Bishops interview with minors

[rongo]

9 hours 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.

Again, I'm not "assuming they all would." 

[Rain]

On 12/12/2017 at 5:57 PM, Tacenda said:

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.

I think a child should tell a trusted adult who he is comfortable with. There is no position that automatically makes someone a trusted adult. In my last stake there was an elementary teacher that abused many children. He should have been one of those trusted adults, but was the very person the children couldn't go to.

One day I was eating while my children were playing in a play place outside of a fast food restaurant. One of the 16 year old employees was cleaning outside and stopped to talk with me because she thought she was pregnant and didn' know what to do. 

You never know who will become the trusted adult. I don't want to tell children not to go to specific professions or callings or people. I'd like to make it as easy as possible for the child to find someone who will help them. The things you mention with a bishop could be a problem with anyone, so I want to give them as much room as possible for them to find someone they could trust. 

20 hours 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!

There are really good parents like this and I think it is very important to be approachable, but I'm another one who feels it greatly depends on the child's personality. I have one child that hid everything. I have one child who tells me everything. Then I have one child who sometimes tells me and sometimes doesn't.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Rain

[jkwilliams]

I told my kids that if a church leader ever asked them something that was inappropriate or made them uncomfortable, they should just tell the leader to talk to me about it. That approach has worked well for us. 

[rongo]

Just now, jkwilliams said:

I told my kids that if a church leader ever asked them something that was inappropriate or made them uncomfortable, they should just tell the leader to talk to me about it. That approach has worked well for us. 

That's something that parents should explain to their kids. If we do a good enough job preparing them for life, then they will be fine in any interview situation (or anything else). 

Kids should know that they can say, "I don't know. I think you need to talk to my mom/dad about this" if they are uncomfortable with anything in an interview. 

 

[HappyJackWagon]

This thread is interesting and illustrates a huge problem for the church. There are leaders who are so confident in their authority and discernment that they become absolutely rigid and pharisaical in fulfilling their calling. Like Hope, the ultimatums and bludgeoning of members by those who are impressed by their own "authority" makes me wonder why I try to hang on. It's very discouraging to hear someone state, for example, that if my son wanted to advance in the priesthood but that I needed to be in the room for the interview, then my son would not receive the priesthood. Likewise a bishop would withhold baptism and temple recommends simply because a parent wishes to be present for an interview in which a youth will be asked about their personal sxual behaviors. Hearing people defend that practice so vociferously truly makes me wonder whether it is a matter of arrogance  or something else altogether.

So we have the leaders grasping on to the power they have with zero ability to bend with something as simple as allowing a parent in while a child is interviewed, and we have parents who recognize that the leader's role is to support the family, not replace, command, or undermine it. As I've stated before, some day there will be a reckoning and the church will have to reverse course on this. I'm sure those who are defending the church's interview procedures will allow for this "continuing revelation" when it occurs. Just remember, that you and the church are late to the party. Members decades before any revelation is received will have been agitating for this change because they didn't follow blindly.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

That's something that parents should explain to their kids. If we do a good enough job preparing them for life, then they will be fine in any interview situation (or anything else). 

Kids should know that they can say, "I don't know. I think you need to talk to my mom/dad about this" if they are uncomfortable with anything in an interview. 

 

Rongo- I'm curious. When interviewing, do you ask a youth if they keep the law of chastity or do you elaborate? Do you ask specifically about things like mstrbtion, petting, oral, bestiality etc? Do you stick to the questions or do you ask specific questions because the spirit directs you to interrogate youth about their sxual behaviors?

I ask because I've been in leadership trainings in which we were told to elaborate with additional questions. I don't believe for a second that a leader will be prompted by the spirit to broach these subjects with youth.

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Rongo- I'm curious. When interviewing, do you ask a youth if they keep the law of chastity or do you elaborate? Do you ask specifically about things like mstrbtion, petting, oral, bestiality etc? Do you stick to the questions or do you ask specific questions because the spirit directs you to interrogate youth about their sxual behaviors?

I ask because I've been in leadership trainings in which we were told to elaborate with additional questions. I don't believe for a second that a leader will be prompted by the spirit to broach these subjects with youth.

I ask them to explain their understanding of the LoC. If they have no clue, I use the wording from the FtSoY pamphlet, and then ask them the question: "Do you keep the law of chastity?"

I have found that youth will say something if they have a problem, for the most part. We don't have to go on fishing expeditions to drag it out. 

ETA: It's the same for the WoW. Many youth say, "Huh?" if you ask them to explain the WoW. Many of them actually know at least something about it, but aren't great interviewees.  So, this enables you to teach about it if they can't articulate what their understanding of it is.

Do you remember any absolutely silent kids you interviewed for child of record baptism? Those interviews can be worse than youth interviews.

By far, the biggest head-scratching question for youth is: "Do you support, affiliate with, or agree with any group or individual whose teachings or practices are contrary to or oppose those accepted by the Church?" I usually have to explain that one . . .  

