Bishops interview with minors

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, jkwilliams said:

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. 

Oh, for Pete's sake! Forget about labels. Would saying, "For those who object to youth interviews" be an attempt at labeling as well? I was simply asking if people who object to youth interviews also take issue with the wording in FtSoY. This, by way of discussing whether they think that using this language is also objectionable.

[hope_for_things]

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.

Thanks for sharing Gray, this is so sad that Mormonism has contributed to these kinds of experiences for people.  This is a failure of the program in place and the communication of leaders.  I don't blame the bishops for this, it is a failure from the top and it needs change from the top to address this failure.  

My worry with reading the new missionary questions that were recently made public is that even more emphasis will be made around masturbation and that those questions for missionaries will begin to be asked of younger children as well and that this trend will actually be exacerbated now because of those changes in very specific missionary questions, that it will have a trickle down effect.  

Quote

5. Full-time missionary service requires living gospel standards. What do you understand
about the following standards?
a. The law of chastity
In reference to the law of chastity, have you always lived in accordance with what
has been discussed? If not, how long ago did the transgression(s) occur? What have
you done to repent?
b. Avoiding pornography

These questions are of particular concern.  Also the instructions that even past repented of sins must be re-visited are major problems with the new questions that have been introduced.  I worry about these changes leading towards more abuse of the interview process and additional detrimental experiences like you recount from your youth. 

[ALarson]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

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

And what would be wrong with a parent and child discussing the interview beforehand?  I see nothing wrong with what bluebell posted even if it was just a "regular interview".

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, ALarson said:

And what would be wrong with a parent and child discussing the interview beforehand?  I see nothing wrong with what bluebell posted even if it was just a "regular interview".

Nothing, whatsoever. It just sounded to me like they had gone over the questions and his answers, which would be unusual, but not "bad." What she clarified made perfect sense. Often, when youth come in with something serious, it is initiated by parents saying they have something they need to talk about (i.e., they went to them first, which is as it should be, and the parents helped them come in).

[Tacenda]

57 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.

After listening to some interviews with those that had interviews go terribly wrong. They mention that the bishops often followed the same pattern. And it's not that the bishop liked hearing all the details but they are taught that the youth must confess fully in order to repent. I wonder if that is the case. But when they have the youth go into details, some of the questions the bishops ask are really awful and are abusive. Some in the interviews mention how they were told not to take the sacrament for a month, and it was when, in particular a young woman, that didn't even know she did anything wrong when she touched her body a certain way. And when she was at a EFY they were taught not to masturbate. Well she realized what she had been doing and had to confess as soon as she got home. She was so ashamed and thought she had committed a sin next to murder. She was even told she couldn't be in the Laurel's presidency or something like that by the bishop if she didn't fully confess. But she was bound and determined to set it right. Thus brought on weekly meetings etc. Here she'd done all she could to be that perfect young woman. Now she felt like she was not that girl anymore. It changed her whole perception of herself. 

[HappyJackWagon]

5 minutes ago, rongo said:

Nothing, whatsoever. It just sounded to me like they had gone over the questions and his answers, which would be unusual, but not "bad." What she clarified made perfect sense. Often, when youth come in with something serious, it is initiated by parents saying they have something they need to talk about (i.e., they went to them first, which is as it should be, and the parents helped them come in).

But then if the youth and the parent want the parent to be a part of the confession/interview you wouldn't allow it?

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

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

Then why refuse to interview all of them if parents are present?

[rongo]

Just now, HappyJackWagon said:

But then if the youth and the parent want the parent to be a part of the confession/interview you wouldn't allow it?

If it were youth-requested? I think I would probably accommodate that on a case-by-case basis, but I've never had any such requests from either youth or parents. I think the goal would be to work towards them being able to do it on their own, though. Their parents won't be with them when they are interviewed for MP ordination, temple, or mission.  

