Mormon bishops' interview policy opens the door for abuse?

[SamuelTheLamanite]

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

 I could see an end to any questions of a sexual nature in the interviews.

If all sex related discussions end, the number of criminal confessions are going to decrease, and we don't want that. We still have an under-reporting problem in society, and ending interviews would only make it worst.

38 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

We cannot play Russion roulette with these individuals that bishops/counselors can even know how to put things,

I am not suggesting Bishops should replace therapists. I believe the interview process should be reformed and Bishops should get more training on how to handle a situation when someone confesses a crime.

Religious conversations are powerful Tacenda, they can make molesters confess their crimes. If the Bishop talks about how serious sexual sins are, that would make an impact on some molesters. Remember that 41% of molesters are underage themselves.  

29 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

  I would love to see an end to the interviews all together

Why? and why not reform them instead?

Edited February 2, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[smac97]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Bishop interviews are an interesting tradition that has developed in Mormonism.  There are no early Mormon revelations or precedents that call for this practice.  To my knowledge there has been no claim of an explicit revelation to support the need for this practice.  It sounds like this tradition has been constructed purely on gut feelings.  

Or formalized policy extrapolated from revealed doctrines pertaining to the role of the bishop.

Thanks,

-Smac

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Or formalized policy extrapolated from revealed doctrines pertaining to the role of the bishop.

Thanks,

-Smac

Sounds a lot a critique that Mormons often voice against other religious traditions.  Extrapolated policies, no actual revelations or doctrines, but instead extrapolation.  

[The Nehor]

I liked this thread better the last time.

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Or formalized policy extrapolated from revealed doctrines pertaining to the role of the bishop.

Thanks,

-Smac

Where is it in the scriptures that we need to confess to Bishops?  How about where it is written in church doctrine?  Just wondering.

Are you just going on their generalized title of being a judge in Israel or are there scriptures and actual doctrine backing up that he is who we are to confess to?

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by JulieM

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

If all sex related discussions end, the number of criminal confessions are going to decrease, and we don't want that. We still have an under-reporting problem in society, and ending interviews would only make it worst.

We have no evidence that there are any significant number of criminal related confessions happening in the current system.  Also, I mentioned earlier that the church does not use this as justification for the interview practice, and never has.  You've created a benefit to the interview system that has no evidence to support it, and has no justification from the church.  I don't believe this is even a reasonable position to take, and has serious problems if you want to use the interview practice as a mechanism to uncover criminal behavior.  

[smac97]

16 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Where is it in the scriptures that we need to confess to Bishops?  How about where it is written in church doctrine?  Just wondering.

I think D&C 59:12 is a good place to start.

There are oodles of scriptures about "confession."  Confession to whom is usually not specifically stated.  So some exegesis is needed.  Extrapolation.  Reasoned application.  That's what General Authorities are for, I think.

16 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Are you just going on their generalized title of being a judge in Israel or are there scriptures and actual doctrine backing up that he is who we are to confess to?

Both.  And guidance from General Authorities as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Sounds a lot a critique that Mormons often voice against other religious traditions. 

Well, not really.  We claim to have Priesthood authority and continuing revelation.  So such extrapolation is both contemplated and expected.

25 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Extrapolated policies, no actual revelations or doctrines, but instead extrapolation.  

Well, no.  I made no such either/or declarations.  It's both.  Actual revelations about extrapolation and interpretation and application of doctrines.

Thanks,

-Smac

[JulieM]

8 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I think D&C 59:12 is a good place to start.

There are oodles of scriptures about "confession."  Confession to whom is usually not specifically stated.  So some exegesis is needed.  Extrapolation.  Reasoned application.  That's what General Authorities are for, I think.

Both.  And guidance from General Authorities as well.

Thanks,

-Smac

Thank you Smac.  I’ll read that D&C section again.  

As far as specifically naming who we confess to (from scripture), I’ve found it’s usually to the Lord.  But I’ll read more on it.

Thanks again!

Edited February 2, 2018 by JulieM

[rongo]

39 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Where is it in the scriptures that we need to confess to Bishops?  How about where it is written in church doctrine?  Just wondering.

Are you just going on their generalized title of being a judge in Israel or are there scriptures and actual doctrine backing up that he is who we are to confess to?

I think the judge in Israel thing is a big part of it (that is one of the basic and primary responsibilities). Another is the authority to bind and loose on heaven and earth, which Jesus gave apostles. In the work of the Restoration, this is delegated at the local level to bishops and stake presidents, and is directly applied in disciplinary action and decisions. 

