Guest Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 25 minutes ago, Amulek said: 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. Well, I suspect there are follow-up questions involved when the answer is "no." Two quick things, first, I thought I was replying on the Thread I started. Two, I do believe that Bishop's are "common judges in Israel" and nothing I have said has suggested otherwise. As far as a "no" answer, there are ALWAYS, follow up questions. In too many cases these questions are asked anyway when it comes to youth.
Robert F. Smith Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 22 hours ago, ksfisher said: It is more than church policy, it is the will of the Lord as given through His prophets and apostles. A bishop is called as a "common judge in Israel." (D&C 107:54) He is charged to keep all that is confessed to him in confidence. None of the callings you've listed in the OP are set apart to do the same. Well, we could have a confessional box the way the Catholics do, which doesn't allow touching between the parties. The concept of clergy-penitent privacy is very important and must not be destroyed. It is especially important if the bishop is hearing from a child who is being or has been molested by a family member, Family members must not be present, or that will not take place. 2
Mystery Meat Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 How about a window in between the Clerk's office and the Bishop's office? That way the Bishop's Secretary/Counselor could observe (or a parent if desired). This could balance the need for privacy while protecting the innocent.
Gray Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 2 hours ago, Amulek said: 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. For an adult? Probably not a big deal. For an 8 year old, an 11 year old, a 15 year old, no, that's not appropriate. 1
6EQUJ5 Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 8 hours ago, Amulek said: 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. I will say that only two Bishops really delved into specific areas like this. The one I previously mentioned and then one when I was just back from my mission. Most would ask about these types of things only within the context of worthiness interviews and didn't ask for any detail. 8 hours ago, Amulek said: I think intent matters in situations like these. Absolutely. But in today's climate nobody takes the time to worry about intent regardless of subject. Everyone is looking to bury everybody else. All we need to do is look at the "crappy media men" list to see how ridiculous things have become. As I have said before, precaution should be taken to protect the priesthood leader as much as the child. 8 hours ago, Amulek said: I can imagine it. While the likelihood is incredibly low, it is admittedly not zero. I agree. I would guess that such things are extremely rare. 8 hours ago, Amulek said: 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. I agree. 8 hours ago, Amulek said: Yeah, nobody's perfect. But part of accessing risk is being realistic about those risks as well. Certainly. But there are certain things we view as so sensitive we "avoid the very appearance of evil." I am not going to cheat on my spouse. But I also follow the Mike Pence rule. Just look at what is happening now. The Church has covered up sexual abuse in the past which makes it very easy to paint worthiness interviews in the most horrible light. Folks can dispute me all they like but I have personal knowledge of the Church's law firm covering up the abuse of a young woman and then smearing her character in court. I've heard other stories and this latest news from the former MTC president is very troubling. If what he says is true in the interview, I would hope that Church discipline is brought against those leaders who knew of his actions and did nothing. I think our Church culture perpetuates this whole problem. We are taught to follow our leaders and that we will be blessed for doing so. We are taught they have the gift of discernment and that they know the way we should lead our lives. But despite this we continue to see example after example of discernment not kicking in until after the fact. We teach two opposing principles. That our leaders have discernment but that those bad actors like seminary teachers, MTC presidents, or General Authorities that commit grievous sins using their Church positions to do so, somehow deceived the people who have discernment. How can this possibly be? Certainly the Lord is not the problem. In my opinion our leaders are just men. We should honor and respect their callings and authority but its time to drop the idea that they somehow have a special insight from the Lord. The vast number of our Church leaders are good and honorable men, I think. Why burden them with this impossible situation?
Popular Post carbon dioxide Posted March 21, 2018 Popular Post Posted March 21, 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said: Well, we could have a confessional box the way the Catholics do, which doesn't allow touching between the parties. The concept of clergy-penitent privacy is very important and must not be destroyed. It is especially important if the bishop is hearing from a child who is being or has been molested by a family member, Family members must not be present, or that will not take place. Perhaps the time has come for the cone of silence to be used in all confessions. People can be present but can't hear the actual confession For the younger generation, going mobile might be the preferred method Edited March 21, 2018 by carbon dioxide 5
amo Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 On 3/19/2018 at 11:41 PM, strappinglad said: ... Can we take a page from our Catholic brethren and build a special 2 part room for confessions , preferably in the foyer. ? Weird you mentioned that, I was just thinking about it. Catholic priests use a confessional or oratory. This place is physically divided in two--one side for the priest and the other for the confessor--, which makes physical contact impossible. This structure is generally put in a visible-to-all place in the main chapel.
