New official interview policy

[hope_for_things]

Other adults are now allowed in the room, yahoo!  Church caves to outside pressure and common sense again!  Grass roots up revelation is alive and well.  All joking aside I’m very happy about this news.  

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/03/26/mormon-leaders-update-rules-to-allow-adults-in-the-room-for-interviews-with-children-women/

[Calm]

Ken beat you, so I gave him the first to post points

But this deserves its own thread just so it doesn't get lost.

[bluebell]

I think for a lot of bishops, this will be business as usual (in that, they’ve already been open to or allowed another person to be present) but for those that were adamant that they would deny youth temple recommends rather allow someone else to be in on the interview, it’s definitely a change. 

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

Ken beat you, so I gave him the first to post points

But this deserves its own thread just so it doesn't get lost.

Points to Ken, but I agree there is much to think about here as I’ve heard of local leaders who wouldn’t allow parents into the interview room even when they specifically asked.  This whole new policy could honestly be a cultural ground changing practice.  

[hope_for_things]

6 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think for a lot of bishops, this will be business as usual (in that, they’ve already been open to or allowed another person to be present) but for those that were adamant that they would deny youth temple recommends rather allow someone else to be in on the interview, it’s definitely a change. 

I wonder if events in recent weeks might be seen as a sea change in the future when we look back on them.  I wonder if it will become standard practice for parents to attend these interviews.  I wonder if sexual discussions of every kind might start becoming taboo for leaders to engage in.  This whole moment in time could be huge.

Thanks Sam Young and all those who’ve been courageous enough to come forward with their stories of abuse.  We love and honor you.  

[Kenngo1969]

If a young person would like someone to accompany him or her to an interview, that's one thing, but I still think there may be an issue if the young person would prefer to discuss certain things privately with an ecclesiastical leader but a parent insists on shoehorning himself into the proceedings.  That's something that has gotten lost in all of this talk about Evil Bishops, I think.

[Kenngo1969]

12 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Points to Ken ...

Are ya just gonna talk about givin' me points, or are ya actually gonna do somethin' about it?!  

 

 

[Duncan]

My bro, and I were just talking and we were wondering if the interviewer can ask someone else to be in there as well, not like 4 people in the room but 3 and if the interviewee has to approve of that other person

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If a young person would like someone to accompany him or her to an interview, that's one thing, but I still think there may be an issue if the young person would prefer to discuss certain things privately with an ecclesiastical leader but a parent insists on shoehorning himself into the proceedings.  That's something that has gotten lost in all of this talk about Evil Bishops, I think.

I’m sure those rare exceptions can be worked out.  If I were the church for the protection of the church and the child I would require another adult present where minors are involved.  

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Are ya just gonna talk about givin' me points, or are ya actually gonna do somethin' about it?!  

 

 

I would have but I didn’t know which thread you posted the link in.  :-). I’ll give you two here though.  

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If a young person would like someone to accompany him or her to an interview, that's one thing, but I still think there may be an issue if the young person would prefer to discuss certain things privately with an ecclesiastical leader but a parent insists on shoehorning himself into the proceedings.  That's something that has gotten lost in all of this talk about Evil Bishops, I think.

As far as I know, a parent has always had the legal right to be in the room with their minor child when they are being interviewed by another adult male (behind closed doors).  However, some Bishops have balked at this and punished the youth involved (from what I've seen....such as not allowing the youth to attend temple baptisms, etc.).

We have allowed parents in interviews for quite awhile now in our ward and overall it's been a good experience for all involved.  I'm happy for this new, official policy and I see it as progress.

Edited March 27, 2018 by ALarson

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Points to Ken, but I agree there is much to think about here as I’ve heard of local leaders who wouldn’t allow parents into the interview room even when they specifically asked.  This whole new policy could honestly be a cultural ground changing practice.  

From what I have heard most bishops have allowed it, though people don't ask much.  My past five bishops have if my husband's memory is correct (he has held callings that would allow him to know or the bishop has shared his willingness).  And everyone I know outside this board has said it happens in their ward.

OTOH, much better to make this not only a solid written rule, but publicize it in councils, which won't get to everyone, but hopefully the grapevine will do the rest along with the news reports.

Wouldnt surprise me if there was more discussion about it as well, such as a conference talk.

[Kenngo1969]

 

45 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Points to Ken, but I agree there is much to think about here as I’ve heard of local leaders who wouldn’t allow parents into the interview room even when they specifically asked.  This whole new policy could honestly be a cultural ground changing practice.  

 

31 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Are ya just gonna talk about givin' me points, or are ya actually gonna do somethin' about it?!  

 

 

 

23 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I would have but I didn’t know which thread you posted the link in.  :-). I’ll give you two here though.  

No worries.  Honestly, I probably don't spend enough time here anymore to make it worth anyone's trouble.  (The only reason why I'm here now is because work is slower than snot and I'm bored crapless ... )  For the record, I posted a link to the Deseret News story about the policy, as well as one to the policy itself, in the "Woman Accusing Joseph Bishop to File Suit" thread.  At the risk of redundancy, here's a link to the Deseret News story and to the policy itself:

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900013999/lds-first-presidency-letter-directs-leaders-to-review-teach-policies-on-preventing-responding-to-sex-abuse.html

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/first-presidency-encourages-leaders-worldwide-prevent-respond-abuse

 

[pogi]

45 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If a young person would like someone to accompany him or her to an interview, that's one thing, but I still think there may be an issue if the young person would prefer to discuss certain things privately with an ecclesiastical leader but a parent insists on shoehorning himself into the proceedings.  That's something that has gotten lost in all of this talk about Evil Bishops, I think.

