rongo Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 9 minutes ago, ALarson said: 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. For mission? MP ordination? Endowment? Wow. I don't think someone is ready for these very adult responsibilities and covenants if they aren't able (or don't feel able) or don't want to do their interview on their own. Talking about youth interviews is one thing, but these are the higher and culminating ordinances of the Church (for adults only). Should those missionaries be able to request another person be present for interviews with their mission president? Where would this end?
rongo Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 7 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: 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. That's an interesting thought. Would frankly sharing one's concerns borne of conscience constitute not honoring keys? Before it ever got to the ultimatum point, there would be a frank, respectful discussion. Do his keys matter as much as yours? It sounds like you'd be throwing an ultimatum at the SP. In a chain of command dispute, they outrank mine. He would be fully authorized and within his rights to request a release and new call to replace. Would you be willing to forfeit your temple recommend for failing to sustain your priesthood leader? I don't think disagreeing and holding firm on conscience would constitute refusing to sustain a leader --- as long as it includes not bad-mouthing him and accepting his authorized action (which would entail release if it came to that). My grandfather once disagreed and refused to do a command from his stake president. The furious stake president set up a meeting with Elder Perry for my grandpa (a bishop), and Elder Perry had him drive him through his ward while they talked. He asked him questions about members ("Who lives there? Tell me about this family"). When they got back, Elder Perry told the stake president that he agreed with Bishop ______, and that was the end of it. The furious stake president then requested and secured my grandpa's release. My grandfather (who was respectful throughout) was not guilty of "not sustaining" him for disagreeing and refusing to do something, based on conscience. He has always been very respectful talking about this stake president, and he fully acknowledged his authority to get him released over it.
ksfisher Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 7 minutes ago, Tacenda said: 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. Having priesthood authority does not mean that a person has authority over all things. For instance the bishop has authority to determine if a person can or cannot partake of the sacrament. If a child has committed a sin and the bishop has asked her not to partake for a time a parent has no authority to countermand the bishops instructions. If in a temple recommend interview the bishop finds a child not worthy to enter the temple a parent has no authority, again, to countermand the authority of the bishop. Priesthood authority is always exercised within bounds. Storm Rider is correct that a parents authority, which is different than priesthood authority, is exercised within the home. Within a ward it is the bishop who has ultimate authority. Within the stake the stake president. There is an order to all things, including authority, within God's kingdom on earth as well as in heaven. 1
ALarson Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 14 minutes ago, rongo said: For mission? MP ordination? Endowment? Wow. It was when he turned 18 and was interviewed. Like I said, this was a specific case and his Father was with him for this interview. That's why I think you've got to go with the spirit of the law here, rongo and not have a hard letter of the law stance. Take things one case at a time and absolutely do not do anything to exclude or hurt the youth involved. I know you have said that you haven't had to deal with this yet, so maybe you'll soften your stance some when there are actually members and youth from your ward involved. Our Bishop has dealt with this (with at least 3 families) and has had some very positive experiences having a parent present for the interview. 2
The Nehor Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 13 hours ago, strappinglad said: I guess you missed that subtle emoticon. No, I figured there was hyperbole there. Just fun to rant. Not necessarily at you.