Amulek Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 8 hours ago, Gray said: Quote 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. For an adult? Probably not a big deal. For an 8 year old, an 11 year old, a 15 year old, no, that's not appropriate. I understand that is your opinion. There are circumstances where I think it would be inappropriate for an adult to be alone with a minor of the opposite sex as well. This just isn't one of them. 1
Gray Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 56 minutes ago, Amulek said: I understand that is your opinion. There are circumstances where I think it would be inappropriate for an adult to be alone with a minor of the opposite sex as well. This just isn't one of them. Why is this circumstance appropriate when others are not?
Amulek Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 8 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said: I will say that only two Bishops really delved into specific areas like this. The one I previously mentioned and then one when I was just back from my mission. Most would ask about these types of things only within the context of worthiness interviews and didn't ask for any detail. So, the overwhelming majority of Bishops never came close to the line of what you considered inappropriate. And, of those who did, you have no reason to believe that there was any sort of malicious intent, correct? If that's the case, then it seems like all that needs to take place is some additional training for priesthood leaders regarding interview practices. Quote But in today's climate nobody takes the time to worry about intent regardless of subject. Everyone is looking to bury everybody else. Perhaps that is a failing with society. Quote As I have said before, precaution should be taken to protect the priesthood leader as much as the child. I think protecting everyone involved is a good idea. But I don't think there has been a massive influx of false, malicious claims of abuse being made against Bishops they they need much protecting from. As I said before, solutions should be proportionate to the problems. Quote But there are certain things we view as so sensitive we "avoid the very appearance of evil." I am not going to cheat on my spouse. But I also follow the Mike Pence rule. So do I. Except when I don't. I'm still happily married. And I have never cheated on my spouse. Quote Just look at what is happening now. The Church has covered up sexual abuse in the past which makes it very easy to paint worthiness interviews in the most horrible light. I don't know. I've listened to the most articulate arguments against worthiness interviews (under the current process) that have been presented thus far, and I'm still having a hard time accepting that they are bad thing or are in need of major changes. Quote Folks can dispute me all they like but I have personal knowledge of the Church's law firm covering up the abuse of a young woman and then smearing her character in court. I've got no idea what you are talking about. Quote I've heard other stories and this latest news from the former MTC president is very troubling. If what he says is true in the interview, I would hope that Church discipline is brought against those leaders who knew of his actions and did nothing. If what he said was true in the interview, he never fully confessed to his priesthood leaders, so we've got no way to tell what they knew. Quote We teach two opposing principles. That our leaders have discernment but that those bad actors like seminary teachers, MTC presidents, or General Authorities that commit grievous sins using their Church positions to do so, somehow deceived the people who have discernment. How can this possibly be? Certainly the Lord is not the problem. In my opinion our leaders are just men. We should honor and respect their callings and authority but its time to drop the idea that they somehow have a special insight from the Lord. God only has fallible people to work with here on earth. Sometimes leaders don't seek the Lord's will and sometimes leaders aren't able to receive the Lord's will. But the notion that God would intervene to prevent any bad actor from ever being put in a position in which they could hurt somebody is something that does not comport with our doctrine (or reality).
Amulek Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 4 hours ago, Gray said: Why is this circumstance appropriate when others are not? Because the circumstance is different. Behavior which might be considered inappropriate in one circumstance might not be considered inappropriate under different circumstances. For example, kissing somebody who is asleep (and cannot consent) is generally considered to be inappropriate - not to mention illegal. So, if you were to happen upon an unconscious stranger in an alley and decided to start kissing her, that would be totally inappropriate. However, if you were climbing into bed at night and decided to give your sleeping wife a goodnight kiss, I think most people would agree that there's nothing wrong with that.
