Bishops interview with minors

[bluebell]

2 minutes 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. 

He’s shared with me what he was going to say before the interview (I don’t go to interviews with my kids), but that’s not really my point. 

My point is that you are assuming that the youth’s answers to the interview question will not be honest, before the interview has even begun. 

Are bishops allowed to do that? Are they allowed to say that someone isn’t worthy to go to temple even if they answer all the questions the correct way and the bishop has no evidence to the contrary?

 

[rongo]

5 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

Not that I want to dismiss your opinion, but my sense from your posting is that you aren't active. Which is why I thought your hypothetical threat to go inactive over this was . . . odd to me. 

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.

I can tell you how that would go. Salt Lake would side with the bishop. The counsel that comes back when complaints go up the chain of command is almost always "what your bishop said" (unless there is egregious malpractice or malfeasance).

And if that didn't help, I would make a public stink about it.

Oh, boy. 

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. 

Well, if I were ordered to hold chaperoned interviews, I would asked to be released. To me, they aren't interviews, and they make a mockery of what the interviews are intended and designed for. Those agitating against them, if pressed, are really of the mind that people should get to decide for themselves whether they can go to the temple or not.

[rongo]

7 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

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. 

You don't really believe that church leaders have any special authority at all, do you? Just man-made?

And, as I'm sure you know, that is precisely how the Church and Church belief is structured ("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"). Why even go through the charade of any interview at all, then (chaperoned or solo)? 

Edited December 12, 2017 by rongo

[rongo]

10 minutes ago, bluebell said:

He’s shared with me what he was going to say before the interview (I don’t go to interviews with my kids), but that’s not really my point. 

Wait. He tells you how he is going to answer the TR questions before he goes into his interviews? I find that hard to believe. (that you quiz him on it, or have him give you a pre-interview update).

Quote

My point is that you are assuming that the youth’s answers to the interview question will not be honest, before the interview has even begun.

No, I'm assuming that how youth answer questions and how they explain things is likely (for most youth, anyway) going to be different (quite different) when it's just them and the bishop vs. when a parent is present.

Quote

Are bishops allowed to do that? Are they allowed to say that someone isn’t worthy to go to temple even if they answer all the questions the correct way and the bishop has no evidence to the contrary?

I don't understand. If they answer all of the questions correctly in their interview with the bishop, then they have nothing to worry about, right? Why would the bishop say, "Yes, but . . . ?" if the questions were answered correctly?

Edited December 12, 2017 by rongo

[hope_for_things]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

Not that I want to dismiss your opinion, but my sense from your posting is that you aren't active. Which is why I thought your hypothetical threat to go inactive over this was . . . odd to me. 

I still question your desire to know my activity level, that is a red flag to me that you are being dismissive, which is also sad.  And for clarification sake, less active for me personally, active for other immediate family members.  And less active is different than inactive.  

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

I can tell you how that would go. Salt Lake would side with the bishop. The counsel that comes back when complaints go up the chain of command is almost always "what your bishop said" (unless there is egregious malpractice or malfeasance).

You can't tell me how Salt Lake would come down because you don't know, that's just your opinion based on anecdotal experience.  But if you are right, this would be very sad.  I know of people who've talked to their Stake President on different issues where the Bishop was overridden and it wasn't egregious malpractice.  People are people, and different leaders will handle situations differently.  

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

Well, if I were ordered to hold chaperoned interviews, I would asked to be released. To me, they aren't interviews, and they make a mockery of what the interviews are intended and designed for. Those agitating against them, if pressed, are really of the mind that people should get to decide for themselves whether they can go to the temple or not.

If I were your leader, then I would council you to handle this differently, and if you didn't I would seriously consider releasing you over this issue.

BTW, I do think people should decide for themselves whether they should go to the temple.  That is the most Christlike way of handling temple admittance in my opinion.  

Edited December 12, 2017 by hope_for_things

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, rongo said:

You don't really believe that church leaders have any special authority at all, do you? Just man-made?

I honestly don't know if I believe God has much to do with the authority business, but I don't want to get into a full theological discussion about what authority is or the history around the Mormon concept of authority or the Christian concept of authority, there are so many different elements to consider and its a complex discussion for another time.  Suffice it to say that my perspective is likely different than yours on this topic.  I do believe leaders can be inspired to help individuals through their respective callings.  