HappyJackWagon Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 1 minute ago, rongo said: That's an interesting thought. Would frankly sharing one's concerns borne of conscience constitute not honoring keys? Before it ever got to the ultimatum point, there would be a frank, respectful discussion. Nope. Sharing concerns would not constitute not honoring keys. Refusing to do what he asked would. In a chain of command dispute, they outrank mine. He would be fully authorized and within his rights to request a release and new call to replace. This would be like your boss at work asking you to do something. You say no and if they don't like it, they can fire you. Seems like an ultimatum to me and it illustrates an attitude of arrogance and superiority. My father says this kind of thing often. If he doesn't like it, he can release me. He thinks he's being tough and principled but it strikes me more as being petulant and an attempt to shift the power dynamic by issuing ultimatums. I don't think disagreeing and holding firm on conscience would constitute refusing to sustain a leader --- as long as it includes not bad-mouthing him and accepting his authorized action (which would entail release if it came to that). I disagree. If your priesthood leader directly tells you to do something in your official capacity as bishop and you refuse, that is failing to sustain the leader. Don't get me wrong. There are definitely situations in which a leader should not be sustained when they make unreasonable demands. Perhaps you feel the situation with the SP request is unreasonable. Maybe I think your refusal to interview my son with me in the room is unreasonable. Unfortunately, with a priesthood hierarchy there is one person with greater authority that can get his way due to his authority, but amen to the priesthood of that man. The power dynamic is a problem, especially when leaders wield it like a weapon. My grandfather once disagreed and refused to do a command from his stake president. The furious stake president set up a meeting with Elder Perry for my grandpa (a bishop), and Elder Perry had him drive him through his ward while they talked. He asked him questions about members ("Who lives there? Tell me about this family"). When they got back, Elder Perry told the stake president that he agreed with Bishop ______, and that was the end of it. The furious stake president then requested and secured my grandpa's release. My grandfather (who was respectful throughout) was not guilty of "not sustaining" him for disagreeing and refusing to do something, based on conscience. He has always been very respectful talking about this stake president, and he fully acknowledged his authority to get him released over it. There's no real surprise when a bureaucracy protects the bureaucrat but it's a shame when the church sinks to the same level. 1
rongo Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 28 minutes ago, blueglass said: 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." That's what I was referring to. I think this wording is very good for addressing masturbation --- especially for younger youth. 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?" Good question. I haven't had any training with flowcharts of what constitute sins that need resolving through the priesthood. I counsel people a) it never hurts to ask, when in doubt, b) sexual sin involving other people should be resolved, and c) serious things (crimes, legal issues, etc.). In general, I think that WoW, non-life-controlling masturbation, etc. can be repented of on one's own. 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 I've been saying this for years, and it has been repeated more and more by multiple GAs: There is a spectrum of pornography/masturbation, and many are not addicts or compulsive. I think that those on the "controllable" end of the spectrum can repent of this on their own, and those on the other end should seek help repenting from prieshood leaders. We have not received training on this article, per se. If people want and ask for ARP help, I send them, but I generally don't require it unless they are on the serious end of the spectrum. There are those who want everyone in the world to go to ARP, and I disagree with that. 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) I think "addict" has been much overused, and I am not a fan in general of 12 step/ARP. It works and is essential for some, no question about it. 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)? Yes, I do. Maybe others need more training, personally.
bluebell Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 40 minutes 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 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. I didn't know that bishops had the ability to deny to even interview someone for a temple recommend. I don't think that SLC would support that idea but hopefully the Stake president would be able to rein in a bishop before it had to be taken that far. I agree that this isn't a huge problem (number wise) but it would be a huge problem for any kid who had to deal with it, and that's what's important. 4
rongo Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 4 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: I disagree. If your priesthood leader directly tells you to do something in your official capacity as bishop and you refuse, that is failing to sustain the leader. Don't get me wrong. There are definitely situations in which a leader should not be sustained when they make unreasonable demands. Perhaps you feel the situation with the SP request is unreasonable. Maybe I think your refusal to interview my son with me in the room is unreasonable. Unfortunately, with a priesthood hierarchy there is one person with greater authority that can get his way due to his authority, but amen to the priesthood of that man. The power dynamic is a problem, especially when leaders wield it like a weapon. Your opinion is noted. I think it all depends on the situation and the factors involved. Perhaps you feel the situation with the SP request is unreasonable. Maybe I think your refusal to interview my son with me in the room is unreasonable. In either case, each has to follow his conscience. I have no problem whatsoever with parents insisting on this (that is their prerogative and authority as parents), and I may or may not hold firm on this, depending on circumstances (again, it's all hypothetical with me right now). I would be very fascinated to know what would happen in a chain of command clash like this. I think that the hierarchy would support the bishop's discretion and prerogative. There's no real surprise when a bureaucracy protects the bureaucrat but it's a shame when the church sinks to the same level. (This was said in response to my anecdote about my grandpa). Do you think that Elder Perry was protecting the bureaucrat by siding with my grandpa (the bishop) over the demands of the stake president? I'm a little confused as to whether you think Elder Perry was sinking to a level there . . .
