Mormon bishops' interview policy opens the door for abuse?

[SamuelTheLamanite]

20 minutes ago, JulieM said:

No, what he posted was what was directly related to or relevant to what you said (that half of ALL abusers are juveniles).  

Your additional info isn’t the same comparison because it’s just those against juveniles (that’s not ALL).

JulieM,

I thought I made it clear when I posted the image on page one. It is talking about criminal child molesters.

Sorry again for the confusion.

Edited February 4, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[JulieM]

27 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

 

That same source also states “about a third”.  No source posted supports your one half repeated claims.

You should probably give this argument up.

Even one fourth or one third is too high. And that is what the statistics say.  Just go with the real numbers and try to still make your argument from your opening post.

Edited February 4, 2018 by JulieM

[SamuelTheLamanite]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

You should probably give this argument up.

JulieM,

We are talking about criminal child abusers.  I am sorry for the confusion.

I am clarifying, and hopefully you accept my apology.

In OP when I said "abusers" I was talking about "child abusers".

Edited February 4, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

Julie, it says "more than one third". What I don't understand is why are we arguing about this? What really matters is what USU said

11 hours ago, USU78 said:

41% can reasonably said to be "nearly" half. In any case, that was plainly a secondary point, with the principal point being that there is a significant number of youth offenders of youth.

because it is a serious problem that we all must learn about. I suspect most adults don't know that a significant number of children are offenders.

Edited February 4, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 2/2/2018 at 3:40 AM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

s. Who are the abusers? According to a study half of all abusers are juveniles. Douglas, EM. & Finkelhor, D. (2005, May). Childhood sexual abuse fact sheet. Retrieved from http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/factsheet/pdf/CSA-FS20.pdf [Google Schol. 

 

On 2/2/2018 at 5:18 PM, SamuelTheLamanite said:

That is my point, and according to research half of all molesters are underage.

 

Edited February 4, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[JulieM]

41 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

That is my point, and according to research half of all molesters are underage.

Sorry, Samuel.  I’m not sure what you’re quoting.

 From the link you are posting, it states:

“Juveniles themselves commit a considerable proportion of sexual offenses against children, with estimates indicating about a third (ranging from 29-41%) are juveniles [5, 7, 17].”

Where does it actually say “half of all molesters are underage”?

Even about a third is a lot.  So maybe just continue on with what you want to discuss about the bishop’s interviews?

[Gray]

The policy does open the door for abuse, but even probing sexual questions without physical contact are a kind of abuse (sexual harassment). The policy needs to change.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

The policy does open the door for abuse, but even probing sexual questions without physical contact are a kind of abuse (sexual harassment). The policy needs to change.

Agree, and they are altering whole lives. I admit that there are instances where it's a positive altering...it happened to myself. But what to do about the abuses...I've read plenty of letters written on the abuse and it's terribly disheartening. 

Edited February 4, 2018 by Tacenda

[USU78]

Life is fraught. Risks are everywhere. Plastic wrap on the roast doesn't mean there's no ecoli. And every and I do mean every choice has potentially lethal consequences.

You are probably safer with a random bishop behind closed doors with no lookyloo glass than with your own father.

At some point you have to make the choice to live without irrationality. Choke back your fears. Live abundantly. Embrace the chance to take stock of your life periodically with a compassionate life guide who cares enough to devote thousands of hours for no pay to serve others.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

6 hours ago, Gray said:

The policy does open the door for abuse, but even probing sexual questions without physical contact are a kind of abuse (sexual harassment). The policy needs to change.

Asking "do you obey the law of chastity" and saying "sexual sins are serious" is abuse? Extremes are never a good thing, look at what happened to Aziz Ansari.

4 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Agree, and they are altering whole lives. I admit that there are instances where it's a positive altering...it happened to myself. But what to do about the abuses

To stop abuse the church needs to reform the interview process, perhaps the counselors can supervise the interviews. 

