Rob Porter, and Mormonism's #MeToo Moment

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

Yes, it is. 

 

 

I'm absolutely suggesting that. I don't think a knee-jerk, automatic reaction to refer anything and everything to "trained and licensed mental health professionals" is the panacea many think it is. I think the belief that bishops can solve all problems is being transferred over to "trained and licensed mental health professionals," except this is supposed to be the enlightened view right now, while counsel from priesthood leaders is supposed to be the knuckle-dragging, uni-browed route. 

So, let's do a hypothetical - A person who obviously has severe emotional problems comes to you for help.  You don't refer them to a professional counselor or psychiatrist for ANY portion of their mental illness or emotional trauma?

Edited February 14, 2018 by ttribe

[CA Steve]

12 minutes ago, rongo said:

Yes, it is. 

 

 

I'm absolutely suggesting that. I don't think a knee-jerk, automatic reaction to refer anything and everything to "trained and licensed mental health professionals" is the panacea many think it is. I think the belief that bishops can solve all problems is being transferred over to "trained and licensed mental health professionals," except this is supposed to be the enlightened view right now, while counsel from priesthood leaders is supposed to be the knuckle-dragging, uni-browed route. 

I am not sure how we moved over into "mental health professionals" in a thread discussing abuse in marriage, and perhaps you misspoke when you typed this but if you are actually advocating that consulting a bishop is somehow equivalent of seeing a  "trained and licensed mental health professional", this is a dangerous and patently wrong claim from someone who is/has been a bishop. Bishops should absolutely not try and advise mentally ill people on how to treat their disease. Hopefully this is not what you meant.

[clarkgoble]

22 minutes ago, rongo said:

I have to do these for school, too, and of course I've done the Youth Protection trainings. Simply being able to electronically verify that people have viewed online lessons is not a high standard of excellence, nor do online training videos ensure that everything will be great. I think the same infrequent breakdowns will occur with or without such things. 

It's not a high standard but it's still better than what we're doing. So I'm certainly not saying that's all we should do but it'd at least ensure people have heard these things.

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

 

I have to do these for school, too, and of course I've done the Youth Protection trainings. Simply being able to electronically verify that people have viewed online lessons is not a high standard of excellence, nor do online training videos ensure that everything will be great. I think the same infrequent breakdowns will occur with or without such things. 

Of course not. It's a minimum standard. It is notable that the church's standard is even lower than that. In fact it's so low I can't really tell what the standard is. Call someone and hope for the best seems to be the modus operandi.

If the church wants to have its leaders providing this kind of advice/counsel, then they should reap the criticism when it goes awry. They can try but I don't think it's going to fly for most people when they try to have it both ways.

[Jeanne]

This Porter is getting slammed all over the networks !

[ttribe]

13 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

This Porter is getting slammed all over the networks !

Sounds like there's a pretty good chance he deserves it.

[Jeanne]

28 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Sounds like there's a pretty good chance he deserves it.

I agree..payback is a real b....!

[Calm]

 

6 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Anyone called to the position is thrown into the deep end. I've only known a couple of bishops who didn't have any experience in bishoprics prior to being called and frankly, they have been the ones that seem to struggle the most. They've never seen how a bishopric works so they don't know how to organize or manage the processes as well. But most bishops, I suspect, have been in previous bishoprics. I was called as bishop at 35 and had already been in 3 bishoprics, but at the time I was called I wasn't in one. So I don't know that that is a great measure. I would imagine it is much more common for stake presidencies to have zero experience in a stake presidency, but they tend to have longer tenure as a complete presidency so they have more time to grow together.

I keep hearing the call for greater training. Sure, training is fine, but the bigger issue is the cultural expectation that people go to a bishop to help them deal with their marital problems, or abuse, or financial distress etc instead of going to professional experts in these fields. So train bishops better. A minimal increase will be a vast improvement over virtually no training, but FIX the cultural expectations around the role of bishops in dealing with these things.

