Bishops interview with minors

[Duncan]

13 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

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.

I did!!!! I found out though that I like eating

Edited December 13, 2017 by Duncan

[bsjkki]

48 minutes ago, Amulek said:

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.

 

It's unnecessary until it is. You would not understand until a Bishop betrays your trust. There are many ways to abuse a child and this does not necessarily include physical harm. This is why 'blanket' policies do not work. So sad some would have such a lack of empathy for those who have suffered bad experiences. I am glad you can see this issue through your friends perspective. I am glad you can say, "I don't understand but it works for them."

Edited December 13, 2017 by bsjkki

[MiserereNobis]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

Confessions in any faith are often not -- I want to come in and confess.  They usually involve a pastor or priest asking questions. 

This doesn't really hold true in Catholicism. Confession in Catholicism is penitent led with the priest perhaps asking questions after the confession has occurred.

[Vanguard]

Though I'm sure there are important considerations and understandable exceptions when youth should not have to be alone in an interview, for those who mostly argue against the current practice, are there any allowable circumstances where it is appropriate for any of our youth to be interviewed alone by an ecclesiastical authority or should we entirely do away with this altogether? And if there are appropriate circumstances, can you identify when that is and explain your metric for drawing the line where you do?

[Calm]

20 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

This doesn't really hold true in Catholicism. Confession in Catholicism is penitent led with the priest perhaps asking questions after the confession has occurred.

I would be surprised if it held true for a lot of faiths, not that I have studied varieties of confessions, just from hints here and there.

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, Vanguard said:

Though I'm sure there are important considerations and understandable exceptions when youth should not have to be alone in an interview, for those who mostly argue against the current practice, are there any allowable circumstances where it is appropriate for any of our youth to be interviewed alone by an ecclesiastical authority or should we entirely do away with this altogether? And if there are appropriate circumstances, can you identify when that is and explain your metric for drawing the line where you do?

Or alone with another person period?

[Tacenda]

Haven't listened yet, but I've read a lot of stories. I think it's a big enough problem that things need to change. I'm not totally discounting bishop's interviews. I do remember an interview with a singles' ward bishop, and he was the best. But when I was younger I remember being interviewed by a bishop's counselor and we were in a classroom sitting side by side almost touching knees. I had to have just turned 12, not sure. But I remember feeling so uncomfortable. I can't remember what he said but it gave me the creeps. I'll never forget it. 

http://www.mormonstories.org/bishop-interviews-4-6/

Concluding our series on Mormon leaders and inappropriate interviews regarding sexuality, we provide 4 more mini-interviews with Mormon Stories listeners who share their experiences discussing sexual matters with LDS leaders.  We also check back in with past guest Bishop Sam Young who seeks to provoke conversation and change around this subject.

From his petition:

“For decades, it has been common practice for Bishops, Bishopric Counselors, Stake Presidents, and Stake President Counselors to pose questions of a sexual nature to children. There are reports of this happening to children as young as age 8. These questions are being asked by an older man, all alone with the child, behind closed doors and often without the knowledge or permission of the parents. Almost universally, these men have no comprehensive training.

Here is a list of potential harm. All the risks below are actual consequences that have been experienced from sexual interviews with LDS children.

1. Suicide.
2. Attempted suicide.
3. Suicidal ideation.
4. Inappropriate shame and guilt.
5. Childhood filled with self loathing.
6. Adulthood filled with self loathing.
7. Normalizing children to sexual questions by adult men. (Grooming)
8. Sexual abuse. (Pedophilia)
9. Impaired sexual relations after marriage.
10. Years of recovery from childhood shaming. Often lasting decades.”

[Calm]

4 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Haven't listened yet, but I've read a lot of stories....

http://www.mormonstories.org/bishop-interviews-4-6/

Concluding our series on Mormon leaders and inappropriate interviews regarding sexuality, we provide 4 more mini-interviews with Mormon Stories listeners who share their experiences discussing sexual matters with LDS leaders....