Edited February 4, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[USU78]

4 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

 

To stop abuse the church needs to reform the interview process, perhaps the councilors can supervise the interviews. 

No thanks. I want my soul baring to be witnessed only by the single [high] priest, with my legal privilege intact.

You have no concept of what you're risking, what awful power you would give back to the state.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

On 2/3/2018 at 12:15 AM, cinepro said:

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

 

On 2/2/2018 at 7:33 PM, hope_for_things said:

I'm not great at predicting the future.  I could see an end to any questions of a sexual nature in the interviews.  I would love to see an end to the interviews all together

Hope,

Let me put undocumented immigrants as an example. The vast majority of undocumented immigrants are working hard to support their families and are not violent. Statistics show the undocumented immigrant population has a lower crime rate than US citizens.  However, there is a very small number of immigrants that committed a horrendous crimes  in the US. Would you deport all immigrants because some of them committed a crime? If no, how are Bishop interviews different? The vast majority of Bishops do not abuse. Right?

 

[SamuelTheLamanite]

5 minutes ago, USU78 said:

No thanks. I want my soul baring to be witnessed only by the single [high] priest, with my legal privilege intact.

You have no concept of what you're risking, what awful power you would give back to the state.

Sorry, I meant to write "Counselors". I blame the spell check.

Edited February 4, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[SamuelTheLamanite]

7 hours ago, Gray said:

 The policy needs to change.

The church is guided by revelation. Wouldn't God have told us by now? Or do you believe it is something that we need to figure out ourselves?

[cinepro]

36 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

The church is guided by revelation. Wouldn't God have told us by now? Or do you believe it is something that we need to figure out ourselves?

Honestly, if you look at the Old Testament, I'm not sure God is going to be taking the lead on what policies are or aren't good for the sensibilities of teenagers in 2017. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Sorry, I meant to write "Counselors". I blame the spell check.

Still not a good idea.

Ecclesiastical interviews are potentially so sensitive they need to be confined to a single interviewer sworn to hold them in confidence.

[Five Solas]

40 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Still not a good idea.

Ecclesiastical interviews are potentially so sensitive they need to be confined to a single interviewer sworn to hold them in confidence.

Except they don't swear to hold what they hear in confidence.  Where the law requires LDS leaders to report criminal activity, they break whatever confidence may have been presumed & they report the criminal activity.  And aside from matters of law, LDS interviewers always have the option to discuss interviewee disclosures with their hierarchical superiors within the LDS Church. 

I'll gladly take correction if I'm wrong about that, Scott.

--Erik

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

Except they don't swear to hold what they hear in confidence.  Where the law requires LDS leaders to report criminal activity, they break whatever confidence may have been presumed & they report the criminal activity.  And aside from matters of law, LDS interviewers always have the option to discuss interviewee disclosures with their hierarchical superiors within the LDS Church. 

I'll gladly take correction if I'm wrong about that, Scott.

--Erik

I know all that (most individuals knowledgeable about administrative procedure in the Church do),  and I contemplated it in my definition of "in confidence."

That does not mean that counselors in the bishopric are privy to certain sensitivities in the interview, nor should they be. 

[hope_for_things]

On 2/3/2018 at 9:18 AM, smac97 said:

"Convenient" here being synonymous for "congruent with the Church's teachings."

It's not particularly surprising to me that the LDS Church privileges the inspired guidance of living prophets and apostles as they read and interpret and apply scriptural precepts to our day, and that they also receive new and continuing revelation.

I didn't say all policies are the product of revelation.  The Church has policies in place for not keeping food in the church kitchen refrigerator overnight.  I doubt that policy arose from "revelation."

On the other hand, maybe it did: "For behold, it is not meet that I should command in all things; for he that is compelled in all things, the same is a slothful and not a wise servant; wherefore he receiveth no reward.   Verily I say, men should be anxiously engaged in a good cause, and do many things of their own free will, and bring to pass much righteousness." (D&C 58:26-27).