Guest Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 37 minutes ago, Amulek said: However, if you were climbing into bed at night and decided to give your sleeping wife a goodnight kiss, I think most people would agree that there's nothing wrong with that. I would no one would have an issue with this, if so, that is just frightening.
Gray Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 53 minutes ago, Amulek said: Because the circumstance is different. Behavior which might be considered inappropriate in one circumstance might not be considered inappropriate under different circumstances. For example, kissing somebody who is asleep (and cannot consent) is generally considered to be inappropriate - not to mention illegal. So, if you were to happen upon an unconscious stranger in an alley and decided to start kissing her, that would be totally inappropriate. However, if you were climbing into bed at night and decided to give your sleeping wife a goodnight kiss, I think most people would agree that there's nothing wrong with that. Okay, you're saying it's different, but you're not explaining why it's suddenly appropriate when it comes to bishop's interviews.
Kenngo1969 Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 On 3/20/2018 at 10:25 AM, 6EQUJ5 said: If that is the situation, the law should be involved, not the Bishop. It is for his protection as well. So you say that if a young person attempts to confide in the bishop about things going on in that young person's home, the bishop should simply stick his moistened fingers in his ears and shout, "Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah! I can't hear you! I can't hear you! Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah! I can't hear you!" over and over? Mmm-kay. Isn't that essentially what detractors of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claim happens anyway???
Danzo Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 My concern is that those who want to end worthiness and confessional interviews are throwing the baby out with the bath water. In fact I don't many of these people can even find the baby in the bath water.
Amulek Posted March 21, 2018 Posted March 21, 2018 39 minutes ago, Gray said: Okay, you're saying it's different, but you're not explaining why it's suddenly appropriate when it comes to bishop's interviews. Well, it's not so much that I think it's "suddenly appropriate" when it comes to bishop's interviews - it's that I never thought they were inappropriate to begin with. The circumstances which are most likely to result in a predatory adult victimizing a young man or a young woman occur when the two are spending large amounts of unstructured, unsupervised time together. Every time my wife tells me about one of these stories when it hits the news, my first question to her is almost always, 'So, was it a coach or a band director?' Sometimes it can be a club teacher or something, but the other two are much more common. It happens because they end up spending lots of time together in an informal environment, and things end up getting out of control. The circumstances which surround a bishop's interview are nothing like that. To begin with, your bishop isn't a complete stranger; he's someone who has typically lived in the ward for years and who you ought to have some degree of familiarity with already. And, while worthiness interviews aren't completely formalized, they aren't exactly gab-fests either. They also usually take place at church, while other people are in the building (either during the Sunday block or on an activity night), and with another adult priesthood leader in the adjacent room or outside the bishop's office. All of these things, I think, are mitigating factors. In fact, my own daughter recently graduated from primary and here's how her interview went down: We were at church early (like we usually are...because we're awesome) on the Sunday of her 12th birthday, and I had told her previously that we could swing by the bishop's office and get him to sign off on her Faith in God award, since his was the final signature she needed. So, we dropped by his office while he was hanging out and visiting with one of his counselors who didn't have to go home and pick anyone up after ward council. I said, 'Hey, Bishop, I need a signature real quick, but not for a check' (one of my callings currently is as the financial clerk). He said, 'You bet. What do you need?' 'Faith in God sign-off.' 'Wow, when do you turn 12 Susie?' 'Today' 'Well, I'm going to be out of town next week, want to just take care of everything right now?' 'Sure.' They walked into his office and talked for what couldn't have been more than four to six minutes while the first counselor and I stood outside the office and continued to chit-chat. She popped out of the bishop's office shortly thereafter with her book signed, her interview completed, and her virtue still in tact. I think her experience was pretty typical. And I can honestly say that the thought never even crossed my mind that there was anything inappropriate at all about their visit. 2
mfbukowski Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 On 3/20/2018 at 6:56 PM, Mystery Meat said: How about a window in between the Clerk's office and the Bishop's office? That way the Bishop's Secretary/Counselor could observe (or a parent if desired). This could balance the need for privacy while protecting the innocent. Or better yet the Catholic confessional.
