Has the time come? IMO YES! To stop YW, YM, Single Women, from meeting alone with Priesthood Leaders. For everyone's sake!

[CV75]

14 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

You just live in an age now, when accusations are almost as damning as the crime. Steps can be taken that both protect the child or adult, and the leader at the same time. Simply leaving the door open becomes a problem when someone is confusing serious sins to their Bishop, and a door with a window (which is now the norm on most doors, but the Bishop's) is that anyone looking in, always causes the teacher to stop their class to see what the person wants. A second person (of course if the person wants a second person) can solve 99% of any such problems. Recordings would be out of the question, as all would fear this information getting out. 

I think it's good practice to let the parent(s) know you are going to interview the child, and why. Then any manner of individual accommodation can be made. This might be challenging in large wards, but it is worth it in that the youth are the bishops' #1 priority. I think it helps to remember that you are acting "only" in a support role to the parent and for them to understand that is where you are coming from, even when it comes to recommends and priesthood advancement. This will help them assess how much accompaniment they want to offer their children.

[The Nehor]

26 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I really don't understand this push.  If you are truly try to build a system that "keeps" predators out, why do you ever allow a child to be alone with their parent?  After all, statically parents are MUCH more likely to be perpetrators than a ecclesial authority.  And after you've forbidden a parent from being alone with their kid, the next likely perpetrators are siblings- so no siblings being alone.  And then no grandparents/uncles/aunts/cousins.  Heck, just no ever being alone ever.  

.... Or teach you children was is approbate, when to get help (for themselves or a friend), and keep communication channels open.  And then go actually live life. 

I prefer to live in lifelong paralyzing fear. Thanks anyways.

[Gray]

43 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I really don't understand this push.  If you are truly try to build a system that "keeps" predators out, why do you ever allow a child to be alone with their parent?  After all, statically parents are MUCH more likely to be perpetrators than a ecclesial authority.  And after you've forbidden a parent from being alone with their kid, the next likely perpetrators are siblings- so no siblings being alone.  And then no grandparents/uncles/aunts/cousins.  Heck, just no ever being alone ever.  

.... Or teach you children was is approbate, when to get help (for themselves or a friend), and keep communication channels open.  And then go actually live life. 

Children need their families, they don't need worthiness interviews. And the interviews themselves seem to put children at greater risk for grooming, even when the bishop is above board.

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I really don't understand this push.  If you are truly try to build a system that "keeps" predators out, why do you ever allow a child to be alone with their parent?  After all, statically parents are MUCH more likely to be perpetrators than a ecclesial authority.  And after you've forbidden a parent from being alone with their kid, the next likely perpetrators are siblings- so no siblings being alone.  And then no grandparents/uncles/aunts/cousins.  Heck, just no ever being alone ever.  

.... Or teach you children was is approbate, when to get help (for themselves or a friend), and keep communication channels open.  And then go actually live life. 

The point is the protection of the child, the Priesthood leader and the Church. Since this thread is in this forum to discuss issues related to the the Church, it seems most appropriate. Also, the absolute impossibility of insuring that a child is never alone with anyone including family, puts this in the realm absurd. You are correct, children are indeed harmed more statically by parents and family. But the Church already has at least "a" mechanics in place, as does the law to protect and remove children from such environments. But if these children find themselves further victimized by those to which they turn for help, all is lost. This is evidenced in scandals, and destroyed lives with that occurred within the Catholic Church and subsequent cover-ups. 

[Amulek]

6 minutes ago, Gray said:

And the interviews themselves seem to put children at greater risk for grooming, even when the bishop is above board.

How so? 

 

[rpn]

No doubt what has happened is horrendous in the worst and wicked way.    But no the church should not do away with the opportunity to confess one's sins to a bishop, or to seek their advice and counsel, in private. 

The idea that others should decide for me whether I am able to do that or not, is utterly repugnant, as bad (though in a different way), paternalistic.