[ALarson]

28 minutes ago, rongo said:

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. 

You do not know that's true as a good discussion could happen with the parents there as well.  Have you ever conducted an interview with the parents included (there are group interviews....).  Why can't you ask the youth about the LofC with their parents there and discuss it?

My Bishop has had several group interviews with the parents sitting next to their child and he reports them as being very positive experiences.  I think you underestimate how open some parents are with their kids these days regarding sex.  Much more so than in the past.  My Bishop feels having the parents there has had the result of even opening up more communication between the youth and their parents.

That should be the goal anyway,  IMO.  Kids should feel they can go to their parents rather than feeling they have to confess or discuss sexual topics with another adult.  

Edited December 12, 2017 by ALarson

[hope_for_things]

21 minutes ago, rongo said:

And, as I'm sure you know, that is precisely how the Church and Church belief is structured ("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"). Why even go through the charade of any interview at all, then (chaperoned or solo)? 

If you're suggesting that the interviews should be either greatly pared back or eliminated entirely, I agree.  The current interview tradition is not supported in the scriptures anywhere, its not central to the gospel message (it actually conflicts with principles) and it has so many risks for coerciveness, not to mention all the problems with closed door interviews with youth.  I think it also contributes to leaders being prideful, and that is a negative for anyone in a leadership position.  Its bad all the way around.  

[ALarson]

23 minutes ago, rongo said:

Wait. He tells you how he is going to answer the TR questions before he goes into his interviews? I find that hard to believe. (that you quiz him on it, or have him give you a pre-interview update).

Why would you not expect that type of open communication between a Mother and her son?  (And....She did not say that she quizzed him....)

It's great that they have such a good relationship, IMO.

Edited December 12, 2017 by ALarson

[sdc9999]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Maybe I am biased because of personal experience. I know of one case where a tween wanted an interview with the Bishop and asked herself. The parent found out and insisted on being in the interview when the child did not want the parent present.

Later it came out there was abuse and the poor kid wanted help. Statistically the parent is more likely to be an abuser than the Bishop. If someone else has to be there the parent is not necessarily the best person.

Edit: I also volunteer in CPS cases. Parents who are afraid of their children talking to others make my blood boil more than it used to because in that context it is usually done to cover up nefarious deeds..

I serve on the board of a CASA and CAC.  I disagree with your statement on parents to a degree.  Afraid or protective?    Some might not distinguish between the two.     Being involved in CPS, I'm sure you are also aware of the "forced" cooperation with an adult and the dangers thereof.   "Oh, that's Uncle Bob, give him a hug and a kiss."   This often leads to a false sense of trust under any circumstance and the child's feelings or intuition are thus, nullified.  Or in other words, if something is not 'right', the child can then falsely believe that they are the ones who are wrong for questioning.    And they usually don't say anything to anyone.    Someone earlier mentioned that 'one on one's' are done with police, Dr's, etc.   Well,  olympic girls are coming out now (several) saying they were abused.   They surely didn't say it years ago during the act.  Why?  The Dr. was the trusted one. Now back to the bishop interviews and your statement.  These kids aren't carrying on a casual conversation.  They are told they "MUST" sit with a man and they "MUST" do it behind a closed door without any windows or witnesses.   As another involved with kids in the capacity that I am, I'm more concerned with parents that tell a child they "MUST" go be secluded with an adult.  I'm sure that bishop interviews are treated more as a mandate than an option within the church for active kids.   

[Bob Crockett]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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.

A condescending sigh to counter my condescending charge of naivete.    Confessions in any faith are often not -- I want to come in and confess.  They usually involve a pastor or priest asking questions.  

And, really, what is intrinsically wrong with a bishop reminding kids in one-on-one systematic interviews to resist the wiles of Satan and confess when they have strayed?  I mean, these are scriptural principles at stake here. 

I've seen sexual assault at a fairly close range.  When I was an 8th grader three boys (I wasn't one of them) were asked by a science teacher to help set up a new darkroom after the school got funding for one.  The three asked me to join the group.  I was the fourth.  The married male science teacher, quite popular, would then chase my buddies around the darkroom when he was one-on-one with them to try and get in their pants.  I wasn't there as much so it didn't happen to me, but we retaliated by openly mocking and ridiculing the teacher during class.  He was afraid to do anything about.  That is the way we handled it, good or bad.  But it was easy to see how easy it is for a trusted and educated person who works with children to be an abuser.  