The Lord has revealed to us that He is not going to "command in all things."  Ipso facto, the Brethren function under this revelatory precept when they promulgate the policies of the Church.  Some, but not all things, are "commanded."  Regarding those things about which the Brethren are not "commanded," they are expected to do their best, to "do many things of their own free will."  It is understandable, then, that the Brethren don't get every single decision and policy exactly correct.  They are human, after all.  But I believe they are doing their best, and that they are generally performing their duties quite admirably.

Your suspicion is well-founded.  I don't claim that.

You are correct.  I will not publicly speak against the Brethren.  If I find a policy problematic, I will raise it in the appropriate time, place and manner.  Presenting such things in this forum, populated in part as it is by critics and opponents of the Church, is not the way to go.

I strongly suspect it is.  I can think of all sorts of scriptural mandates regarding the bishop's pastoral responsibilities that can form the scriptural predicate for such interviews.

Of course, an individual bishop can mess things up and ask inappropriate or unduly intrusive questions.  We can and should work on such things.

I think we do.

This sort of reductio ad absurdum hairsplitting is not persuasive to me.  At all.

As an attorney, I appear regularly before judges.  Mostly state court judges.  These are "courts of general jurisdiction."  In other words, they have authority to address pretty much any legal dispute that falls within their jurisdiction.  These judges are therefore accorded a very considerable amount of "discretion," or leeway, in their responsibilities.  So when a judge makes a decision on a procedural or some such matter, that's pretty much the end of it.  There is seldom a need for the judge to say "Well, let me quote chapter and verse the specific constitutional or statutory or procedural authority under which I am making this decision."  The exercise of discretion presupposes that the appropriate authority is extant, or else that the matter at issue is not specifically addressed in the constitution, or the state code, or the rules of procedure, such that the judge can proceed as he/she deems fit.

Similarly, as pertaining to matters of church governance, I believe the General Authorities are likewise given some fairly broad discretionary authority.  That authority is specifically and emphatically scriptural (see above), and therefore generally eliminates the need for the Brethren to "quote chapter and verse" before making each and every disctretionary decision.

No, we have quite a bit more than my assumption.

The Brethren have been commanded, by revelation, to make judgment calls.  To do things without being specifically commanded by God.  Bishop interviews could fall squarely within these parameters (in addition to being grounded in scriptural mandates regarding the pastoral responsibilities of bishops).

Thanks,

-Smac

Very different perspectives we're coming from.  I do understand that you're perspective is oriented toward a locus of external authority.  The judge example you give is analogous to how you view church leaders, they have the ultimate authority and you don't question it.  Thanks for sharing this example. 

The thing I don't understand with you using this example is I'm sure you're aware of the fallibility of judges, that they often make mistakes, and I'm guessing that you've seen judges in your line of work that abuse their authority, or that you regularly disagree with.  Do you ever have public disagreements with judges?  I'd like to know how you apply the skills of critical thinking and evaluation when it comes to the authority of judges in your line of work.  

[Tacenda]

17 hours ago, USU78 said:

Life is fraught. Risks are everywhere. Plastic wrap on the roast doesn't mean there's no ecoli. And every and I do mean every choice has potentially lethal consequences.

You are probably safer with a random bishop behind closed doors with no lookyloo glass than with your own father.

At some point you have to make the choice to live without irrationality. Choke back your fears. Live abundantly. Embrace the chance to take stock of your life periodically with a compassionate life guide who cares enough to devote thousands of hours for no pay to serve others.

Maybe that's key..maybe the parent's of the youth need to talk to their child about what's appropriate or not appropriate in the bishop/counselor's interview process.

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎2‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 8:45 PM, changed said:

after a really bad situations with quite a few children - at the hands of a high priest in the bishopric who is now in jail - we no longer allow our children to participate in PPI's.  They still have interviews, but they are not one-on-one interviews, all interviews are conducted with a parent present.  There are several in our ward doing this now, and it is no big deal.  

Just FYI to everyone out there - if PPI's make you uncomfortable, you can ask, and have, someone else go into the interview with you.