 

[6EQUJ5]

10 minutes ago, Amulek said:

How so? 

 

I remember being an 11 year old boy preparing to become a deacon.  My bishop called me in and asked me -- in detail -- about my "self-abuse" habits.  Was I abusing myself? If so, how often?  How was I doing it? Was I looking at dirty pictures? Keep in mind that the only reason I knew what self-abuse was at that age was due to the booklet by Elder Packer they used to hand out.

As I recall, I thought the whole conversation was a bit weird but my Bishop was a good guy.  I believe he was doing his job as Bishop as he understood it.

But imagine if my Bishop was not a good guy and had nefarious intent.  The opportunity to discuss such explicit things presents in what is expected to be a "safe" environment is an ideal opportunity for what we now call "grooming."

Again, we must stop lying to ourselves about Priesthood leaders.  They are flawed human beings.  When humans do anything, there is risk of falling off the rails.

[Jeanne]

15 hours ago, Duncan said:

I emailed a concern I had about something to my then serving Bishop and when I got to Church I found out he read my email out loud in ward council, like, nice, I don't trust him anymore. I remember my fave. Stake President years ago said in stake conference that someone in the congregation used to be a prostitute and how her life had changed and everything, which is great but now people wondered who was that? and maybe she didn't feel comfortable with him telling anyone that story, even though he didn't mention her name

Ooooo..this is like a Bishop having conversations with his wife about confessions/probations that are among her friends...I would have been livid. There is no place/reason for this.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Jeanne

[Jeanne]

18 minutes ago, rpn said:

No doubt what has happened is horrendous in the worst and wicked way.    But no the church should not do away with the opportunity to confess one's sins to a bishop, or to seek their advice and counsel, in private. 

The idea that others should decide for me whether I am able to do that or not, is utterly repugnant, as bad (though in a different way), paternalistic.

 

Raise the authority of some good women in the church..so young girls can talk to them...and if there is an inclusion of another adult..let it be her mother.  If a woman in the ward is having a hard time..give the same authority to RS Pres.  But actually...I am all for the whole to just go away...General questions from the Father of the ward is okay...so okay that parents can participate or not. 

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

Ooooo..this is like a Bishop having conversations with his wife about confessions/probations that are among her friends...I would have been livid. There is no place/reason for this.

there certaintly isn't!

[phaedrus ut]

It makes sense to have multiple people involved in such meetings for the protection of all those involved.  I would take it a step further and left young women meet with female leaders if they wish for worthiness interviews.  If women can exercise priesthood authority in the temple I can't see a reason why they shouldn't be able to also do it for lesser tasks. 

 

Phaedrus

[strappinglad]

Why do we teach children how to cross the street safely? Do we not want them to be able to cross by themselves eventually? Imagine the look on your 14 year olds face if you wanted to hold their hand while they crossed the street. Teach them correct principles/precautions/warning signs etc. Even then there will come the odd car that will intentionally run a red light and do damage. Oh, I suppose we could bubble wrap our kids until they are 30 and then send them out .That never has any consequences.

With today's generation steeped in social media and all that exposes them to , I suggest they know more about sex and abuse than most adults even 30 years ago. Parents should be able to tap into that knowledge to have serious conversations with children under their care.

Edited March 20, 2018 by strappinglad

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Children need their families, they don't need worthiness interviews. And the interviews themselves seem to put children at greater risk for grooming, even when the bishop is above board.

As it relates to doing Temple work, so questions are asked of all. Some however take it too far, as an adult, all I am asked is if I am living the "law of Chastity" , and nothing more. No more should be asked of any YW, or YM. So to a point, you are correct. 

[Guest]

51 minutes ago, phaedrus ut said:

It makes sense to have multiple people involved in such meetings for the protection of all those involved.  I would take it a step further and left young women meet with female leaders if they wish for worthiness interviews.  If women can exercise priesthood authority in the temple I can't see a reason why they shouldn't be able to also do it for lesser tasks. 