Edited December 13, 2017 by rongo

[jkwilliams]

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Rongo- I'm curious. When interviewing, do you ask a youth if they keep the law of chastity or do you elaborate? Do you ask specifically about things like mstrbtion, petting, oral, bestiality etc? Do you stick to the questions or do you ask specific questions because the spirit directs you to interrogate youth about their sxual behaviors?

I ask because I've been in leadership trainings in which we were told to elaborate with additional questions. I don't believe for a second that a leader will be prompted by the spirit to broach these subjects with youth.

The first time I heard the "m-word" was in an interview before my 12th birthday. I said I didn't know what that word meant, so a red-faced bishop ended up explaining it to a rather horrified boy. More intrusive and inappropriate questions would come later, but that first interview was a real shock to me. As my kids were growing up, I worried that they might find themselves in that situation, which is why I came up with the "ask my dad" approach, which more than one of them has used, sorry to say. I couldn't tell them not to do the interviews, but I wanted to make sure they wouldn't be subjected to what I was.

I have no idea what the guidelines are for bishops and other leaders. That said, this kind of stuff has been going on for generations, such that most people don't think twice about it. Perhaps some specific ground rules for what to ask and how to prevent inappropriate discussion would help. 

[stemelbow]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

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. 

Seriously?  So the parent in the family has no ecclesiastical authority over his/her family?  Well then what the hells the point in any of this?  Parents are to lead families in their lives, in every conceivable way, as I see it.  To you, parents, seemingly, are to be undermined in their family leading duties by some dude who may or may not have the best interest of the family and kid in mind all because you prefer the ecclesiastical authority of this dude over a kid's parent.   

Alright.  I suppose I see why so many Mormons are on board with this.  But, I certainly ain't.

[stemelbow]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

This thread is interesting and illustrates a huge problem for the church. There are leaders who are so confident in their authority and discernment that they become absolutely rigid and pharisaical in fulfilling their calling. Like Hope, the ultimatums and bludgeoning of members by those who are impressed by their own "authority" makes me wonder why I try to hang on. It's very discouraging to hear someone state, for example, that if my son wanted to advance in the priesthood but that I needed to be in the room for the interview, then my son would not receive the priesthood. Likewise a bishop would withhold baptism and temple recommends simply because a parent wishes to be present for an interview in which a youth will be asked about their personal sxual behaviors. Hearing people defend that practice so vociferously truly makes me wonder whether it is a matter of arrogance  or something else altogether.

So we have the leaders grasping on to the power they have with zero ability to bend with something as simple as allowing a parent in while a child is interviewed, and we have parents who recognize that the leader's role is to support the family, not replace, command, or undermine it. As I've stated before, some day there will be a reckoning and the church will have to reverse course on this. I'm sure those who are defending the church's interview procedures will allow for this "continuing revelation" when it occurs. Just remember, that you and the church are late to the party. Members decades before any revelation is received will have been agitating for this change because they didn't follow blindly.

Ditto.  

[bsjkki]

12 hours ago, Calm said:

So just anecdotes, no stats.

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

How do you get statistics if the church does not track or provide information about these things. I know of 3 people who had suicide ideation and 1 attempt. There is no one asking so the anecdotes never turn into statistics. I asked my stake questions and expressed concerns--they never got back to me. Rongo was right when he said the church backs the Bishops. I thought one of the September Six was excommunicated for compiling stories of Bishop abuses--am I wrong?

[jkwilliams]

2 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Seriously?  So the parent in the family has no ecclesiastical authority over his/her family?  Well then what the hells the point in any of this?  Parents are to lead families in their lives, in every conceivable way, as I see it.  To you, parents, seemingly, are to be undermined in their family leading duties by some dude who may or may not have the best interest of the family and kid in mind all because you prefer the ecclesiastical authority of this dude over a kid's parent.   

Alright.  I suppose I see why so many Mormons are on board with this.  But, I certainly ain't.

I've always heard the family is the basic unit of the church. I assumed that meant the church is designed to support the family, not the other way around. Maybe I was wrong. I'm with you: ecclesiastical authority does not negate my authority and responsibility as a parent to protect my family. If you're going to pry into inappropriate questions with my kids, you're going to have to go through me.

[stemelbow]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

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.

I wouldn't doubt if I was asked about it before I was 18, but the first time I do remember was when I was 18.  I was taken aback.  I knew what it was, but I did not know how to do it, odd as it may have seemed.  I think I was sitting there with a face of "what the hell are you talking about, weirdo?"  But your story is absolutely disturbing.  

Excellent points about grooming.  I wasn't really thinking much on this as my oldest was turning 12.  Luckily my wife was all over it, and was like, "hey bish...we ain't letting you talk to our son alone, just so you know.  Nothing against you, but we'll be happy to participate, not putting the onus on you but on us.  see ya."