[bluebell]

8 minutes ago, rongo said:

Nothing, whatsoever. It just sounded to me like they had gone over the questions and his answers, which would be unusual, but not "bad." What she clarified made perfect sense. Often, when youth come in with something serious, it is initiated by parents saying they have something they need to talk about (i.e., they went to them first, which is as it should be, and the parents helped them come in).

Just to clarify, I didn't encourage him to go in; I personally didn't believe that he needed to (I did not tell him that), but he felt he needed to and I supported that.  I never talked to the bishop about it though or made the appointment, that was all him.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Then why refuse to interview all of them if parents are present?

Well, this is all hypothetical, anyway. 

As I've explained, on principle. Allowing for compelling exceptions, hypothetically. 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, bluebell said:

Just to clarify, I didn't encourage him to go in; I personally didn't believe that he needed to (I did not tell him that), but he felt he needed to and I supported that.  I never talked to the bishop about it though or made the appointment, that was all him.

I've told youth that they didn't really need to see me about this or that, but that it was good that they were able to get it off their chests. In the future, you can repent through prayer, and talking with your parents if you want to be sure. Etc. 

I'm glad your son has a relationship with you where he wanted to let you know and run it by you before going in. 

[Storm Rider]

22 minutes ago, Calm said:

CFR parents lack this authority in the home.

Calme - this seems to be obvious.  Has God ever taught that parents are responsible for guiding God's Kingdom on the earth? Has he ever said that parents have the authority to guide God's Kingdom on the earth?  The priesthood is the only authority God has given to guide and manage his Kingdom on the earth. 

You are conflating God's Kingdom with the responsibility to of home management - they are not the same thing.

[Storm Rider]

1 hour 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.

You are making a straw man argument.  I was specifically talking about the Kingdom of God. 

You have gone off the deep end in an effort to strengthen your argument.  I won't play that game because it does not address the topic and does not address what I stated.

[jkwilliams]

19 minutes ago, rongo said:

Oh, for Pete's sake! Forget about labels. Would saying, "For those who object to youth interviews" be an attempt at labeling as well? I was simply asking if people who object to youth interviews also take issue with the wording in FtSoY. This, by way of discussing whether they think that using this language is also objectionable.

In the future, you could try to avoid pejoratives. Just saying. 

I don't object to youth interviews (what gave you that idea?), but I do object to intrusive and inappropriate questioning of children by adults, especially behind closed doors. I don't have a problem with asking if a child keeps the law of chastity, but it's not appropriate to be digging into details. Again, my approach has worked well: my kids knew they would be interviewed and on what subjects, but they also knew they didn't have to answer questions they didn't want to answer and could (and did) refer the bishop to me.

The one thing I wish I had accounted for was the "standards" night. My daughter told me a while back that, when she was in high school, they had a standards night, and at one point, they separated the boys and the girls. She said the bishop's counselor discussed in very graphic terms the do's and don'ts of sexual behavior. She said it was very distressing and "disgusting and gross." But being in a room full of young women and leaders, she didn't feel she could get up and walk out. 

I just don't understand why some church leaders feel the need for such graphic and inappropriate discussions, whether in interviews or other meetings. As I recall, when we lived in Utah, parents were able to opt out of their kids attending sex ed classes. But there's no such allowance with church leaders.

[stemelbow]

9 minutes ago, rongo said:

If it were youth-requested? I think I would probably accommodate that on a case-by-case basis, but I've never had any such requests from either youth or parents. I think the goal would be to work towards them being able to do it on their own, though. Their parents won't be with them when they are interviewed for MP ordination, temple, or mission.  

That'd be funny if a bishop approached it that way for me as a parent. 

Me:  "Hey Bishop, just so you know I won't allow one on one's with my kid.  I'm happy to participate myself though."  

"I wont' allow it unless your kid requests it."

"Alright I guess it ain't happening then.  You seem less interested in us and our welfare and more interested in some other agenda.  Thanks for playing,."

"well I'm still meeting with your kid without your permission."

"Have fun trying, ding dong." 