 

Phaedrus

I like this suggestion better than my own. To be blunt, no male should be asking a YW, or any woman about sexual matters, other than a Bishop asking an adult, "are you living the law of Chastity"? Nothing more.  

[2BizE]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

https://www.gopetition.com/petitions/protect-the-children-stop-mormon-masturbation-interviews.html

Well, if you or anyone else is interested you could sign this petition.

Here's a link to many stories of abuse... http://protectldschildren.org/read-the-stories-2/

Thank You and I already have signed the petition.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, strappinglad said:

With today's generation steeped in social media and all that exposes them to , I suggest they know more about sex and abuse than most adults even 30 years ago. Parents should be able to tap into that knowledge to have serious conversations with children under their care.

You are right, imo.  It is likely the vast majority of kids are more likely to be exposed to grooming behaviour through the Internet than in the bishop's office.

Even if one restricts kids from having their own phone, chances are they  will be given friends' phones at times as stuff gets passed around.  

The wisest and safest approach given the greater cultural context imo is to teach your children age appropriate (and you can find this info on the internet with a little effort, make sure to check out the credibility of the website) understanding of what is wrong and what is right in terms of talking about sex and sexuality, about sharing personal information, and make sure to identify "red flags" of grooming and warning signs of when to walk away from likely porn bait.  Which means parents can't only say "no" and withhold their child's involvement at church or elsewhere, they actually have to put work into educating themselves and educating others, including lots and lots and lots of ongoing discussion with their kids...which can be very frightening. 

This means your child will be prepared whether at church or school or a friend's house.  Much better than just being safe at church, imo, because leaders made accommodations.

It is really tempting and easy to simply tell others your kid won't be available unless you as parents are included and then expect everyone else to make accommodations to your demands.  That is actually rather passive, imo.  Getting involved in teaching oneself, being part of the process rather than just the observer waiting to thumb up or down an event, being willing to discuss possible options with your child's authority figures and parents of friends, spending lots of awkward teaching moments with your kids trying to come across as relaxed and confident as possible so as to not turn the teaching moments into occasions your kids want to avoid...that is a lot of hard work and few parents these days have had the example of having their parents even attempting to do the same thing, so it's terrifying thinking about making missteps in this new territory.

If a parent is already working with their child like that at home, when it comes time to speak to the bishop, the parent has solid experience and understanding of the capabilities of their child and can thus clearly share with the bishop what limits there needs to be on the conversation and discuss with him how the requirements of the Church can be meshed well with the requirements of the child.  I think if a bishop were to see such proactive, long term efforts on the part of parents, they would be more trusting of requests to make adjustments for the child/youth are reasonable and not see them as just kneejerk fear reactions to the lastest scandal/rumor and therefore get frustrated with parents and create lines in sand about church policies rather than being adaptable to each situation.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Calm

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

I remember being an 11 year old boy preparing to become a deacon.  

Same here.

 

Quote

My bishop called me in and asked me -- in detail -- about my "self-abuse" habits.  Was I abusing myself? If so, how often?  How was I doing it? Was I looking at dirty pictures? Keep in mind that the only reason I knew what self-abuse was at that age was due to the booklet by Elder Packer they used to hand out.

I have never, in all my life, been asked those kinds of questions from a Bishop. I've had one or two temple recommend interviews with a SP Councilor where I was asked an 'off-book' question about pornography following the question about the law of chastity, but it was just a yes-no question (i.e., Do you view pornography?) - nothing detailed or anything.

Out of curiosity, if you had to guess, how many interviews have you had in your lifetime where the Bishop asked those kinds of questions? Was this a one-time deal? Or was it a line of inquiry you faced in every temple recommend interview, every priesthood advancement interview, etc.? 

 

Quote

As I recall, I thought the whole conversation was a bit weird but my Bishop was a good guy.  I believe he was doing his job as Bishop as he understood it.

I think intent matters in situations like these. 

