emphasize enough that the in-depth discussions are initiated by youth, and they would not have initiated this with their parents present. 

[hope_for_things]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

And you don't *know* that it would, either, do you? Including how your son would or would not react and act if you were present. I believe you that he has shared how interviews have gone, but you weren't there with him. It's like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle for ecclesiastical interviews. You can't say, "See? I was there and the interview went well," because . . . you were there. You have no way of knowing if or how the interview would have been different if you weren't there. 

Rongo, 

Let me say that I appreciate the honesty with you telling us how you would handle things.  Can I also say that this kind of perspective that you're articulating here is so counter to my current beliefs that it is causing me serious frustration.  I believe this idea that church leaders have some kind of special authority that people have to jump through certain hoops to gain access to God in a temple I believe is so contrary to the gospel of Jesus that it brings me great sadness and frustration. 

I'm very dismayed at these comments because they are confirming what I think is one of the worst parts of Mormonism.  This is making me think twice about how I'm trying to negotiate my relationship with the church, and no matter how much I try to focus on the good of the church, that there is this looming bad that overshadows any good.  I'm very saddened right now....