From his petition:

“For decades, it has been common practice for Bishops, Bishopric Counselors, Stake Presidents, and Stake President Counselors to pose questions of a sexual nature to children. There are reports of this happening to children as young as age 8. These questions are being asked by an older man, all alone with the child, behind closed doors and often without the knowledge or permission of the parents. Almost universally, these men have no comprehensive training.

Here is a list of potential harm. All the risks below are actual consequences that have been experienced...

So just anecdotes, no stats.

Anecdotes can be useful, but give no indication for how widespread a problem is.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

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. 

Because the revelations are clear on the need for confession. Because the bishop can assist with a repentance process. Also, a bishop should NOT be a stranger.

That is not some dark secret I need to read in a wiki. President Kimball and others believed masturbation and homosexuality were linked. I believe it was in early editions of some of President Kimball's books. I believe that was where I read it.

There are risks. I trust a bishop over others. Some will screw up. A few will commit horrible acts, even if most of them are verbal. The risks are necessary. If I had a way to make children safe from this kind of abuse I would take it in a heartbeat but the only solution I can find to guarantee it will never happen is to kill every adult which has its own problems.

Edited December 13, 2017 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, sdc9999 said:

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.   

I work as a CASA volunteer. I have a bit of an idea of how hard that is. Thanks for what you do.

Yeah, I do know of that phenomenon. I wish I did not. Your example even hit home. I stopped by my brother's house after work to eat dinner, play with the kids a little, and drop off a gift for my sister-in-law. When I left my sister-in-law asked my 2 year old niece if she wanted to give me a hug. She ran over and embraced me and said bye. It was adorable and sweet and the thought of something like that being a prelude to abuse in other cases horrifies me.

I don't see a way to avoid that phenomenon outside of telling all children to trust no one which would probably be much worse.

Basically what I am saying is bring on the Second Coming so these predators will BURN!!!!

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

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

Smart people who realize that people should not be peeking in on interviews with the Bishop, let alone bishopric meetings and things of that nature.

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

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.

You need consent for that. I would pity the poor bishop who would have his counsel scrutinized by people who are not there and the person who is speaking with the bishop who can have their private and often painful moments available for review forever. I would not want to confess to the bishop if my confession was being recorded. That is nightmare fuel.

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, sdc9999 said:

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

How can it be discernment though?  

If he was talking about deciding on a case by case basis, then you could argue that discernment plays a part, but how can a blanket belief that “no youth in my ward is honest in front of their parents” be inspiration?  

[strappinglad]

39 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You need consent for that. I would pity the poor bishop who would have his counsel scrutinized by people who are not there and the person who is speaking with the bishop who can have their private and often painful moments available for review forever. I would not want to confess to the bishop if my confession was being recorded. That is nightmare fuel.

I guess you missed that subtle emoticon.

[mrmarklin]

All the angst on this topic. The Catholics seem to have solved the problem with the confessional.  Private conversation, but public enough for safety. 

Ive never been in a windowless bishops office.  Maybe I don’t get out much 

if I were a bishop i’d Leave my door ajar for all interviews. Most offices are large enough to admit a large degree of privacy. And most interviews are very routine, anyway. 

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, bluebell said:

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.

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.

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.  

I get that your son is a great young man when it comes to the subject at hand, but do you imagine that he is representative of youth in the worldwide church?  I would tend to think that he might be somewhat of an exception.  

The thing that causes me to shake my head at this conversation is the assumptions underlying the positions.  "My child is really good about confiding in me," says one, and uses this to argue the point for all other children.  "There have been terrible cases of bishops violating trust when it came to the youth," says another, and uses this to argue the point for all other bishops. Using extreme exceptions, and that is what they are, to argue for policy is not a good idea.  

