New official interview policy

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, carbon dioxide said:

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.

Oh how I’d wish the Inquisition mentality would stop.  

[Calm]

13 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

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.

I thought it had been this way for Primary at least ten, maybe 15 years.  Wasn't when I was primary teacher, but that is almost 20 years now.

otoh, when I taught 14 year olds 12 years ago, I was the only one in the class.  Maybe Canada had different rules?

[bsjkki]

Just now, Calm said:

I thought it had been this way for Primary at least ten, maybe 15 years.  Wasn't when I was primary teacher, but that is almost 20 years now.



otoh, when I taught 14 year olds 12 years ago, I was the only one in the class.  Maybe Canada had different rules?

We had to have two men but not two women. This is a change.
11.8.1
Men Serving in Primary

When considering members who might serve in the Primary, the bishopric and the Primary presidency should remember the positive influence of worthy men in the ward. Children, especially those who do not have worthy priesthood holders in their homes, need to see examples of righteous, caring priesthood holders. Men may serve as teachers, music leaders, pianists, activity days leaders, and Scout leaders. They may also assist in the nursery.

When men are assigned to teach children, at least two responsible adults should be present at all times. The two adults could be two men, a husband and wife, or two members of the same family. In small branches, if it is not practical to have two teachers in a classroom, a member of the Primary presidency frequently visits and monitors each class that a man teaches alone.

Edited March 27, 2018 by bsjkki

[Calm]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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.  

I just read depressing stats (haven't check the credibility of the site, they don't come across as emotional though) about teacher reporting and actual investigation by social services.  Can't copy, so linking, quick read:

https://www.d2l.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/all_statistics_20150619.pdf

info below starts on page 7

2/3 of teachers have not received specific training in prevention or reporting of child abuse.

24% have never received oral or written guidelines about the mandated laws of reporting  for their state.

Possibly 25% of known abuse cases are not reported by professionals not in child protection even when mandated.

Child Protection Services only investigate 20% of the cases reported by school personnel.

Only 55% of CPS cases even get investigated.

Doesn't seem like solely depending on teachers to have conversations with kids would be wise.  Multiple adults reporting would likely draw more attention and more likely get it investigated.

Good news is it appears the rate of abuse (at least reported) is going down since 1993 almost 50% at least till 2006.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

15 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

We had to have two men but not two women. This is a change.
11.8.1
Men Serving in Primary

When considering members who might serve in the Primary, the bishopric and the Primary presidency should remember the positive influence of worthy men in the ward. Children, especially those who do not have worthy priesthood holders in their homes, need to see examples of righteous, caring priesthood holders. Men may serve as teachers, music leaders, pianists, activity days leaders, and Scout leaders. They may also assist in the nursery.

When men are assigned to teach children, at least two responsible adults should be present at all times. The two adults could be two men, a husband and wife, or two members of the same family. In small branches, if it is not practical to have two teachers in a classroom, a member of the Primary presidency frequently visits and monitors each class that a man teaches alone.

 

 

Oh yeah, thanks for the reminder.  Spaced on that.

[bsjkki]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Oh yeah, thanks for the reminder.  Spaced on that.

I often taught alone in young women’s too. We were small and did not have advisors. I would take all the beehives to ice cream etc. Two deep across the board will require adjustments. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I often taught alone in young women’s too. We were small and did not have advisors. I would take all the beehives to ice cream etc. Two deep across the board will require adjustments. 

We did two deep when I was in Achievement Days 7 or 8 years ago, especially driving around.  Probably because we were alone in the chapel a lot.

It might have just been local policy though. 

Maybe you can get people to come in as just helpers and not teachers and they would only have to be there one hour as in Sharing Time, one teacher per class would easily cover two deep.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Calm

[why me]

Of course there can be measures in place where the other person can not hear the interview. Some kind of earphones as an example. However, we have reached a sad state affairs when people cannot be trusted anymore or people need to protect themselves against possible accusations. It shows that societies are slipping into relative chaos when it comes to moral codes, norms and habits. Sometines I yearn for the good old fashioned TV shows: Burns and Allen, Hazel, Leave it to Beaver, I Love Lucy, Father knows Best, the Jack Benny Show, What my Line etc. I can only watch them on Youtube and remember how it used to be.