I wonder if the rate for getting the correct help goes up or down when people go to a bishop or lay pastor, a trained pastor, or have no one they feel comfortable going to as a safe confidential parental figure without the baggage.  Maybe those without such a person in their life are more likely not to seek help at all because the first hurdle (go talk to a stranger about a very personal problem) is too high to get over.

Would be interesting to compare stats between professionally trained and untrained.  If the bishop starts to be seen as primarily just a stop on the way to something else, it is possible many won't take advantage of even him, but seek no help whatever.

In studies in the past, counseling success was more dependent on the relationship with the therapist than the type of therapy (I understand this has somewhat changed with the newer therapies that are based more on research).  This kind of stuff tells me there is a lot more needed by a person going into a bishop than just someone who says "go to the police" or " go to an abuse counselor".

It is all very well to say the cultural expectation needs to change, but getting someone who is feeling very vulnerable to open up to a counselor isn't automatic...getting them to not only call a counselor, but go to the session can be a huge thing and they have just barely started the process.  It may be too much to contemplate for those already in survival mode.

On the other hand, going to a spiritual leader when feeling vulnerable, in need of comfort may be almost second nature for many people.  It may even help in a person's view if their pastor/bishop is not known for professional training as it may be easier to go talk with someone one feels is not going to look at one like a client, but is someone who is much like you and talking to is like going next door to visit your neighbour...only safer, because it is confidential.

I think it would be wise to see if there is more or less help for victims and others by having a spiritual leader to go to when troubled before attempting to remove that option from people's expectations.  If more seek out help because seeing a pastor is in more people's comfort zone, training them to be more aware and effectively supportive sounds like a better solution than trying to push people elsewhere.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

2 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It's not a high standard but it's still better than what we're doing. So I'm certainly not saying that's all we should do but it'd at least ensure people have heard these things.

It is a relatively easy 'fix' and seems a practical step while looking into options that can add more effective training.  It is not a bad idea to start the basics with a cost effective method that can hit the most people in the least amount of time.  It may save a great deal of time and effort if the basics are already known when more detailed training takes place.  The bishops may also be more open to putting effort into getting additional training if the videos, etc. open their awareness to potential problems...it may be one of the most effective ways to teach bishops they shouldn't be doing everything on their own that doesn't involve someone who might not do well being the bishop's first exposure to to others' deep issues.

It can also be individualized for different areas' needs by adding specific cultural info.

Though it may be necessary in some cultures to approach some subjects in a face to face situation in order to create openness to learning new ways instead of creating resistance.  In others, the leader may feel less defensive learning new things on their own (the training videos and reading material).

[Calm]

7 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I think this is a valid concern. Being a Bishop puts someone in a very vulnerable position. They have so many one on one conversations that can be interpreted differently by both parties involved. Think about with your kids when you ask them what you just said...how many times have they missed half of it? Also, people remember negative experiences much easier than all the positive. Plus, they can tell the world the details of  the perceived conversation while Bishops are supposed to stay mum. Perception is reality. Many times, as a Bishop, you are expected to be a mind reader...it's hard to make good decisions when you don't have all the facts. "Follow the spirit" is somehow supposed to make you omniscient. These are dangerous expectations. It is better for a Bishop to bring in the professionals and I  think members should be trained to not expect 'counseling' from a Bishop. I once saw a parent dragging their teenager into 'see the Bishop' about her disrespectful behavior. The Bishop cannot replace parenting. 

Is this  type of thing common? I've not sought counseling through my Bishop before. 

I agree with all of this, but I also believe that the image of the bishop as a safe, confidential friend should be cultivated, rather than diminished.  Victims are often intentionally isolated from their former support network.  Their lack of familiarity with law enforcement means they will not feel as safe due to not being able to predict what happens and they know they have no control over the response once they inform police, but it will be what is decided on by others.  They may think of counselors in a "they won't know who I am" way that makes it seem too hard or too unpredictable to go.  If they don't process the charitable institutions as an option, then there is the idea of a potential money trail their spouse could come across and be triggered by.  And if the spouse is hyper controlling there is likely a projected need to explain what one has doing.