And then we have those who want to open the floodgates and let everyone judge for themselves about whether they are worthy to enter the temple.  When we come to this point, then there's no need any longer for the recommend desk at the temple.  Come one, come all.  Let's charge admission and open it to the public -- perhaps this will be a good financing move to help upkeep expenses.  And if you're arguing that the requirement of being interviewed for a temple recommend violates DC 121, then I don't think you understand DC 121.  The temple of God has always required worthiness for entry.  It's holy ground, and if the man holding authority conferred via the priesthood of God is exercising "unrighteous dominion" by asking you if you are worthy to enter it, then it is no longer holy ground.  

 

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I get that your son is a great young man when it comes to the subject at hand, but do you imagine that he is representative of youth in the worldwide church?  I would tend to think that he might be somewhat of an exception.  

The thing that causes me to shake my head at this conversation is the assumptions underlying the positions.  "My child is really good about confiding in me," says one, and uses this to argue the point for all other children.  "There have been terrible cases of bishops violating trust when it came to the youth," says another, and uses this to argue the point for all other bishops. Using extreme exceptions, and that is what they are, to argue for policy is not a good idea.  

And then we have those who want to open the floodgates and let everyone judge for themselves about whether they are worthy to enter the temple.  When we come to this point, then there's no need any longer for the recommend desk at the temple.  Come one, come all.  Let's charge admission and open it to the public -- perhaps this will be a good financing move to help upkeep expenses.  And if you're arguing that the requirement of being interviewed for a temple recommend violates DC 121, then I don't think you understand DC 121.  The temple of God has always required worthiness for entry.  It's holy ground, and if the man holding authority conferred via the priesthood of God is exercising "unrighteous dominion" by asking you if you are worthy to enter it, then it is no longer holy ground.  

 

I’m not using it to argue that all children are like my son. I’m using it to argue that not all children would lie in a TRI if their parent was present, so it’s not fair to assume they all would like Rongo is doing, and just refuse to interview them at all.

What I’m saying is that a policy that doesn’t allow for exceptions does not seem valid or reasonable. 

 

[Tacenda]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I’m not using it to argue that all children are like my son. I’m using it to argue that not all children would lie in a TRI if their parent was present, so it’s not fair to assume they all would like Rongo is doing, and just refuse to interview them at all.

What I’m saying is that a policy that doesn’t allow for exceptions does not seem valid or reasonable. 

 

I'm a little envious of your son's openess with his parents! My sons never tell me anything! That must mean your son doesn't feel like he'll get the third degree when he opens up, good for you Bluebell!

[bluebell]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm a little envious of your son's openess with his parents! My sons never tell me anything! That must mean your son doesn't feel like he'll get the third degree when he opens up, good for you Bluebell!

I’m sure I bug my son often. 😆

It’s just the kind of kid that he is.  My middle son probably wouldn’t do the same. Every kid is unique in how they handle that kind of stuff.

[Calm]

"My child is really good about confiding in me," says one, and uses this to argue the point for all other children"

Your argument doesn't stand if using bluebell for support since she was arguing again generalizing to all other children by providing her son as a variation or exception as opposed to the one size fits all approach of Rongo.

----

would you suggest to Rongo he should allow for exceptions as well or are you okay in his case for him to argue the point for all other children?

----

It gets really frustrating when people don't actually seem to have read the posts they are quoting but responding to a completely different one.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Calm

[Storm Rider]

14 hours 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.  

A bishop, a priest, a minister is believed to responsible for the spiritual welfare of their flock.  Those Churches that specifically believe in a real, active priesthood will most often believe that an ecclesiastical authority has a special responsibility to lead and guide an individual into a full, complete repentance.  More importantly, they distinguish between a full repentance and something less than that. 

Oth, a parent has no responsibility or authority to distinguish repentance and clarify for another individual when it is complete.  A parent is not an ecclesiastical authority.  They have no calling to guide God's kingdom and they certainly have no authority to function in such a capacity. 

So that dude that is called of God to actually function in such capacity is the only one capable for serving in this capacity.  The dudes and dudettes at home aren't. 

[Gray]

I remember going in for my first interview just before turning 12. My bishop went into great detail about masturbation and grilled me several different ways about it. I didn't know what it was or that anyone could do something like that, so he explained it to me in graphic detail. He also asked me about bestiality and explained that to me too.