 

Quote

But imagine if my Bishop was not a good guy and had nefarious intent.  

I can imagine it. While the likelihood is incredibly low, it is admittedly not zero. 

 

Quote

The opportunity to discuss such explicit things presents in what is expected to be a "safe" environment is an ideal opportunity for what we now call "grooming."

I'm not certain that the potential for "grooming" is the same today as it was in the past. With the advent of the information age, children now have immediate access to any sexual topic they are curious about. The normalization effects that might have once occurred when discussing these topics behind closed doors, I think, are not nearly as pronounced as what they are today. 

 

Quote

Again, we must stop lying to ourselves about Priesthood leaders.  They are flawed human beings.  When humans do anything, there is risk of falling off the rails.

Yeah, nobody's perfect. But part of accessing risk is being realistic about those risks as well. 

The likelihood that your child will die in an automobile accident is orders of magnitude greater than the chance they will ever be sexually assaulted (or even talked dirty to) by a Bishop, yet we continue to put our children into cars day in and day out. Sure, we look for ways to mitigate the risks (e.g., by enforcing speed limits, requiring safety restraints, etc.), but we don't just abandon the practice all together.

I'm open to considering ways to help mitigate the risks of children from being victimized by church leaders. But I also think that changes need to be proportionate to the problem. 

 

 

Edited March 20, 2018 by Amulek

[Amulek]

34 minutes ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

To be blunt, no male should be asking a YW, or any woman about sexual matters, other than a Bishop asking an adult, "are you living the law of Chastity"? Nothing more

Why should age matter? Why is it okay for the Bishop to ask an adult if she is living the Law of Chastity but not okay ask the exact same question to a young woman who wants to enter the temple and perform ordinances as a teenager?

Maybe we need to add a footnote to D&C 107:74 "Thus shall he be a judge, even a common judge among the inhabitants[*] of Zion, or in a stake of Zion, or in any branch of the church where he shall be set apart unto this ministry, until the borders of Zion are enlarged and it becomes necessary to have other bishops or judges in Zion or elsewhere." 

[*] Where inhabitants are understood to be inclusive of all people...with the exception, of course, being for heterosexual cisgendered females between about the age of eight and whatever culturally moving boundary happens to be considered the age of majority in the locale where said stake is located. We'll do something different for them.[**]

[**] Subject to change.  

 

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

The point is the protection of the child, the Priesthood leader and the Church. Since this thread is in this forum to discuss issues related to the the Church, it seems most appropriate. Also, the absolute impossibility of insuring that a child is never alone with anyone including family, puts this in the realm absurd. You are correct, children are indeed harmed more statically by parents and family. But the Church already has at least "a" mechanics in place, as does the law to protect and remove children from such environments. But if these children find themselves further victimized by those to which they turn for help, all is lost. This is evidenced in scandals, and destroyed lives with that occurred within the Catholic Church and subsequent cover-ups. 

I'm coming at this from the angle of someone that was abused as a kid.

Yes, there is a possibility of a kid being abused by a bishop-- or anyone else in their life.  There's also a possibility of a kid reaching out to a bishop/other adult for help and being unwilling to ask because of the larger audience.   You can't negate risk in life.  Instead of depending on a system to protect you/your loved ones, teach them how to handle *when* a bad person comes along, because it will no matter the level of protection you take.

Edited March 20, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jane_Doe said:

I'm coming at this from the angle of someone that was abused as a kid.

Yes, there is a possibility of a kid being abused by a bishop-- or anyone else in their life.  There's also a possibility of a kid reaching out to a bishop/other adult for help and being unwilling to ask because of the larger audience.   You can't negate risk in life.  Instead of depending on a system to protect you/your loved ones, teach them how to handle *when* a bad person comes along, because it will no matter the level of protection you take.