 

 

[jkwilliams]

5 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I wouldn't doubt if I was asked about it before I was 18, but the first time I do remember was when I was 18.  I was taken aback.  I knew what it was, but I did not know how to do it, odd as it may have seemed.  I think I was sitting there with a face of "what the hell are you talking about, weirdo?"  But your story is absolutely disturbing.  

Excellent points about grooming.  I wasn't really thinking much on this as my oldest was turning 12.  Luckily my wife was all over it, and was like, "hey bish...we ain't letting you talk to our son alone, just so you know.  Nothing against you, but we'll be happy to participate, not putting the onus on you but on us.  see ya."

I think the biggest issue, as Gray noted, is that inappropriate interactions are normalized, such that no one thinks anything about them. It's just what happens in a bishop's interview. There are all kinds of potential for abuse, not just grooming kids. I sincerely hope this has become an unpleasant memory in the church by the time my grandchildren are old enough for such interviews.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

I wouldn't doubt if I was asked about it before I was 18, but the first time I do remember was when I was 18.  I was taken aback.  I knew what it was, but I did not know how to do it, odd as it may have seemed.

I remember also knowing what it was (locker room talk, etc.), but not knowing how to do it. And I didn't dwell on it. I just knew it was a sin, and that was that. 

My bishop asked about it when I was 12, but I don't remember it being "weird." I just told him, no, I had never done it. 

I think the way the FtSoY pamphlet words it is very good for explaining what is meant. Do any of the interview atrocity story people have objections to that, or how FtSoY words other aspects of LoC?

[rongo]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

I think the biggest issue, as Gray noted, is that inappropriate interactions are normalized, such that no one thinks anything about them. It's just what happens in a bishop's interview. There are all kinds of potential for abuse, not just grooming kids. I sincerely hope this has become an unpleasant memory in the church by the time my grandchildren are old enough for such interviews.

I don't think they are "unpleasant memories" for most people. For those for whom they are unpleasant, I can understand why they feel the way they do about them. 

[jkwilliams]

Just now, rongo said:

I remember also knowing what it was (locker room talk, etc.), but not knowing how to do it. And I didn't dwell on it. I just knew it was a sin, and that was that. 

My bishop asked about it when I was 12, but I don't remember it being "weird." I just told him, no, I had never done it. 

I think the way the FtSoY pamphlet words it is very good for explaining what is meant. Do any of the interview atrocity story people have objections to that, or how FtSoY words other aspects of LoC?

"Interview atrocity story people"? 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, jkwilliams said:

"Interview atrocity story people"? 

Is there a better term? There are people with interview atrocity stories, and they have strong feelings against interviews because of them. For such people, what do they think about the wording in FtSoY?

[stemelbow]

4 minutes ago, rongo said:

I remember also knowing what it was (locker room talk, etc.), but not knowing how to do it. And I didn't dwell on it. I just knew it was a sin, and that was that. 

My bishop asked about it when I was 12, but I don't remember it being "weird." I just told him, no, I had never done it. 

I think the way the FtSoY pamphlet words it is very good for explaining what is meant. Do any of the interview atrocity story people have objections to that, or how FtSoY words other aspects of LoC?

I probably would, but am not interested enough to look it up.  I've found myself objecting to that pamphlet tons over the years.  It's been pretty much useless in my life.  

[stemelbow]

Just now, rongo said:

Is there a better term? There are people with interview atrocity stories, and they have strong feelings against interviews because of them. For such people, what do they think about the wording in FtSoY?

You could simply ask does anyone have objections to it.  You don't have to try and define people.  I for one don't have a personal atrocity story, per se, but I still object to the interviews as they've been traditionally done.  

[rongo]

1 minute ago, stemelbow said:

I probably would, but am not interested enough to look it up.  I've found myself objecting to that pamphlet tons over the years.  It's been pretty much useless in my life.  

You sound like a Millennial . . . 

[stemelbow]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

You sound like a Millennial . . . 

You sound like you're more interested in labelling others than relating to or understanding others.  But...not a big deal.   

Edited December 13, 2017 by stemelbow

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

You could simply ask does anyone have objections to it.  You don't have to try and define people.  I for one don't have a personal atrocity story, per se, but I still object to the interviews as they've been traditionally done.  

Yep. I had some unpleasant experiences, and I thought this was supposed to be a discussion about whether such things are appropriate and/or how to make things better. But I suppose if it's important to label people, there's not much to say. 

[Calm]

28 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

How do you get statistics if the church does not track or provide information about these things. I know of 3 people who had suicide ideation and 1 attempt. There is no one asking so the anecdotes never turn into statistics. I asked my stake questions and expressed concerns--they never got back to me. Rongo was right when he said the church backs the Bishops. I thought one of the September Six was excommunicated for compiling stories of Bishop abuses--am I wrong?

Yes, it is a big problem when stats are not had, but that doesn't mean one should fill the gap by creating stats out of anecdotes...they won't be stats, but speculations.  If one makes up stats, then one assumes one knows more about an issue than one really does and may end up doing more harm than good.

Edited December 13, 2017 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

 

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. 

CFR parents lack this authority in the home.