Edited December 12, 2017 by Bob Crockett

[Calm]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

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

When I say "interview", I am not suggesting an equivalence with "confession".

I don't believe sexual questions should be standard; if sexuality is brought up by the child, the leader should be most concerned with creating a safe place to speak openly without the leader leading the conversation, but the child.  The leader should be concerned with finding out what the child believes they need to be helped, not imposing his own ideas on the child, though gentle teaching of principles can and should take place at times, especially forgiveness.  

With adults, I don't think there is an issue with asking a generic 'do you abide by your covenant to live the Law of Chastity'.  After that, if a problem is expressed, the adult should be the leader in terms of how detailed and teaching should focus on seeking the Spirit for personal guidance.  If the adult gets into particulars, that could be a red flag for an obsession and it would not be a bad idea for a leader to ensure there is safe 'distance' not only to ensure his own safety from accusations, but to avoid reinforcing the obsession unknowingly.

Better training and resources would be helpful, in my opiniôn.

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

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.  

I agree with that. There was this guy and his wife and 2 kids who joined the Church here , maybe 1995 ? and probably within 2-3 he was in the bishopric. Crazy for him though, the ward split sometime thereafter and the new Bishop was basically inactive while serving, he'd do everything for sacrament mtg and then he'd go home and that was pretty much all he did as a Bishop. So, the other counsellour was also a new convert and these two had to run the show and how they kept it together I have no idea. But they didn't know much about the doctrine, had no real experience in the Church but were thrust into those callings. The first guy's wife was friends with my Mum and she said they didn't pay any tithing so when he interviewed my Mum and asked about that she was like yeah but you know..........do you?! Anyways, he was a SMOOTH slick kind of guy and he cheated on his wife and who knows where that guy is now, but he isn't active if he lives here.

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Why would a child confessing a sin or discussing their spiritual state with a leader want their parent there?

Seriously Nehor, why would you want them confessing to a stranger? Why not confess straight to God instead of a middle man? I've read story after story of youth being asked about masturbation and how awful they feel about themselves, or if they've never heard of the word then something gets started that way.

Also, I read a Mormon Wiki leak today that was in 1981 about Homosexuals that was put out by the church. You could go read yourself, and see that the church wanted leaders to probe about masturbation, because they believe that masturbating could lead to homosexuality! 

There are so many risks with having men ask youth sexual questions, so many stories out there about leaders asking exactly what the youth did sexually. And many don't even know what some of the word means to begin with. They may have touched themselves once or twice and feel like they've committed a terrible sin. 

I've read a story about a bishop that abused a young girl and had her confess what she did to her body and then had her show him where and that led to a few years of abuse during the interviews. 

Why risk any of this, have you seen "Spotlight"? We are in that category with the amount of sexual abuse going on with clergy behind closed doors. Have you read how many leaders in the church have abused the youth? Is it worth it? A lot of it could lead to their committing suicide also. 

Edited December 13, 2017 by Tacenda

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I like this..maybe different questions for different personalities...it would be nice to just be better acquainted and be friends.  A trust can be made..if there are specific necessary questions, I believe parents should be aware and attend if they want.

Edited to add:  Having left the church, I do have a different perspective on the whole thing...children of all ages should go to parents with questions/problems...and then kneel to God.  In any home, I think it would be great to have the year interview with Mom and Dad.  Build a good relationship and work with prayer, forgiveness...and the atonement.

Agree 100%!

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

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.  

Which has little to do with how training can be helpful in safely dealing with sensitive issues if sensitivity does not come naturally to a person.

When I said " professionally trained", I meant trained by professionals, not necessarily a professional in the field of counseling.

Though the best bishop I ever had for interviews was a medical doctor.  He was a nice and very intelligent person, but also had a great knack for putting people at ease and being at ease himself with difficult subjects.  Few things are going to shut me up quicker than someone oozing awkwardness and discomfort in a conversation.  I find tha that children and youth I know are generally hyperaware of adults' reactions when feeling uncomfortable themselves.  Adults seem to vary more, don't always take their cues from the other for how the interaction should go.

[Tacenda]

3 hours 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!

I know too often when a child tells of abuse at home, the bishop doesn't call law enforcement, so what good is that? A child should probably tell someone else. I've even heard that the bishop has turned onto the child themselves as if they were to blame. Or didn't do anything to the parent and let them off the hook.