Otoh, there is usually an easy route to the bishop's office and an easy explanation for being there and probably more important to a victim who is trying to find some semblance of control, the bishop is a relatively known variable.

-----

As far as those who see the bishop as the one stop parental/financial/personal aide....

People who go to the bishop may be the very ones that will never consider any other form of outside help.  The bishop may be one of the few (being seen an authority figure as well as a friend) that could convince them to get the professional help they need if they need it.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Calm

[rongo]

3 hours ago, ttribe said:

So, let's do a hypothetical - A person who obviously has severe emotional problems comes to you for help.  You don't refer them to a professional counselor or psychiatrist for ANY portion of their mental illness or emotional trauma?

If they need the services of a psychologist or counselor, I would refer them and help them get help. It doesn't automatically follow, though, that all people automatically need counseling. It would depend on the details of the person, the problem, and the situation.

I know that some people think all people need counseling about all things all the time --- non-ecclesiastical counseling, not from priesthood leaders. Even about Church and worthiness stuff ---- if church leaders try to help in even these areas, then they are just going to inflict irreparable harm on people. In fact, ecclesiastical counseling in areas of church and worthiness lie at the root of people's feelings of guilt, inadequacy, depression, anxiety, etc. etc. That's the tenor of the "all counseling, all the time" crowd.

There is a big difference between people with profound mental illness and emotional trauma (whom most bishops would refer, even without "training," myself included), and the people we're really talking about here. 

 

[ttribe]

Just now, rongo said:

If they need the services of a psychologist or counselor, I would refer them and help them get help. It doesn't automatically follow, though, that all people automatically need counseling. It would depend on the details of the person, the problem, and the situation.

I know that some people think all people need counseling about all things all the time --- non-ecclesiastical counseling, not from priesthood leaders. Even about Church and worthiness stuff ---- if church leaders try to help in even these areas, then they are just going to inflict irreparable harm on people. In fact, ecclesiastical counseling in areas of church and worthiness lie at the root of people's feelings of guilt, inadequacy, depression, anxiety, etc. etc. That's the tenor of the "all counseling, all the time" crowd.

There is a big difference between people with profound mental illness and emotional trauma (whom most bishops would refer, even without "training," myself included), and the people we're really talking about here. 

 

Who is this so-called "crowd"? Also, this "big difference" seems (at least on the surface) to be firmly an invention of your own mind.  Who's advocating for a 100% removal of ecclesiastical leadership from the process?  Geez, this thinking in extremes (on both sides) is incredibly harmful to a discussion.

[rongo]

3 hours ago, CA Steve said:

I am not sure how we moved over into "mental health professionals" in a thread discussing abuse in marriage, and perhaps you misspoke when you typed this but if you are actually advocating that consulting a bishop is somehow equivalent of seeing a  "trained and licensed mental health professional", this is a dangerous and patently wrong claim from someone who is/has been a bishop. Bishops should absolutely not try and advise mentally ill people on how to treat their disease. Hopefully this is not what you meant.

Seeing a bishop is not the equivalent of seeing a trained and licensed mental health professional when such is what is really needed. I do think that this is way over-prescribed, over-offered, and over-recommended (it all depends on the details, though). People act like the mere act of "getting counseling" is a panacea that cures all ills, and this is obviously not the case. 

[rongo]

3 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

It's not a high standard but it's still better than what we're doing. So I'm certainly not saying that's all we should do but it'd at least ensure people have heard these things.

It would ensure at least that the video ran and that the person passed the (easy) quiz at the end, but wouldn't actually be a predictor or indicator of quality of execution when the rubber hits the road. But yes, more than the Church currently requires in the form of "documented training."

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Of course not. It's a minimum standard. It is notable that the church's standard is even lower than that. In fact it's so low I can't really tell what the standard is. Call someone and hope for the best seems to be the modus operandi.