HappyJackWagon Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, rongo said: Good question. I haven't had any training with flowcharts of what constitute sins that need resolving through the priesthood. I counsel people a) it never hurts to ask, when in doubt, b) sexual sin involving other people should be resolved, and c) serious things (crimes, legal issues, etc.). In general, I think that WoW, non-life-controlling masturbation, etc. can be repented of on one's own. If you haven't had any training about what needs to be confessed to the bishop, how do you come up with B & C? Did you come up with those on your own or have those ideas simply filtered through the culture into a traditional expectation kind of like sharing the Miracle of Forgiveness with the confessor? If there's not firm training about what needs to be confessed, why ask probing questions at all? I agree that there are no firm requirements for what should and should not be confessed to a priesthood leader, which makes it even worse when leaders take it upon themselves to coerce confessions on certain topics. 3
rongo Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 (edited) 52 minutes ago, bluebell said: I didn't know that bishops had the ability to deny to even interview someone for a temple recommend. I don't think that SLC would support that idea but hopefully the Stake president would be able to rein in a bishop before it had to be taken that far. I agree that this isn't a huge problem (number wise) but it would be a huge problem for any kid who had to deal with it, and that's what's important. It's an interesting question as to how Salt Lake would act here. Would they insist that a bishop conduct a chaperoned worthiness interview against his better judgment? I really don't think so ---- all indications to me are that they would trust and respect the judgment of the bishop in that case. But, maybe they wouldn't. I really don't think they want to set the precedent for normalizing chaperoned worthiness interviews, and that would be a step in that direction --- in spades in this world of social media, blogging, and viral movements. It is a near certainty that a couple insisting on this and going up the chain of command over it will probably be sharing details about this online. Edited December 13, 2017 by rongo
rongo Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 2 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said: If you haven't had any training about what needs to be confessed to the bishop, how do you come up with B & C? Did you come up with those on your own or have those ideas simply filtered through the culture into a traditional expectation kind of like sharing the Miracle of Forgiveness with the confessor? If there's not firm training about what needs to be confessed, why ask probing questions at all? I agree that there are no firm requirements for what should and should not be confessed to a priesthood leader, which makes it even worse when leaders take it upon themselves to coerce confessions on certain topics. As you know, that is within the discretion, experience, and temperament of each bishop.
bsjkki Posted December 13, 2017 Author Posted December 13, 2017 (edited) 6 minutes ago, rongo said: As you know, that is within the discretion, experience, and temperament of each bishop. I no longer trust the discretion, experience and temperament of each Bishop...for good reason. So if a member does not "trust" their leaders I guess, their children, would not be able to attend the temple. Trust is an earned thing...I find your position on certain topics arrogant and lacking humility. I would not trust you with my kids because of this and it makes me very nervous to trust my kids with Bishops or other Priesthood leaders. This whole thread has been a little ptsd for me. Edited December 13, 2017 by bsjkki 3
HappyJackWagon Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, rongo said: As you know, that is within the discretion, experience, and temperament of each bishop. And that is why it is scary and inappropriate to have grown men, utilizing their own discretion, experience, and temperament as bishop, interviewing youth behind closed doors about sxual practices. It requires a level of trust, and even faith in leaders that isn't justified. Edited December 13, 2017 by HappyJackWagon 1
ALarson Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 8 minutes ago, rongo said: As you know, that is within the discretion, experience, and temperament of each bishop. And that really gets to the core of the problem (or potential problems...). Why are there set questions when the Bishop or SP is interviewing an adult for worthiness (TR), but not for the youth? Maybe there needs to be. 2
rongo Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 6 minutes ago, ALarson said: And that really gets to the core of the problem (or potential problems...). Why are there set questions when the Bishop or SP is interviewing an adult for worthiness (TR), but not for the youth? Maybe there needs to be. The "set" questions are the same for both, but they often need to be adapted for youth (i.e., they don't understand what the question is asking). Adults know what the questions are asking.