We have also talked with our kids about what constitutes appropriate questions - they know not to answer, or stay in any meetings involving any sexually explicit or probing questions that make them feel uncomfortable.  

Most people, most of the time are fine - and our kids know this is not just a church issue, it is for everyone issue - teachers at school, police officers, it does not matter who it is, they are NEVER to go into a room with another adult where it is just the two of them.  period.  

Good for you.

The problem is that not every leader will allow a parent to be in an interview. We've had people on this board who are currently in leadership positions state they would refuse to interview children for baptism, priesthood advancement, or temple recommends if the parents required a third party be present. IIRC they even stated that it's fine for parents to have that requirement but that just means they will be impeding their child's progress in the gospel because they wouldn't be able to participate in these kinds of activities/ordinances.

The attitude you share and the way it seems to work in your area, needs to become universal across the church. As long as individual bishops/SP have the power to enforce their own dangerous interpretations by refusing to allow parents to participate, then nothing will really change.

[USU78]

46 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Maybe that's key..maybe the parent's of the youth need to talk to their child about what's appropriate or not appropriate in the bishop/counselor's interview process.

Communication's always a good idea.  Instilling fear, not so much.  How this might be handled is key.  Kids are so dang smart, intuitive, and pick up messages we don't intend to send far too often.

[smac97]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Very different perspectives we're coming from.  I do understand that you're perspective is oriented toward a locus of external authority. 

I don't understand what this means.

Quote

The judge example you give is analogous to how you view church leaders, they have the ultimate authority and you don't question it.  Thanks for sharing this example. 

No, you are fundamentally misunderstanding and misstating my point.  I didn't say they have "ultimate authority," nor did I state that I "don't question it."  Neither of these statements is correct.

The authority of the district court judges is not plenary, nor is it "ultimate" (such authority instead resides with either the Utah Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court).  Rather, they are constrained by the federal and state constitutions, by state statutes, by the rules of procedure and evidence, and so on.  

And I have every right to question their decisions.  I have done so many times.  But there are prescribed mechanisms for doing so.  

Here is my point again, as pertaining to General Authorities (since I was analogizing civil judges' exercise of authority to them): "As pertaining to matters of church governance, I believe the General Authorities are likewise given some fairly broad discretionary authority.  That authority is specifically and emphatically scriptural (see above), and therefore generally eliminates the need for the Brethren to 'quote chapter and verse' before making each and every discretionary decision."

Nothing in this statement suggests that their authority is "ultimate."  It isn't. 

Nothing in this statement suggests that I disclaim the right to to "question" their exercise of authority.  I do have such a right.  I will - once again - refer you to Elder Oaks' 1987 Ensign article, "Criticism," which outlines how members can (and, when appropriate, should) voice concerns and objections to the exercise of authority by leaders in the Church.

Quote

The thing I don't understand with you using this example is I'm sure you're aware of the fallibility of judges, that they often make mistakes, and I'm guessing that you've seen judges in your line of work that abuse their authority, or that you regularly disagree with. 

Yes, they are fallible.  Yes, they make mistakes.  Yes, there are abuses of authority. 

No, I don't "regularly" disagree with the state court judiciary in Utah.  To the contrary, as a general rule I find they do a pretty good job.

Quote

Do you ever have public disagreements with judges? 

Nope, not yet.  There are some constraints on what an attorney can say publicly about judges (see here).  There are also prescribed procedures for reporting judicial misconduct (see, e.g., here).

I do not foreclose the possibility of publicly speaking against a judge (they are public officials, after all).  But I would do so with extreme caution.

Quote

I'd like to know how you apply the skills of critical thinking and evaluation when it comes to the authority of judges in your line of work.  

Basically, I study primary sources of law to determine the parameters of a judge's authority.  I also study those sources to determine the scope of a judge's "discretionary" authority.  Then I make an educated assessment of the situation and proceed accordingly.