[Calm]

26 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Also, I read a Mormon Wiki leak today that was in 1981 about Homosexuals that was put out by the church. You could go read yourself, and see that the church wanted leaders to probe about masturbation, because they believe that masturbating could lead to homosexuality...

Why risk any of this, have you seen "Spotlight"? We are in that category with the amount of sexual abuse going on with clergy behind closed doors. Have you read how many leaders in the church have abused the youth? Is it worth it? A lot of it could lead to their committing suicide also. 

1981 is not 2017

Do you want to be judge by what you did 4 years ago, let alone 40? Or by how you act today?

"We are in that category with the amount of sexual abuse going on with clergy behind closed doors."

You have the stats to support this?

Edited December 13, 2017 by Calm

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Wait. He tells you how he is going to answer the TR questions before he goes into his interviews? I find that hard to believe. (that you quiz him on it, or have him give you a pre-interview update).

No, i'm talking about times when he has gone in to confess something.  He has always confessed to me and talked things over with me before going to the bishop (not at my insistence but on his own accord).  I'm saying that some kids would not change their interview answers regardless of who was present and that it doesn't seem right to assume that they will with no evidence to support that accusation against them.

Quote

No, I'm assuming that how youth answer questions and how they explain things is likely (for most youth, anyway) going to be different (quite different) when it's just them and the bishop vs. when a parent is present.

I don't think that it's right for you to assume something like that.  It actually seems kind of unethical for a bishop to assume that about all the youth in his ward.

Quote

I don't understand. If they answer all of the questions correctly in their interview with the bishop, then they have nothing to worry about, right? Why would the bishop say, "Yes, but . . . ?" if the questions were answered correctly?

By refusing to interview youth if their parents are present, you are essentially saying that the answers to the questions (in such an interview) are not truthful and that's why the youth can't have a temple recommend interview.  

[Calm]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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. 

 

Much abuse occurs in the home where no such safeguards would have an impact.

Many abusers seek out help from trusted others to stop.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Calm

[sdc9999]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

By refusing to interview youth if their parents are present, you are essentially saying that the answers to the questions (in such an interview) are not truthful and that's why the youth can't have a temple recommend interview.  

So, I guess discernment plays no part with him as a bishop if this is how he really feels.

[Calm]

3 hours 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. 

In every condition?

My daughter would never be able to have an interview with a leader under that condition because of severe social anxiety.  Which means she would have been excluded from an activity which would have been very helpful moving her towards being in a state of mind where she could have a one on one discussion with someone besides her immediate family.

Insisting my daughter have a private interview or be excluded from any activity that required an interview/approval would have been cruel.  I am grateful we had flexible leaders who didn't make a huge issue out of her special needs and who didn't refused to accommodate her, making her feel more of an outsider than she already did.

A rule held rigidly can be as much of a stumbling block as disregarding rules completely.

Why not be adaptable and open to the idea there may be unusual situations?  Maybe the kid is disabled or isn't fluent in English or has been abused by a stranger in the past and at least to begin with, at that stage of their life needs the security of the presence of someone who not only they feel safe with, but who can read their body language well and can tell when they have reached their limits and need to leave.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Calm

[Amulek]

My wife and I are friends with a couple who do not let their (at this point, all primary age) children be interviewed without another family member in the room. Their children get to pick who accompanies them: Mom, Dad, Nanna, Aunt Susie, etc., so the interviews can still be 'private' from the parents conceivably. Seems unnecessary to me, but it's what works for them.

 

[hope_for_things]

33 minutes ago, Calm said:

Much abuse occurs in the home where no such safeguards would have an impact.

Many abusers seek out help from trusted others to stop.

Agreed that most abuse happens from trusted family and friends statistically. B

Also, the way the church handles disclosures of abuse is problematic in that the legal hotline they are instructed to call is putting the church’s interests first and foremost and the interest of the victims and the perpetrators are secondary.   I would like to see more states pass laws that essentially require abuse disclosures to be reported to authorities.  From what I’ve heard only a few states have strong legal requirements for ecclesiastical organizations when it comes to disclosures.  

[strappinglad]

1. Who is building all these windowless bishop's offices?

2. Maybe all Bishop's interviews should be video taped , that way the parents don't need to be there but can review the tape later if they want.

3. Duncan, you have the most lively stories. You Must write a book.