What, exactly, would be the hoped-for outcome of better training? A flowchart-style system where if X or Y manifest themselves or come up in your office, then refer them to Z? Situations are a lot more complicated than that, for one thing. 

[ttribe]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

Seeing a bishop is not the equivalent of seeing a trained and licensed mental health professional when such is what is really needed. I do think that this is way over-prescribed, over-offered, and over-recommended (it all depends on the details, though). People act like the mere act of "getting counseling" is a panacea that cures all ills, and this is obviously not the case. 

WHO?! Who are these "people" who "act" this way?

[rongo]

11 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Who is this so-called "crowd"? Also, this "big difference" seems (at least on the surface) to be firmly an invention of your own mind.  Who's advocating for a 100% removal of ecclesiastical leadership from the process?  Geez, this thinking in extremes (on both sides) is incredibly harmful to a discussion.

There is a consistent push from *some people* (the crowd) to diminish the role of bishops in Church members' lives. They criticize and capitalize on any perceived bishop failings in the media as reasons to stop having them a) give any interviews at all, or b) stop giving any youth interviews, or c) stop teaching standards because it gives people complexes, etc. 

Last year, HappyJackWagon, a former bishop who is unhappy with a lot of factors of Church culture and practice, advocated a system where the role of bishop were divided into two people: one to do strictly welfare and office/finance stuff, and another, to be professionally trained, to handle the counseling aspects. Even if this particular iteration isn't conceived of, this diminishing of the role of a bishop so as to remove really all counseling duties or capabilities is the desire of what I call "the crowd." 

Like Calm, I agree that the "the image of the bishop as a safe, confidential friend should be cultivated, rather than diminished."

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, ttribe said:

WHO?! Who are these "people" who "act" this way?

Some people on this board. Others who insist that all stake members should go to ARP, whether they think they have an addiction or not (They are completely serious). And others who think there is no such thing as too much counseling, and that it does nothing but good for people; that it is always excellent, and that everyone (*everyone*) should be in counseling. 

People I know, interact with, and sometimes have to fend off in their zeal. 

You don't know any people who "act as if the mere act of getting counseling is a panacea that cures all ills?" Boy, I do! 

A very real challenge is helping people progress beyond what President Packer called "counsel-itis," where they want constant "counseling," but don't make improvement (and the very act of pointing this out to some people may trigger a need for more counseling).

Edited February 14, 2018 by rongo

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

It would ensure at least that the video ran and that the person passed the (easy) quiz at the end, but wouldn't actually be a predictor or indicator of quality of execution when the rubber hits the road. But yes, more than the Church currently requires in the form of "documented training."

What, exactly, would be the hoped-for outcome of better training? A flowchart-style system where if X or Y manifest themselves or come up in your office, then refer them to Z? Situations are a lot more complicated than that, for one thing. 

For starters, awareness of issues, tips about best practices for how to respond and how not to respond in certain situations, increased awareness of resources available to the bishop.

It's interesting that for a person called to serve in cubs or boy scouts, they must take certain trainings before they can function in that calling, yet for a bishop there is no such requirement. At the very least, those who take the scout training learn the very basics of appropriate behavior and child protection. They have background checks run on them. These seem like very wise steps when placing someone in a position of trust over a group of youngsters. In a bishops case, there is no such requirement even though he will be in a position of authority over children and youth, as well as adults.

Hopefully training would give greater exposure to issues the bishop wouldn't have otherwise considered or dealt with. A bishop may learn over time how to deal with challenging situations if he sees them regularly, but how much trial and error is occurring with the people counseling with him before he figures things out? There will always be a learning curve. There's no way around that, but individuals can be assisted in adjusting to that curve more quickly. Perhaps increased training can help a leader humbly recognize their deficiency in understanding and addressing certain kinds of issues. 