mfbukowski Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 All these ideas are fine but the reality is there are things only a bishop should be able to hear at things about which only a bishop can make a decision. A woman came to me and confessed an infidelity which happened 30 years ago. I got to make the decision about how to handle it. I was the only one with the keys to be able to do that. If anyone else had heard about it there could have been all kinds of repercussions. In the final analysis all this is great but it can't happen. If anyone else had been out of the room she probably would still be carrying the burden of guilt. Because she wouldn't have confessed in the first place. 1
Tacenda Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: All these ideas are fine but the reality is there are things only a bishop should be able to hear at things about which only a bishop can make a decision. A woman came to me and confessed an infidelity which happened 30 years ago. I got to make the decision about how to handle it. I was the only one with the keys to be able to do that. If anyone else had heard about it there could have been all kinds of repercussions. In the final analysis all this is great but it can't happen. If anyone else had been out of the room she probably would still be carrying the burden of guilt. Because she wouldn't have confessed in the first place. I can agree with this. Especially if someone's religion taught them that they need to confess to their bishop on certain things as part of the repentance process. Therefore it's pretty important for this woman to have done this with your help.
The Nehor Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 15 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Or better yet the Catholic confessional. Bless me father for I have sinned. Also I need my temple recommend renewed. 2
Gray Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 5 hours ago, Amulek said: Well, it's not so much that I think it's "suddenly appropriate" when it comes to bishop's interviews - it's that I never thought they were inappropriate to begin with. I think to most people not used to Mormon practices, it sounds pretty inappropriate. Could it be that you're simply used to the practice, and it seems normal to you?
Calm Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 14 hours ago, amo said: Weird you mentioned that, I was just thinking about it. Catholic priests use a confessional or oratory. This place is physically divided in two--one side for the priest and the other for the confessor--, which makes physical contact impossible. This structure is generally put in a visible-to-all place in the main chapel. Don't Catholics have a mandatory requirement to have confession or is just saying how long it has been part of the ritual. I vaguely remember it being required to take mass. I may be wrong. However, if so it would be standard for a Catholic to enter the confessional. LDS tend to use confession with the bishop,for more serious sins, so having it inna visible place would be problematic imo.
mfbukowski Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 1 hour ago, Gray said: I think to most people not used to Mormon practices, it sounds pretty inappropriate. Could it be that you're simply used to the practice, and it seems normal to you? What standard is there to distinguish the two? Absolute Truth? Come one dude!
Gray Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 6 hours ago, mfbukowski said: What standard is there to distinguish the two? Absolute Truth? Come one dude! The standard is sound parental judgment and setting appropriate boundaries. Not sure what the notion of absolute truth has to do with anything.
mfbukowski Posted March 22, 2018 Posted March 22, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Gray said: The standard is sound parental judgment and setting appropriate boundaries. Not sure what the notion of absolute truth has to do with anything. Totally vague, and that is where "absolute truth" comes in. That standard is so ambiguous it is meaningless. It is not sound parental judgement to allow one's child to have an interview for a few minutes with a trusted clergyman who is also the father of his own children? And where is that written in stone? Sounds like a way to hide abuse to me. If the child is being abused at home, where is the child to go? If the bishop suspects parental abuse, how is he to interview the child? He is mandated to report parental abuse and the parents are blocking his ability to talk to the child in such a case. Is it better that the child be interviewed by child protective services instead, or the police than a trusted "father of the ward" ? Who is to protect children from their parents? There are at least two sides to everything. And what does "being used to it" have to do with proving it as inappropriate? I am used to breathing on a regular basis and feel anxiety when I cannot. Does that show that breathing is inappropriate? Evolution has bred into us all kinds of useful practices with survival value and that is why we are "used to them". Should we just throw way everything we are "used to" as now being inappropriate? What kind of argument is that? "You are just used to it- so throw it out"- ?? Edited March 22, 2018 by mfbukowski
Recommended Posts