I have experienced several instances where judges have made poor decisions.  These errors usually pertain to incorrect application of the substantive law, errors in procedure, or else poor (in my book) exercise of discretionary authority.  However, while I have heard stories of substantive judicial misconduct, I have not personally experienced it.  If and when I do, I would report it.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited February 5, 2018 by smac97

[hope_for_things]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand what this means.

No, you are fundamentally misunderstanding and misstating my point.  I didn't say they have "ultimate authority," nor did I state that I "don't question it."  Neither of these statements is correct.

The authority of the district court judges is not plenary, nor is it "ultimate" (such authority instead resides with either the Utah Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court).  Rather, they are constrained by the federal and state constitutions, by state statutes, by the rules of procedure and evidence, and so on.  

And I have every right to question their decisions.  I have done so many times.  But there are prescribed mechanisms for doing so.  

Here is my point again, as pertaining to General Authorities (since I was analogizing civil judges' exercise of authority to them): "As pertaining to matters of church governance, I believe the General Authorities are likewise given some fairly broad discretionary authority.  That authority is specifically and emphatically scriptural (see above), and therefore generally eliminates the need for the Brethren to 'quote chapter and verse' before making each and every discretionary decision."

Nothing in this statement suggests that their authority is "ultimate."  It isn't. 

Nothing in this statement suggests that I disclaim the right to to "question" their exercise of authority.  I do have such a right.  I will - once again - refer you to Elder Oaks' 1987 Ensign article, "Criticism," which outlines how members can (and, when appropriate, should) voice concerns and objections to the exercise of authority by leaders in the Church.

Yes, they are fallible.  Yes, they make mistakes.  Yes, there are abuses of authority. 

No, I don't "regularly" disagree with the state court judiciary in Utah.  To the contrary, as a general rule I find they do a pretty good job.

Nope, not yet.  There are some constraints on what an attorney can say publicly about judges (see here).  There are also prescribed procedures for reporting judicial misconduct (see, e.g., here).

I do not foreclose the possibility of publicly speaking against a judge (they are public officials, after all).  But I would do so with extreme caution.

Basically, I study primary sources of law to determine the parameters of a judge's authority.  I also study those sources to determine the scope of a judge's "discretionary" authority.  Then I make an educated assessment of the situation and proceed accordingly.

I have experienced several instances where judges have made poor decisions.  These errors usually pertain to incorrect application of the substantive law, errors in procedure, or else poor (in my book) exercise of discretionary authority.  However, while I have heard stories of substantive judicial misconduct, I have not personally experienced it.  If and when I do, I would report it.

Thanks,

-Smac

I think this helps me understand you better, thanks for the clarifications.  It sounds to me like you are very well suited for your particular chosen vocation.  The importance of specific definitions of words being one example that is highly relevant in the legal profession, and I appreciate that people like you are very careful about language, and also very attune to studying the correct procedures of the law and the limitations and methods in every particular.  

From my perspective I run into trouble when encountering a very legal minded person that thinks this way in terms of how to view Mormonism.  I don't think of religion in these same terms.  Its probably why President Oak's writings like the one you refer to earlier seem to bother me.  I don't really care what his opinion is about what the appropriate avenues are for criticism.  I completely disagree with him.  I don't see his opinion as authoritative or anything more than just an opinion. 

So when you use that talk or a scripture and your interpretation of that scripture as authoritative justification for a certain way of handling things or a certain way of understanding doctrine, I just see those scriptures and interpretations and talks as one person's perspective on things, not authoritative any more than any other person's perspective.  To me, all opinions are on equal footing in the arena of opinions.  Opinions should be judged according to their merit, and can be evaluated by reason, logic, the fruit or outcome of practicing these opinions, and other means of evaluation.  Authority doesn't mean jack to me when it comes to opinions about topics of discussion.  

[smac97]

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think this helps me understand you better, thanks for the clarifications.  It sounds to me like you are very well suited for your particular chosen vocation.  The importance of specific definitions of words being one example that is highly relevant in the legal profession, and I appreciate that people like you are very careful about language, and also very attune to studying the correct procedures of the law and the limitations and methods in every particular.