[ttribe]

20 minutes ago, rongo said:

There is a consistent push from *some people* (the crowd) to diminish the role of bishops in Church members' lives. They criticize and capitalize on any perceived bishop failings in the media as reasons to stop having them a) give any interviews at all, or b) stop giving any youth interviews, or c) stop teaching standards because it gives people complexes, etc. 

Last year, HappyJackWagon, a former bishop who is unhappy with a lot of factors of Church culture and practice, advocated a system where the role of bishop were divided into two people: one to do strictly welfare and office/finance stuff, and another, to be professionally trained, to handle the counseling aspects. Even if this particular iteration isn't conceived of, this diminishing of the role of a bishop so as to remove really all counseling duties or capabilities is the desire of what I call "the crowd." 

Like Calm, I agree that the "the image of the bishop as a safe, confidential friend should be cultivated, rather than diminished."

 

17 minutes ago, rongo said:

Some people on this board. Others who insist that all stake members should go to ARP, whether they think they have an addiction or not (They are completely serious). And others who think there is no such thing as too much counseling, and that it does nothing but good for people; that it is always excellent. 

People I know, interact with, and sometimes have to fend off in their zeal. 

You don't know any people who "act as if the mere act of getting counseling is a panacea that cures all ills?" Boy, I do! 

Based on this, I think you interpret people's criticisms to mean they are advocating for the opposite extreme of what you like or support.  

[CA Steve]

19 minutes ago, rongo said:

Seeing a bishop is not the equivalent of seeing a trained and licensed mental health professional when such is what is really needed. I do think that this is way over-prescribed, over-offered, and over-recommended (it all depends on the details, though). People act like the mere act of "getting counseling" is a panacea that cures all ills, and this is obviously not the case. 

Here's the problem. I have first hand experience as part of a support group for a mentally ill person. I watched as the disease developed over a period of years and watch as even trained professionals struggled with identifying what was going on. Initially our first reaction was to seek help from a local bishop who perhaps felt a bit like you in that he felt that therapy & medication were over prescribed. This was a mistake that set us back quite some time and allowed the disease to progress further than if we had sought competent mental health personal to begin with. Fast forward many years and lots of time spent in support groups, group therapy sessions and close monitoring of the patient's health and I know how totally unprepared anyone in our ward or stake was to deal with this issue. We ourselves had no idea what we were dealing with for more than a year. No one in the church we met with had even the foggiest idea of what NAMI is or even what local mental health services there were where we could go to seek competent help. So while there may be  many people who may act like "getting counseling" is some sort of panacea, having an untrained well intentioned bishop think he can see the difference between someone who actually needs professional help and those who don't, is a recipe for disaster. He shouldn't be making those kinds of judgements/decisions at all. 

In my opinion, just like when there is a suspicion of abuse or even an accusation of abuse, when a bishop suspect there may be mental illness going on, he should encourage the member so seek the proper help or go to the proper authorities.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, rongo said:

There is a consistent push from *some people* (the crowd) to diminish the role of bishops in Church members' lives. They criticize and capitalize on any perceived bishop failings in the media as reasons to stop having them a) give any interviews at all, or b) stop giving any youth interviews, or c) stop teaching standards because it gives people complexes, etc. 

Last year, HappyJackWagon, a former bishop who is unhappy with a lot of factors of Church culture and practice, advocated a system where the role of bishop were divided into two people: one to do strictly welfare and office/finance stuff, and another, to be professionally trained, to handle the counseling aspects. Even if this particular iteration isn't conceived of, this diminishing of the role of a bishop so as to remove really all counseling duties or capabilities is the desire of what I call "the crowd." 

Like Calm, I agree that the "the image of the bishop as a safe, confidential friend should be cultivated, rather than diminished."

I'd have to read comments from whatever thread you are referencing to know for sure if you're representing this correctly. I don't recall that I "advocated" that approach but I can definitely imagine myself tossing out that option as a possibility to consider. I think there are many possibilities to be considered. What you consider a "diminishing" of the role of bishop I would consider a reasonable approach that may change some aspects of the role, but not necessarily diminish. The role of bishop has changed many times over the years. The current role of bishop is vastly "diminished" from what it was in 19th century Utah, for example. Maybe that's good, maybe it's bad. But I don't think it's useful to be afraid of change. It's not a turf war where the bishop is struggling to maintain or increase his power like how congress, or the executive branch might do. Things change as times and needs change.