 

[Guest]

12 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

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/

So cool, I have wondered for years why we did not do this long ago. I created a thread a week or two ago, on this very topic, and now the change (I am not suggesting anything I said or did matters). I am happy this is finally happening, but I wonder why common sense did not make this a reality long before today. In the thread I posted, most thought it was a good, if not great idea. A few however chided me for not having faith in Bishop's as "Judges in Israel", I wonder if they are OK with it now? BTW, I always had faith in our Bishop's throughout the Church, and scandals were (and are) always a shock, because it is so rare. But as I pointed out, this protects the child, and the Bishop, Stake President, and all other members and leadership calling, but most importantly our children. 

Great move, President Nelson! 

[Guest]

12 hours 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.

I woke up this morning, 3:30AM, for those in the West, and read the article. Upon doing so, I realized that my thread last week changed Church policy, NOT!  Glad it finally is happening, here is hoping it will make a difference. One thing that anyone in any Priesthood callings, YW or YM, and beyond, always know that in this tech world we live it, all must assume that everything said or done is taped. So even now more than ever, this type of change can inspire all to act properly.  Having said that, God our Father, and the "angels silent notes taking", have always been looking and listening. A fact that staggers the imagination, as to why this mission President, or any other would do such things, unless they were always none believers. 

[Amulek]

Quote

If the person being interviewed desires, another adult may be invited to participate in the interview.

Who gets to do the inviting? The person being interviewed or the leader performing the interview?

In other words, does the interviewee get to bring in anyone they want, or will the 'other adult' be limited to another member of the bishopric, stake presidency, etc.?

It seems like there would need to be guidelines to help ensure that the best interests of both parties are provided for. 

 

[hope_for_things]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

I just read depressing stats (haven't check the credibility of the site, they don't come across as emotional though) about teacher reporting and actual investigation by social services.  Can't copy, so linking, quick read:

https://www.d2l.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/all_statistics_20150619.pdf

info below starts on page 7

2/3 of teachers have not received specific training in prevention or reporting of child abuse.

24% have never received oral or written guidelines about the mandated laws of reporting  for their state.

Possibly 25% of known abuse cases are not reported by professionals not in child protection even when mandated.

Child Protection Services only investigate 20% of the cases reported by school personnel.

Only 55% of CPS cases even get investigated.

Doesn't seem like solely depending on teachers to have conversations with kids would be wise.  Multiple adults reporting would likely draw more attention and more likely get it investigated.

Good news is it appears the rate of abuse (at least reported) is going down since 1993 almost 50% at least till 2006.

This is so sad.  Our culture has a long ways it needs to go.  This is not a problem unique to Mormonism by any means.  Abuse has been a serious problem that society has never sufficiently addressed.  

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

So cool, I have wondered for years why we did not do this long ago. I created a thread a week or two ago, on this very topic, and now the change (I am not suggesting anything I said or did matters). I am happy this is finally happening, but I wonder why common sense did not make this a reality long before today. In the thread I posted, most thought it was a good, if not great idea. A few however chided me for not having faith in Bishop's as "Judges in Israel", I wonder if they are OK with it now? BTW, I always had faith in our Bishop's throughout the Church, and scandals were (and are) always a shock, because it is so rare. But as I pointed out, this protects the child, and the Bishop, Stake President, and all other members and leadership calling, but most importantly our children. 

Great move, President Nelson! 

I'm happy about it too.  Why didn't it happen in the past is a good question that we could learn a lot from with proper reflection.  One reason is that we have a culture that privileges conformity.  This very idea has been discussed for years in the circles I'm traversing in, but often with great push back from orthodox members. 

Why do some people instinctively push back when new ideas are presented?  

Why are some ideas considered a threat?  

What is the process by which hearts and minds are changed and how does this feed into the upper echelons of the church?  

I'd love to better understand these mechanisms.  