I left feeling dirty and gross and upset and wondering why my parents would let this happen to me. Maybe the worst part is is that this bishop wasn't a creeper, as far as I know. He was doing what he thought was his duty. He even mentioned he was bringing these topics up with all the youth, and there were long lines of boys and girls in the hallway waiting for the same ordeal.

My  son will never go through that. He won't be having any one-on-one interviews as a minor. I feel strongly that these interviews are inappropriate and provide an opportunity for the grooming of minor victims. Even if the grooming doesn't happen in the interviews, it makes innappropriate interactions feel appropriate, leaving children vulnerable to grooming from others.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Gray

[rongo]

13 hours ago, bluebell said:

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).  

Thanks. That makes a lot more sense. It sounded to me when you said, "He’s shared with me what he was going to say before the interview" that you were talking about routine, regular interviews. It is very good that he is comfortable with his parents, and I believe that ideally parents should know about things like this from their children before they ever talk to the bishop. Ideally, but many kids do not have this type of relationship with their parents, unfortunately.

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.

That's true. Some would not. Would you agree that many would not give the same answers (or the same level of forthrightness) with third parties present? I can't believe that this is a controversial thought for some people. 

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.

Let's just say I know the youth in my ward better than you do . . .  

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.

It's the principle of the thing for me (and again, this has never come up in my life. I think it's an "internet Mormon" thing, where it's a thing at all). It has nothing to do with my assumptions of what answers would or would not be.

If it isn't an actual interview, but rather, a charade, then I won't do it. And interviews are required to get into the temple. Either the priesthood keys mean something, or they don't. 

If it came to that, and the stake president ordered me to give chaperoned interviews, I would tell him that I would not, and that he would need to decide how strongly he feels about this. Do I need to be released, and does he need to begin the process of doing a release and another call through the Office of the First Presidency?

[rongo]

13 hours ago, sdc9999 said:

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

That has been completely absent from this discussion, hasn't it?

Again, I don't see this as a real issue, except for people who have gotten the idea from Mormon-themed message board participation. 

[rongo]

13 hours ago, Calm said:

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.

Your daughter (and what you have shared about her) might be different. I'm not so rigid as to say I would never, ever do it, worlds without end, no matter what. It would depend on the youth.

I did a youth interview for a new girl in our ward Sunday. Her parents had visited with me during the week letting me know about her anxiety and shyness, and hoping that they could get her to go through with the interview (a first for her, at 14). They just wanted to let me know going in (which was nice, and helpful) It went very well. I was able to get her to talk about her interests, how school is going (she is at the middle school I taught at years ago), etc. We discussed the TR questions in an age and "her" level way (she is very shy, and not at the same level of understanding as other MIA Maids). She will be going to do temple baptisms for the first time in her life. 

Her parents have been blown away by how the YW have taken her under their arms and included her. My ward is a very non-judgmental ward, and I love that about it. Literally anyone can come in cold and be welcomed and included. 

I was very impressed that the goal for the *parents* in their new ward was to try to have their daughter do her first annual interview *by herself.* They could certainly have justified "training wheels on the bike," under the circumstances, but they wanted the far end of the "good, better, best" continuum. 

Edited December 13, 2017 by rongo

[rongo]

10 hours ago, bluebell said:

How can it be discernment though?  

If he was talking about deciding on a case by case basis, then you could argue that discernment plays a part, but how can a blanket belief that “no youth in my ward is honest in front of their parents” be inspiration?  

That is putting words in my mouth, bluebell. I have never said that "no youth in my ward is honest in front of their parents." 

But you would have to be naive in the extreme to think that *all* youth (or even most youth) are going to be comfortable and forthright if they have things they need to confess, haven't talked to their parents at all, and are put on the spot about it *with their parents there.*

That's a terrible spot to put a kid in.

Ideally, all youth share these struggles and challenges with their parents *before* sharing it with the bishop, but you are naive if you think that this happens even half of the time.