 

[ALarson]

26 minutes ago, rongo said:

Nothing, whatsoever. It just sounded to me like they had gone over the questions and his answers, which would be unusual, but not "bad." What she clarified made perfect sense. 

Oh....ok, gotcha.  You just seemed to react negatively to a child and parent doing that prior to the interview.

[stemelbow]

5 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

You are making a straw man argument.  I was specifically talking about the Kingdom of God. 

You have gone off the deep end in an effort to strengthen your argument.  I won't play that game because it does not address the topic and does not address what I stated.

The deep end?  What are you talking about?  It seems you are the one that says a parent has no such authority "Oth, a parent has no responsibility or authority to distinguish repentance and clarify for another individual when it is complete."

I responded suggesting, I couldn't disagree more.  That is largely a parent's duty.  If I can't teach my kids the difference between right and wrong, or help them distinguish repentance and clarify it for my child when it is complete, then honestly I don't know what the hell we're doing here at all.  

"ope. son.  Did you steal another kid's homework?  Well, then we better set up a meeting with the bishop because I have no authority or responsibility to distinguish your repentance nor clarify for you when you have completely repented".  

Again, couldn't disagree more.  

 

[rongo]

8 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

That'd be funny if a bishop approached it that way for me as a parent. 

Me:  "Hey Bishop, just so you know I won't allow one on one's with my kid.  I'm happy to participate myself though."  

"I wont' allow it unless your kid requests it."

"Alright I guess it ain't happening then.  You seem less interested in us and our welfare and more interested in some other agenda.  Thanks for playing,."

"well I'm still meeting with your kid without your permission."

"Have fun trying, ding dong." 

Sorry. You wouldn't get to the calling me a ding dong stage. I wouldn't insist that I would "still meet with your kid without your permission." I've been pretty clear about that. 

Whatever gave you that idea?

Or, did you just want to show us how cool your response would be? 

[bluebell]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

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?

I get what you are saying, but it sounds like it's an 'opinion' thing for you, and it's hard for me to think that some kids might be denied access to a temple recommend because of their bishop's opinions about parents and youth interviews.

[ALarson]

41 minutes ago, rongo said:

If it were youth-requested? I think I would probably accommodate that on a case-by-case basis, but I've never had any such requests from either youth or parents. I think the goal would be to work towards them being able to do it on their own, though. Their parents won't be with them when they are interviewed for MP ordination, temple, or mission.  

Why not if the parents request that?  I know it's allowed in my ward and stake if there's a request by the parents (or the youth).  I personally only know of one such case and it was because of issues with past interviews for this young man....but it was allowed.

Your hard stance here is puzzling to me, rongo.  I'm amazed that you would be so stubborn that you'd actually keep a youth from attending the temple rather than allowing a parent (or youth leader) to be present for their interview.  Do you think a youth would want to come and talk to you about anything after you've done this to them and they see how you treat their parents and exclude them from going to the temple? 

 

Edited December 13, 2017 by ALarson

[blueglass]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

what do they think about the wording in FtSoY?

1)  What is your view of FtSoY where the wording under the topic of Sexual Purity states, "Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body. Pay attention to the promptings of the Spirit so that you can be clean and virtuous."

2)  What training have you received from leaders on how to address question 14 "Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?"  Let's model a question in which a 15 y/o young woman asks you, "I'm not sure what this means?  - What sins should I resolve with priesthood authorities?  Please explain so I can understand what I need to resolve with you?"  

3)  Finally, what is your view of Oaks article from October 2015 ensign entitled, recovering from the trap of pornography, and the 4 levels of compulsivity he addresses in this article?  Have you received training on this article?  Has this affected who is sent to the ARP, who can receive the sacrament and who cannot, who can receive a temple recommend and who cannot, who can receive ordinances and who cannot?  "https://www.lds.org/ensign/2015/10/recovering-from-the-trap-of-pornography?lang=eng  

4)  What are your thoughts on the "addict" paradigm and why BYU counselors do not use the 12-step program and now use ACT for sexual compulsivity counseling, (Acceptance and Commitment Therapy)

5)  Do you feel the training comprising 5 pages in Handbook 1, sec7.1 - 7.6 is sufficient for you to feel qualified to serve in your calling and address issues 1 - 4)?  