One interesting podcast that I really enjoy had a new episode I listened to yesterday discussing research that shows evidence for how when people change their minds on topics that their memories also change so that they often don't accurately remember how they changed their mind or what their old position was in the first place.  Very interesting stuff in case you might want to listen.  

https://youarenotsosmart.com/2018/03/26/yanss-124-belief-change-blindness/

 

[hope_for_things]

2 hours ago, why me said:

Of course there can be measures in place where the other person can not hear the interview. Some kind of earphones as an example. However, we have reached a sad state affairs when people cannot be trusted anymore or people need to protect themselves against possible accusations. It shows that societies are slipping into relative chaos when it comes to moral codes, norms and habits. Sometines I yearn for the good old fashioned TV shows: Burns and Allen, Hazel, Leave it to Beaver, I Love Lucy, Father knows Best, the Jack Benny Show, What my Line etc. I can only watch them on Youtube and remember how it used to be.

You realize that these TV shows were a fiction right? 

The reality about abuse is that this has been a part of the human condition for as long as humans have existed.  I'd like to think we're getting better at recognizing abuse and of making society a safer place for everyone.  To me, these changes are evidence of us moving in a positive direction.  Naivety about abuse and fictionalized portrayals on TV are fun, but they aren't real.  

[hope_for_things]

58 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Who gets to do the inviting? The person being interviewed or the leader performing the interview?

In other words, does the interviewee get to bring in anyone they want, or will the 'other adult' be limited to another member of the bishopric, stake presidency, etc.?

It seems like there would need to be guidelines to help ensure that the best interests of both parties are provided for. 

It seems like the person being interviewed is in control of who they bring into the office.  How could it be effectively otherwise.  Do you want someone going into a voluntary interview to be forced to have a person present that they don't trust?   That sounds more like a police interview, and not an ecclesiastical one to me.  

[will227457]

11 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

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.

What sensitive subjects do you think are brought up in youth interviews?

My brother is a 1st counsler in  our bishopric, when he was called he was very concerned about conducting youth interviews, this is how he does it regarding the "sensitive issues"

1. find a room with a window

2. if able keep the door open just a little not enough for the passerby to hear but open.

3. when conducting a worthiness interview with  youth and they get to the law of chastity the question is this: Do you obey the law of chastity? if the youth have questions he takes out the for the strength of youth pamphlet and has them read the chastity part and repeats the question. if they feel they need further discussion he stops the conversation and refers them to the bishop.

Seems pretty bullet proof to me and he has never had a problem. With the new policy even better...

Edited March 27, 2018 by will227457

[Amulek]

14 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

It seems like the person being interviewed is in control of who they bring into the office.   

That's an assumption. It may be correct, but that's not what the revised policy actually says. It simply states, "If the person being interviewed desires, another adult may be invited to participate in the interview." It doesn't say anything about who the 'other adult' may be. Maybe we'll have a better idea when the revisions make their way into Handbook 1.

 

Quote

How could it be effectively otherwise.  Do you want someone going into a voluntary interview to be forced to have a person present that they don't trust?   That sounds more like a police interview, and not an ecclesiastical one to me. 

Is it common for people to not trust the counselors in their bishoprics / stake presidencies? 

I would think that an interview comprised exclusively of ecclesiastical leaders would, by definition, be an ecclesiastical interview.

It doesn't cease being an ecclesiastical interview just because you aren't as comfortable as you might like to be.

 

[hope_for_things]

10 minutes ago, Amulek said:

That's an assumption. It may be correct, but that's not what the revised policy actually says. It simply states, "If the person being interviewed desires, another adult may be invited to participate in the interview." It doesn't say anything about who the 'other adult' may be. Maybe we'll have a better idea when the revisions make their way into Handbook 1.

 

Is it common for people to not trust the counselors in their bishoprics / stake presidencies? 

I would think that an interview comprised exclusively of ecclesiastical leaders would, by definition, be an ecclesiastical interview.

It doesn't cease being an ecclesiastical interview just because you aren't as comfortable as you might like to be.

 

I don't see any benefit in interviewing with people that a person doesn't trust.  Would you go to a psychologist that you didn't trust?  Would you go to a doctor or lawyer or financial adviser that you didn't trust?  If someone can't choose who they go to in church, then I don't see how this can be a valuable experience, and that includes the interviewee and anyone else that is invited to be present.  