I've got no problem with cultivating the image of a bishop as safe and confidential. That's a good thing. I'm not sure anyone has said otherwise. But that doesn't mean that a culture of belief that the bishop will be the best place to get counseling, or that he is the source of revelation for an individual or family, is a healthy culture. Bishop doesn't always know best. We shouldn't expect him to or treat him like he is always right. That is the culture we should fix. I think I've been pretty clear about that on this thread.

[rongo]

3 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Based on this, I think you interpret people's criticisms to mean they are advocating for the opposite extreme of what you like or support.  

That's essentially true of all of us, isn't it? If we're honest with ourselves and each other. 

[ttribe]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

That's essentially true of all of us, isn't it? If we're honest with ourselves and each other. 

Yes.  But that doesn't mean it has to come out of our keyboards that way.  We could do some self-reflection first.

[CA Steve]

By the way, a further note here. Many of the support groups we attended as well as the course we took from NAMI in basic mental health issues were staged at local non LDS churches, often with the pastor or local church official attending and participating. Each of these churches had someone within their organizations who served as a resource person in case they encountered a person in need. These local church resource people were/are invaluable as sources of information for those seeking help in mental health. Many of them were/are active volunteers for NAMI also. There was/is no such person in our stake. 

I did let both my bishop and SP know that if they needed some help in advising people where to get help I would  be glad to fill such a position. Never heard back from them.

 

For those who want to dismiss this as the exception or a rarity, the incidences of mental health issues which should be treated professionally are a lot higher than you may think. For example Schizophrenia affects about 1 in 100 people. So in a stake of 2-3000 people there would be 20-30 people who are affected. And that is just one aspect of mental illness. 

Edited February 14, 2018 by CA Steve

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, CA Steve said:

Here's the problem. I have first hand experience as part of a support group for a mentally ill person. I watched as the disease developed over a period of years and watch as even trained professionals struggled with identifying what was going on. Initially our first reaction was to seek help from a local bishop who perhaps felt a bit like you in that he felt that therapy & medication were over prescribed. This was a mistake that set us back quite some time and allowed the disease to progress further than if we had sought competent mental health personal to begin with. Fast forward many years and lots of time spent in support groups, group therapy sessions and close monitoring of the patient's health and I know how totally unprepared anyone in our ward or stake was to deal with this issue. We ourselves had no idea what we were dealing with for more than a year. No one in the church we met with had even the foggiest idea of what NAMI is or even what local mental health services there were where we could go to seek competent help. So while there may be  many people who may act like "getting counseling" is some sort of panacea, having an untrained well intentioned bishop think he can see the difference between someone who actually needs professional help and those who don't, is a recipe for disaster. He shouldn't be making those kinds of judgements/decisions at all. 

In my opinion, just like when there is a suspicion of abuse or even an accusation of abuse, when a bishop suspect there may be mental illness going on, he should encourage the member so seek the proper help or go to the proper authorities.

It sounds like everyone (including mental health professionals) over the years did the best that anyone could have done with that patient. I've also had to work with and help people who end up being committed, or who are a threat to themselves or others. In a few cases, me, my family, and others have been threatened and were in danger. Rare, but it happens. 

Much harder than spotting these rather obvious cases are cases where members have "mental illness" (I use quote marks not as scare quotes or to diminish from mental illness, but simply because the definition of mental illness has swelled to include a lot of formerly normal people at different stages. Cf. the prominence of articles in the Ensign and general conference mentions dealing with depression, anxiety, etc. as mental illness) but are functional. As you indicate, people can have mental illness that deteriorates over time, but as you also indicate, even the professionals can fail to spot this. It's a challenge for both lay clergy and professionals.