First of all, let me say how sorry I am this happened to you. It is the parents foremost responsibility to keep the wolves at bay, and not to cause harm. This is why my OP, suggested this when the "child or adult" requests it. Then and only then will others come into that setting. Sadly, these things happen, and happen too often in families that others see, as picture perfect, but to the abused wife or child, or even in some cases the husband or father, it is a grim picture indeed. We all have our demons that haunt our pasts and presents. I for one had a biological father who ended up a bigimst with other children, leaving us homeless and destitute. But, I am fortunate to have been very young, and then had another father enter the picture, a Godly man, who adopted myself and siblings giving us his last name. I was born with the last name of "Nation", the name of "our" abuser, but grew up as a "Lee", the name of our savior, and now also bare the name of "my" Savior, Jesus Christ. God bless you! 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

Why should age matter? Why is it okay for the Bishop to ask an adult if she is living the Law of Chastity but not okay ask the exact same question to a young woman who wants to enter the temple and perform ordinances as a teenager?

I think you misunderstand the point and line I was attempting to draw. When a Bishop asks an adult if they are "living the law of Chastity", it is a "yes or no" answer. The premise being the adult understands the question, there are no follow-up questions, about topics concerning other issues, such as kissing, or other activities that I will not list. The reason I will not list them, is that I don't want this thread to turn into the same topics that some Bishop's have gone "off the rails" (so to speak) in interviews with young men and women. I think that it is and should be the parents responsiblilty to explain what the, "law of Chastity" is, to their children. Then the Bishop should only be seeking a "yes or no" answer, the same as with adults. 

I remember my first recommend interview back in 1980, where there was more questions than I would have given an answer too. Not because I did or di not do something, just simply no one's business what goes on between man and wife. Let me add this is bold print...Please, no one use this thread or this reply to go any further down that road. please!    

[Duncan]

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

I'm coming at this from the angle of someone that was abused as a kid.

Yes, there is a possibility of a kid being abused by a bishop-- or anyone else in their life.  There's also a possibility of a kid reaching out to a bishop/other adult for help and being unwilling to ask because of the larger audience.   You can't negate risk in life.  Instead of depending on a system to protect you/your loved ones, teach them how to handle *when* a bad person comes along, because it will no matter the level of protection you take.

I agree, I too was abused as a teen by someone in authority at Church. In my case though I went to the Bishop and he got stuff happening and justice was met

[Gray]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

How so? 

 

By taking down appropriate boundaries and making such one-on-one conversations behind closed doors seem normal.

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I think you misunderstand the point and line I was attempting to draw.

I think I understood you okay. I just don't agree there should be a bright line rule for when a bishop, acting in his official capacity as a common judge in Israel, should and should not be allowed to ask certain questions. 

 

Quote

When a Bishop asks an adult if they are "living the law of Chastity", it is a "yes or no" answer. The premise being the adult understands the question, there are no follow-up questions [...]

Well, I suspect there are follow-up questions involved when the answer is "no."

 

Quote

 I think that it is and should be the parents responsiblilty to explain what the, "law of Chastity" is, to their children. Then the Bishop should only be seeking a "yes or no" answer, the same as with adults. 

I agree that it is the parents responsibility to explain the law of chastity to their children. Technically, church leaders have an obligation to teach the law of chastity as well, though that is the sort of instruction that ought to be taking place outside the interview setting. 

In a worthiness interview, the Bishop is only seeking a 'yes or no' answer to the question about chastity. The difference, perhaps, is that I can see how sometimes it might be necessary to ask more than that one question in order to determine whether or not someone understands what they are actually affirming when they say 'yes.' If the bishop is never allowed to ask anything more than that one question, you might as well remove it from the requirement to attend the temple in the first place - something I strongly suspect will never occur.

 

[Amulek]

15 minutes ago, Gray said:

By taking down appropriate boundaries and making such one-on-one conversations behind closed doors seem normal.

I don't think there is anything inappropriate about having a brief, one-on-one conversation with your religious leader about your worthiness to enter the temple, advance in the priesthood, etc. maybe once a year.

I understand why other people feel differently. I just don't share the same level of concern.