The reason I am asking these questions, is when I attended stake training for bishoprics, the stake president complained that we as bishopric members were not interviewing thoroughly and that things kept coming up at the stake level which should be resolved at the local level.  I asked him to elaborate on what he meant by "more thorough", and he dismissed the question, and said, "we should already know".  In the 2.5 years I served in the bishopric interviewing youth and adults, the stake training spent far more time on what kind of bread to use for the sacrament, and how to use the new software for processing bishop storehouse orders than on counseling and interviewing support.  

Edited December 13, 2017 by blueglass

[rongo]

15 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I get what you are saying, but it sounds like it's an 'opinion' thing for you, and it's hard for me to think that some kids might be denied access to a temple recommend because of their bishop's opinions about parents and youth interviews.

Those are the breaks. I'm not sure it would be good to so correlate things in future handbooks, that leader roulette were completely eliminated. Sort of the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 

Part of holding keys is that it means that the opinions of key-holders will carry weight, and these views and approaches vary by definition. Essential areas are regulated by the handbooks, but the Church doesn't command in all things. I know from experience that when appeals go up to Salt Lake complaining about bishop/stake president opinion/interpretation, the answers that come back are consistently "what your bishop/stake president said." A *lot* of latitude is given to local leaders to follow their own inspiration (within handbook guidelines).

I don't think this is a huge problem, actually. There is a miniscule minority, driven by Mormon-themed message board participation, for whom this is even a thought. Outside of our teapot, there isn't much of a tempest. 

Edited December 13, 2017 by rongo

[HappyJackWagon]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

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?

I find it curious that priesthood keys are important enough that parents should allow their children to be put at risk in having one on one interviews behind closed doors but they're not important enough that you would honor the request of your priesthood leader to do the interviews differently. Do his keys matter as much as yours? It sounds like you'd be throwing an ultimatum at the SP. Would you be willing to forfeit your temple recommend for failing to sustain your priesthood leader? It really makes no sense to me how you are digging in your heels on this. BTW- it's not an "internet Mormon" thing. Protecting against the potential abuse of power seems like a fairly important issue in society today.

I used to be a lot like you. Very rigid. Very confident and sure I had all the answers. Since being bishop I've felt the need to repent of many things I did as bishop, even though I had been doing what I was told and thought it was the way things should be done. I wasn't nearly as right as I knew I was and I've had to learn to deal with that and actively learn and appreciate the POV's of others. I appreciate your honesty but your certitude is something I recognize from my past self and I know the damage it caused me.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, rongo said:

Those are the breaks. I'm not sure it would be good to so correlate things in future handbooks, that leader roulette were completely eliminated. Sort of the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. 

Part of holding keys is that it means that the opinions of key-holders will carry weight, and these views and approaches vary by definition. Essential areas are regulated by the handbooks, but the Church doesn't command in all things. 

I don't think this is a huge problem, actually. There is a miniscule minority, driven by Mormon-themed message board participation, for whom this is even a thought. Outside of our teapot, there isn't much of a tempest. 

And that's the problem. This kind of inappropriate stuff has been more or less normalized, such that no one thinks twice about asking a 12 year old about his or her sexual habits, even in great detail.

I may be an atrocity story person, but I am glad that most of my children will not have to deal with this as parents.

[Tacenda]

43 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

Calme - this seems to be obvious.  Has God ever taught that parents are responsible for guiding God's Kingdom on the earth? Has he ever said that parents have the authority to guide God's Kingdom on the earth?  The priesthood is the only authority God has given to guide and manage his Kingdom on the earth. 

You are conflating God's Kingdom with the responsibility to of home management - they are not the same thing.

Blah! You're going to give up your parental  authority to a church leader? I thought we, men and women, have PH authority given to us already in the temple. What good is it then? My oh my.