This is exactly what I was thinking.  There is no way in heck that I would have been as open as I was with my bishops if one of my parents were in the room with me.

I recognize the need for this change, but am concerned about how it is all going to play out.  Just as there are imperfect and messed up ecclesiastical leaders, there are imperfect and messed up parents too.  What if a parent is the source of abuse?  What if the parent takes it upon themselves to fix their child in less then inspired ways.  We all know kids with psycho parents!

How does the church address that potential problem?  And it WILL be a problem.

Edited March 27, 2018 by pogi

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If a young person would like someone to accompany him or her to an interview, that's one thing, but I still think there may be an issue if the young person would prefer to discuss certain things privately with an ecclesiastical leader but a parent insists on shoehorning himself into the proceedings.  That's something that has gotten lost in all of this talk about Evil Bishops, I think.

I always bring it up because I am concerned about a child/youth being able to report abuse by their parent to someone they feel safe with.

Ken, you are still one of the higher Points People.  A little appearance now and then should keep your crown.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Calm

[Duncan]

18 minutes ago, pogi said:

This is exactly what I was thinking.  There is no way in heck that I would have been as open as I was with my bishops if one of my parents were in the room with me.

I recognize the need for this change, but am concerned about how it is all going to play out.  Just as there are imperfect and messed up ecclesiastical leaders, there are imperfect and messed up parents too.  What if a parent is the source of abuse?  What if the parent takes it upon themselves to fix their child in less then inspired ways.  We all know kids with psycho parents!

How does the church address that potential problem?  And it WILL be a problem.

it just says adult, so maybe a trusted adult or something? then again, that is an easier problem to deal with that an abuse accusation problem

Edited March 27, 2018 by Duncan

[pogi]

7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

it just says adult, so maybe a trusted adult or something? then again, that is an easier problem to deal with that an abuse accusation problem

I hope so.  I am concerned about controlling parents manipulating their way into every interview. 

[Duncan]

1 minute ago, pogi said:

I hope so.  I am concerned about controlling parents manipulating their way into every interview. 

 bad breath will do the trick!

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I’m sure those rare exceptions can be worked out.  If I were the church for the protection of the church and the child I would require another adult present where minors are involved.  

I believe it much more likely that an abusive parent will insist on attending the interview than the child will be abused by a bishop. So statistically speaking, I am willing to stick out my neck that abuse is much more likely to continue with this change in policy. Maybe if the policy designated the second person to be a member of the relief society presidency or something, I would feel differently, but right now the change doesn't particularly enthuse me.

[Jane_Doe]

2 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

If a young person would like someone to accompany him or her to an interview, that's one thing, but I still think there may be an issue if the young person would prefer to discuss certain things privately with an ecclesiastical leader but a parent insists on shoehorning himself into the proceedings.  That's something that has gotten lost in all of this talk about Evil Bishops, I think.

I'm noticing it says by default the other person is in the next room/hall.   The adult can be in the room if so desired.   I imagine teenage me that would NOT be my desire- I valued the right to be able to talk to my bishop about things without having my mother butt in.  

[Jane_Doe]

7 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I believe it much more likely that an abusive parent will insist on attending the interview than the child will be abused by a bishop. So statistically speaking, I am willing to stick out my neck that abuse is much more likely to continue with this change in policy. Maybe if the policy designated the second person to be a member of the relief society presidency or something, I would feel differently, but right now the change doesn't particularly enthuse me.

Being blunt here:

I was sexually abuse as a kid, with 2-deep policies & background checks in place.   For every new lock, a thief gets a new lock-pick.  It's naive to think that any policy any place guarantees safety.  

[carbon dioxide]

11 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Being blunt here:

I was sexually abuse as a kid, with 2-deep policies & background checks in place.   For every new lock, a thief gets a new lock-pick.  It's naive to think that any policy any place guarantees safety.  

Where there is an evil will, there is a way. All one can do is limit the risks but as long as bad people are walking the earth, bad things are going to happen. 

[carbon dioxide]

I would not have parents in the room.  Especially if sensitive subjects are going to be asked as of course the kid is not going to admit to anything.  However another adult is good.  They can be under the same ground rules of confidentiality as the bishop is.

Edited March 27, 2018 by carbon dioxide

[bsjkki]

All youth classes now require two deep teachers. I’m going to need a lot more people in primary or have really big classes. This is going to take some rearranging.

“When adults are teaching children or youth
in Church settings, at least two responsible adults should be present.  e two adults could be two men, two women, or a married couple (see Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 11.8.1). Where it may not be practical to have at least two adults in a classroom, leaders should consider combining classes.”

I agree with these changes, it’s just going to be a bit tricky this next month.

Edited March 27, 2018 by bsjkki

[hope_for_things]

Just now, RevTestament said:

I believe it much more likely that an abusive parent will insist on attending the interview than the child will be abused by a bishop. So statistically speaking, I am willing to stick out my neck that abuse is much more likely to continue with this change in policy. Maybe if the policy designated the second person to be a member of the relief society presidency or something, I would feel differently, but right now the change doesn't particularly enthuse me.

I don’t find the argument that children are reporting abuse by their parents to church leaders a persuasive one because we really have no idea how often if ever this actually happens, and whether or not church leaders are even competent with handling abuse disclosures is another huge question.  

I say let the church focus on spiritual edification.