[ALarson]

11 minutes ago, Amulek said:

That's an assumption. It may be correct, but that's not what the revised policy actually says. It simply states, "If the person being interviewed desires, another adult may be invited to participate in the interview." It doesn't say anything about who the 'other adult' may be. 

I'm sure that no one will be allowed in the interview that the youth (or person being interviewed) does not feel comfortable having in the room with them.  So far, we have had a parent in the room when requested.

I guess we will see if there is more direction on this.

[Gray]

Curious to see Rongo's take on this, given that he has expressed some pretty strong opposition to the idea of a third party present for youth worthiness interviews.

[rongo]

41 minutes ago, Gray said:

Curious to see Rongo's take on this, given that he has expressed some pretty strong opposition to the idea of a third party present for youth worthiness interviews.

I'm curious about rongo's take, too. Still thinking about it.  

My wife has a primary presidency meeting today, and I sent her the letter and instructions. This came up just on Sunday, as one of the new presidency had told some sisters that they have to be two-deep, and there was concern. It was straightened out by showing them that women can be alone, but men have to be two-deep. Whipsaw forward to today, and we stand corrected.  Like bskjji wrote, this presents staffing challenges in primary.

As far as youth interviews, there are questions that will need to be clarified (as has been discussed here) that aren't clear from these initial instructions. I have never personally had parents or youth request or insist on others being present (my ward is pretty shielded from the online trends du jour, and I don't expect this to crop up, based on experience). So, functionally, this doesn't really change much for me, unless there are requests. My bigger issue would be mandated chaperoning. As written, this is initiated by interviewee request.

[Jane_Doe]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

We did two deep when I was in Achievement Days 7 or 8 years ago, especially driving around.  Probably because we were alone in the chapel a lot.

It might have just been local policy though. 

Maybe you can get people to come in as just helpers and not teachers and they would only have to be there one hour as in Sharing Time, one teacher per class would easily cover two deep.

I'm currently in Achievement Days, and up until yesterday we didn't have a 2-deep policy.  We do have 2 teachers, but if (for example) I need to be away on a work trip, my co-teacher handles things solo.   

This will overall require a lot of adjustment.  For example, some wards I know specifically have handled... let's call them 'hard' students by splitting the class in two so hard students couldn't feed off each other and got more individualized attention.  

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, rongo said:

I'm curious about rongo's take, too. Still thinking about it.  

My wife has a primary presidency meeting today, and I sent her the letter and instructions. This came up just on Sunday, as one of the new presidency had told some sisters that they have to be two-deep, and there was concern. It was straightened out by showing them that women can be alone, but men have to be two-deep. Whipsaw forward to today, and we stand corrected.  Like bskjji wrote, this presents staffing challenges in primary.

As far as youth interviews, there are questions that will need to be clarified (as has been discussed here) that aren't clear from these initial instructions. I have never personally had parents or youth request or insist on others being present (my ward is pretty shielded from the online trends du jour, and I don't expect this to crop up, based on experience). So, functionally, this doesn't really change much for me, unless there are requests. My bigger issue would be mandated chaperoning. As written, this is initiated by interviewee request.

Thanks for weighing in.

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Oh how I’d wish the Inquisition mentality would stop.  

As soon as the heretics all go away or are......dealt with....

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

So cool, I have wondered for years why we did not do this long ago. I created a thread a week or two ago, on this very topic, and now the change (I am not suggesting anything I said or did matters). I am happy this is finally happening, but I wonder why common sense did not make this a reality long before today. In the thread I posted, most thought it was a good, if not great idea. A few however chided me for not having faith in Bishop's as "Judges in Israel", I wonder if they are OK with it now? BTW, I always had faith in our Bishop's throughout the Church, and scandals were (and are) always a shock, because it is so rare. But as I pointed out, this protects the child, and the Bishop, Stake President, and all other members and leadership calling, but most importantly our children. 

Great move, President Nelson! 

Great move, but the grassroots movement helped right?

Edited March 27, 2018 by Tacenda