And yet for all that, I also recognize the very real limitations being "legalistic" has.

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

From my perspective I run into trouble when encountering a very legal minded person that thinks this way in terms of how to view Mormonism. 

My training and experience as an attorney inform my perspective on the Restored Gospel.  They are not the sum total of it.

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't think of religion in these same terms.  Its probably why President Oak's writings like the one you refer to earlier seem to bother me. 

Elder Oaks clearly has a "legal mind," and it shows in his writing.  But I don't think his legal training and experience reflect the totality of his perspective on the Gospel, either.

In any event, I'm not sure what's bothersome about Elder Oaks' writings.  I find his writings to be formal and eloquent and reasoned.  He also relies heavily on the things of the Spirit.

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I don't really care what his opinion is about what the appropriate avenues are for criticism.  I completely disagree with him.  I don't see his opinion as authoritative or anything more than just an opinion. 

Okay.  Rote disagreement doesn't get us very far, particularly since Elder Oaks goes to some lengths to explain what to me is a very coherent and profoundly scriptural basis for his counsel.

Plus he is, you know, an Apostle of Jesus Christ.  So there's that, too.

But I'll leave you to it.  Elder Oaks has explained his position with eloquence and reason.  And he's an apostle.  Your response is "I don't really care what his opinion is" and "I completely disagree" and "I don't see his opinion as authoritative."  You are certainly at liberty to hold such views, but surely you understand why I find them to be unpersuasive.  You aren't even trying to address what he has written.

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

So when you use that talk or a scripture and your interpretation of that scripture as authoritative justification for a certain way of handling things or a certain way of understanding doctrine, I just see those scriptures and interpretations and talks as one person's perspective on things, not authoritative any more than any other person's perspective. 

First, as an apostle, he is presenting more than "one person's perspective on things."  He is a "special witness" of Jesus Christ.

Second, he's not simply spouting off.  His article is long.  And thoughtful.  And nuanced.  And replete with scriptural citations and lucid reasoning.

Third, your summary dismissal of his remarks are devoid of scriptural citations and lucid reasoning.  

You will understand, then, why I find Elder Oaks' perspective on this issue to be more persuasive than yours.

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

To me, all opinions are on equal footing in the arena of opinions. 

I don't think he is simply giving his "opinion."

I also couldn't disagree more that "all opinions are on equal footing."  Some opinions are more informed than others.  Some opinions are founded on better reasoning than others.  And on and on and on.

If we were talking about mere matters of taste, you might have a point.  Regarding the "Five Guys vs. In-n-Out" debate, you are probably correct.  All opinions are on equal footing.  De gustibus non est disputandum and all that.

But if you are trying to suggest that the personal, unexplained, opinion of some anonymous online guy is on equal footing with the eminently reasoned and profoundly scriptural counsel proffered by Elder Oaks . . . well, I guess we'll have to disagree about that.

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Opinions should be judged according to their merit, and can be evaluated by reason, logic, the fruit or outcome of practicing these opinions, and other means of evaluation. 

You've provided virtually nothing that could allow a person like me to adjudicate the merits of your opinion.  No "reason" or "logic."  Just a series of conclusory assertions.

5 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Authority doesn't mean jack to me when it comes to opinions about topics of discussion.  

Elder Oaks wasn't exactly resting on his laurels.  Again, his article is long and thoughtful and nuanced and full of scriptural citations and lucid reasoning and explanation.  Your contrary opinion is essentially devoid of these things.  

Within the LDS paradigm, his prophetic utterances are, in fact, accorded privileged attention.  Because he is not speaking merely his own opinion.  He is speaking as a "special witness."  That carries with is some very real authority.

I have no idea what your beef with Elder Oaks is about.  I certainly did not mean to antagonize you by citing his article.  I hope you give some considerationto what he has written.

Thanks,

-Smac