jkwilliams Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 1 minute ago, rongo said: The "set" questions are the same for both, but they often need to be adapted for youth (i.e., they don't understand what the question is asking). Adults know what the questions are asking. Why would a leader need to ask a child if he or she was "self-abusing" but not need to ask that of adults? Are adults asked about pornography? I don't recall being asked about either after my mission, but up to and through my mission. Strange. 2
ALarson Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 (edited) 8 minutes ago, rongo said: The "set" questions are the same for both, but they often need to be adapted for youth (i.e., they don't understand what the question is asking). I disagree that there are the same set questions for youth as there are for adults. There are no questions specifically worded and supplied for youth interviews as there are for adult worthiness interviews. Otherwise, why say this about what questions to ask: "that is within the discretion, experience, and temperament of each bishop"? Edited December 13, 2017 by ALarson
rongo Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 10 minutes ago, ALarson said: I disagree that there are the same set questions for youth as there are for adults. There are no questions specifically worded and supplied for youth interviews as there are for adult worthiness interviews. Otherwise, why say this about what questions to ask: "that is within the discretion, experience, and temperament of each bishop"? Temple recommend interviews are set (but have to be adapted, in my experience). Annual/semi-annual are not.
ksfisher Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, ALarson said: I disagree that there are the same set questions for youth as there are for adults. There are no questions specifically worded and supplied for youth interviews as there are for adult worthiness interviews. Otherwise, why say this about what questions to ask: "that is within the discretion, experience, and temperament of each bishop"? I use the same questions for a limited use recommend as I do for a regular recommend. I do start off each interview by letting the person know that if there is anything they don't understand that they can ask. I'll even do this with younger adults. I adapt in that I, obviously, don't ask if they have financial obligations to a former spouse. Edited December 13, 2017 by ksfisher 2
Danzo Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 20 hours ago, ALarson said: Do you think members confess that they are the ones who are a danger to others? It happens
rongo Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 15 minutes ago, jkwilliams said: Why would a leader need to ask a child if he or she was "self-abusing" but not need to ask that of adults? Are adults asked about pornography? I don't recall being asked about either after my mission, but up to and through my mission. Strange. I think it's supposed to be a given that adults know that porn/masturbation are included in the law of chastity. Many youth don't automatically think this, and (per my dad) many 20somethings think that oral/****, "Levi lovin'," etc. are okay (at least, they claim ignorance). It certainly doesn't hurt to set this straight in their teenage years. I have known youth (mostly young women) who are active and committed who are dismayed to find out that sexting is a serious sin (they are asked for inappropriate images of themselves, and they send them). You would think that this is an automatic and a given, but you would be wrong. This is mostly a failing on the part of parents, but we have a lot of youth who think they are "fine," who are engaging in inappropriate behavior and practices. 1
ALarson Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 3 minutes ago, rongo said: Temple recommend interviews are set (but have to be adapted, in my experience). Annual/semi-annual are not. How do you mean "adapted"? (Such as additional questions for those who are divorced, etc....or something else?). Adults don't go in for annual/semi-annual. So you agree that the youth interviews do not have a set group of questions such as there are for adults?
Danzo Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 20 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. If you really think they are called, then you might respect the calling a bit more.
rongo Posted December 13, 2017 Posted December 13, 2017 Just now, ALarson said: How do you mean "adapted"? (Such as additional questions for those who are divorced, etc....or something else?). Well, as I've said, I ask them to explain WoW, LoC, tithing, etc. and go from there as far as where they're at before asking them if they keep/follow it. I don't simply ask them the questions. Yes, I don't ask youth if they have financial or other obligations to former spouses or children. And, I find that the apostate groups question needs a lot of explaining. Etc. Adults don't go in for annual/semi-annual. So you agree that the youth interviews do not have a set group of questions such as there are for adults? Yes, I agree that annual/semi-annual interviews don't have set questions.
Recommended Posts