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Thank you Smac.  I’ll read that D&C section again.  

As far as specifically naming who we confess to (from scripture), I’ve found it’s usually to the Lord.  But I’ll read more on it.

Thanks again!

I agree.  It usually is.  But not always.

Thanks,

-Smac

[SamuelTheLamanite]

53 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

We have no evidence that there are any significant number of criminal related confessions happening in the current system.  Also, I mentioned earlier that the church does not use this as justification for the interview practice, and never has.  You've created a benefit to the interview system that has no evidence to support it, and has no justification from the church.  I don't believe this is even a reasonable position to take, and has serious problems if you want to use the interview practice as a mechanism to uncover criminal behavior.  

There is no evidence, but minors confessing crimes to Bishops won't make national news. It is possible that some minors are confessing their crimes. The truth is that  20% of the US population is under 18, but at least 35% of reported offenders are juveniles.

It may be the case that no significant number of criminal related confessions are happening, but the reality is that LDS interviews are not going to end any time soon. It would be easier to persuade the church to reform interview process, rather than to  completely end it. 

By the way, the topic of this thread is "Mormon bishops' interview policy opens the door for abuse?". There is an article with the Title "Mormon bishops' interview policy opens the door for abuse". The Anti-Mormon critics claim Bishop interviews open door for abuse, but the vast majority of Bishops don't do it. There are probably more criminals that confess crime, than Bishops that abuse children. Yes there are Bishops that abused children, and it is absolutely repulsive, but the way to stop that from happening again is to reform the interview process. The reformation is the answer hope for things.   

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

  I don't believe this is even a reasonable position to take

The idea of ending interviews isn't reasonable because it is highly unlikely to happen. So it' best to persuade church leaders to reform them. 

 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I liked this thread better the last time.

Why?

[hope_for_things]

47 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Well, not really.  We claim to have Priesthood authority and continuing revelation.  So such extrapolation is both contemplated and expected.

Well, no.  I made no such either/or declarations.  It's both.  Actual revelations about extrapolation and interpretation and application of doctrines.

Thanks,

-Smac

This is a convenient interpretation of what authority and revelation mean to support your argument.  If all policies are the product of revelation, then why does the church characterize some past policies as disavowed?  My suspicion is that you won't go so far as to claim that 100% of all policies throughout history are the product of revelation.  But I also suspect that you aren't willing to point out a single current policy that you believe isn't the product of revelation.  

With respect to the bishop's interview process, I personally don't believe it was the product of revelation.  We have no evidence that it was introduced through revelation.  The church hasn't ever even made the claim that this is revelation, something you're doing, but the church hasn't ever done to my knowledge.  All we have is your assumption that this tradition, an extrapolation by church leaders, has the imprimatur of revelation.  

[hope_for_things]

9 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

There is no evidence, but minors confessing crimes to Bishops won't make national news. It is possible that some minors are confessing their crimes. The truth is that  20% of the US population is under 18, but at least 35% of reported offenders are juveniles.

It may be the case that no significant number of criminal related confessions are happening, but the reality is that LDS interviews are not going to end any time soon. It would be easier to persuade the church to reform interview process, rather than to  completely end it. 

By the way, the topic of this thread is "Mormon bishops' interview policy opens the door for abuse?". There is an article with the Title "Mormon bishops' interview policy opens the door for abuse". The Anti-Mormon critics claim Bishop interviews open door for abuse, but the vast majority of Bishops don't do it. There are probably more criminals that confess crime, than Bishops that abuse children. Yes there are Bishops that abused children, and it is absolutely repulsive, but the way to stop that from happening again is to reform the interview process. The reformation is the answer hope for things.   

The idea of ending interviews isn't reasonable because it is highly unlikely to happen. So it' best to persuade church leaders to reform them. 

 

Sorry, I just think you're way off base with this argument.  And I'm someone that would love some change with respect to the interview process and have commented to that effect multiple times in different threads.  So I would love to find something in your argument to support, but I honestly don't see anything that is based on a reasonable interpretation of the data. 

[The Nehor]

12 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Why?

This one is weirder and not in a good way.

[Robert F. Smith]

6 hours ago, will227457 said:

I am pretty sure that this is not correct.  I would like to see a reference that shows this to be true. If I was Bishop and someone came in and confessed to molesting a child to me I would encourage him to turn himself in and let him know that once he left my office I would give him 5 minutes to call the police himself or I would. Heck 5 minutes would be to long I wouldn't want to give him the head start.

Sorry, but the confessional is sacrosanct in the law, and any pastor who breaks that confidence can be sued -- as can his religious organization.

Quote

According to former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, Warren Burger, "The clergy privilege is rooted in the imperative need for confidence and trust. The... privilege recognizes the human need to disclose to a spiritual counselor, in total and absolute confidence, what are believed to be flawed acts or thoughts and to receive consolations and guidance in return."

A pastor has a duty to hold in confidence any information obtained during a counseling session. A pastor who violates this trust might be on the losing end of a suit for an invasion of privacy or defamation.^[7]

The First Amendment is largely cited as the jurisprudential basis. The earliest and most influential case acknowledging the priest–penitent privilege was People v. Phillips (1813), where the Court of General Sessions of the City of New York refused to compel a priest to testify. The Court opined:

It is essential to the free exercise of a religion, that its ordinances should be administered—that its ceremonies as well as its essentials should be protected. Secrecy is of the essence of penance. The sinner will not confess, nor will the priest receive his confession, if the veil of secrecy is removed: To decide that the minister shall promulgate what he receives in confession, is to declare that there shall be no penance...

A few years after Phillips was decided, People v. Smith distinguished the case on the grounds that the defendant had approached the minister as a "friend or adviser," not in his capacity as a professional or spiritual advisor. As with most privileges, a debate still exists about the circumstances under which the priest–penitent privilege applies. The capacity in which the clergyman is acting at the time of the communication is relevant in many jurisdictions.

Clergy–penitent privilege and mandated reporting

In U.S. practice, the confidentiality privilege has been extended to non-Catholic clergy and non-sacramental counseling, with explicit clergy exemptions put into most state law over the past several decades. In most states, information gained within a confession or private conversation is considered privileged and may be exempted from mandatory reporting requirements.^{[8]:2   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Priest–penitent_privilege .}

 

Edited February 2, 2018 by Robert F. Smith

[SamuelTheLamanite]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Sorry, I just think you're way off base with this argument.  And I'm someone that would love some change with respect to the interview process and have commented to that effect multiple times in different threads.  So I would love to find something in your argument to support, but I honestly don't see anything that is based on a reasonable interpretation of the data. 

Do you know exactly what I am arguing? I also think we need some change with respect to the interview process. So I am not sure what exactly do we disagree on

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This one is weirder and not in a good way.

Okay?? Do you think Bishop interviews should end?

Edited February 2, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

31 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This one is weirder and not in a good way.

 

Can we please have a conversation like adults? See my quote below.

Edited February 2, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

As for the petition I actually agree with most of it, but I doubt there are many Bishops that ask teenagers about specific things like 0rg a sm. I suspect the vast majority of Bishops aren't stupid.

I quote myself remind Nehor, Hope, and others of what I wrote. But to make it very clear I agree Bishops shouldn't ask about masturbation, orgasm, and other specific acts, and I suspect most Bishops don't do it.  But it doesn't mean Bishops shouldn't say "sexual sins are serious" during interviews. Grow Up Nehor.

And no Nehor, trust me I am never going to be a Bishop! Just trust me on that one.

 

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

But to make it very clear I agree Bishops shouldn't ask about masturbation, orgasm, and other specific acts, and I suspect most Bishops don't do it. 

I agree with you on this specific point, but disagree about interviews being a mechanism to discover illegal acts of abuse as a reason to maintain the interview policy.  

[cinepro]

7 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Cinepro,

Like it or not there are teenagers who abuse (half of all abusers are teenagers according to study). If a Bishop talks about serious sins to everyone, then there is a chance he talks to an abuser and makes him confess. You get my point? As for the petition I actually agree with most of it, but I doubt there are many Bishops that ask teenagers about specific things like 0rg a sm. I suspect the vast majority of Bishops aren't stupid.

The petition is about the outliers, not the "vast majority."

[SamuelTheLamanite]

16 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I agree with you on this specific point, but disagree about interviews being a mechanism to discover illegal acts of abuse as a reason to maintain the interview policy.  

Hope. I am not saying Bishops should be criminal detectives. Bishops by simply saying "Sexual sins are very serious" could make some criminals feel guilty.  The doctrine "sexual sins are serious" is what the church teaches anyway, and it will never go away. So in other words all I am saying is the potential good of Bishop interviews, but it doesn't mean there aren't problems.  But thank you, finally we are coming to an agreement.  

Edited February 3, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

21 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

to maintain the interview policy.  

but it is never going away. All you could hope for is a reformed interview process

Edited February 3, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

Sorry for repeating myself so many times