New official interview policy

[Amulek]

9 hours ago, Gray said:

Surely God can accomplish his purposes while eliminating current practices that provide a playground for molesters.

The church creates a playground fro molesters...wow. Just...wow. 

 

[jkwilliams]

7 minutes ago, Amulek said:

The church creates a playground fro molesters...wow. Just...wow. 

Maybe instead of using hyperbole, we can say that the goal should be to minimize possible ways molesters might use the interview process. Obviously, the problem lies with a tiny minority of members and leaders, so improving processes is not a blanket condemnation of the church or its leaders; it's just common sense. The new policy is a step in the right direction.

Edited March 29, 2018 by jkwilliams

[Bernard Gui]

7 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

But what we do is make sure that Car Drivers go through a properly certified training programme operated by a qualified professional before they drive a car.

And despite all that training, testing, and licensing, after many, many years car accidents still remain the leading cause of death for teens 15-20. Obviously, there needs to be some radical changes made in those training and licensing procedures. Those professional trainers need more training and screening. 

There are about 30,000 wards and branches in the Church and perhaps hundreds of thousands of bishops and former bishops. There is extensive initial interviewing and on-going training for bishops and branch presidents. There are handbooks and published and unwritten guidelines they are expected to study and follow. They have regular accountability meetings with their counselors, high councilmen and stake presidents. Yet despite all that there are still a few who go wrong. Do you have any knowledge of what percentage of them abuse the youth or women in their wards?

Edited March 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[Amulek]

6 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

But what we do is make sure that Car Drivers go through a properly certified training programme operated by a qualified professional before they drive a car.

This is easily the most romanticized description of Driver's Ed I have ever heard. Qualified professionals...oh man, I'm going to be smiling at that all day long. 

Also, you don't need a license to drive a car. You need a license to drive a car on public roadways. You can drive a car on your own property or on private drives any time you like, without any sort of 'certified training program.' 

 

[ALarson]

24 minutes ago, Amulek said:

This is easily the most romanticized description of Driver's Ed I have ever heard. Qualified professionals...oh man, I'm going to be smiling at that all day long. 

Also, you don't need a license to drive a car. You need a license to drive a car on public roadways. You can drive a car on your own property or on private drives any time you like, without any sort of 'certified training program.' 

 

Good grief.  The bottom line is that adult leaders who are conducting interviews with some youth (or adults) that may involve counseling on sexual issues or sexual abuse need more training than what they currently receive.  Many Bishops are called one week and then right the next week may be in the position where counseling is needed involving someone who is being sexually abused.

I know that I would welcome more instruction and training on this for the interviews I conduct.  Why are you fighting against something so positive and something that would be a huge step in preventing some of the issues the church is currently dealing with?

Edited March 29, 2018 by ALarson

[Bernard Gui]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

If bishops start pushing kids to share potential abuse, they better be well trained to do so.

Just adding such a question to an interview could be disasterous, imo.

More than one person in this discussion have referred  to bishops as untrained. I’m not sure that is accurate. As LDSFS missionaries, Sister Gui and I participate in stake, bishopric, and ward leadership meetings in which we train them on addiction-related issues. We provide access to LDS Family Services Addiction Recovery Program materials and resources (including information on spousal and child abuse). LDSFS has an extensive website that supports Church leaders and members in these matters. The Stake President and LDS Hotline are only a phone all away. I made those calls several times.

For anyone interested, here is the abuse support website. Further materials are available to Priesthood leaders on a restricted basis.

https://www.lds.org/topics/abuse?lang=eng

Edited March 29, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[RevTestament]

9 hours ago, Calm said:

Thanks for clarifying.

You are welcome. For the benefit of the reader I believe you may have been responding to my statement: "I believe LDS bishop interviews are one such time - a familiar face of someone who is perceived as trustworthy and helpful, and allowed to ask if a child has had anyone touch them." I don't think that is a usual question for bishops, but it may come up if a child responds affirmatively to questions about chastity or pornography. Again, I am not advocating the Bishop become some kind of sexual counselor. I will explain my position further below.

9 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

Absolutely. A Bishops one-to-one interview (even with adults) is taken so seriously by the interviewees, that allowing an untrained volunteer to venture into topics of a sexual nature or otherwise delicate/sensitive/medical etc topic, can only end badly. It's already ending badly.

In the mosaic law adulterers were stoned to death. In the modern Church unrepentant adulterers are excommunicated. The Church is concerned with people going to the temple being prepared to enter those covenants, so I see bishop interviews as not only appropriate but preparatory to the individual. I would assume you would counter that people should be informed rather than asked, but either way it is the responsibility of the Church to prepare its members.

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Not at all a good comparison, IMO.  How does an adult driving to work (who has a driver's license to drive....I'm assuming you do...) compare to a youth being alone in a room with an untrained adult male who may ask inappropriate sexual questions behind closed doors?  I believe the point that some are making here is that there is a need for more training (and I agree) and a need for less sexual questioning of a child or youth while being alone with an adult male (and I agree). 

Bishops don't need training in sexual counseling to ask if someone is using pornography or engaging in premarital intercourse. If these things are happening I believe bishops are told to refer members to counseling. They are also trained in reporting requirements, and have access to that advice. They are to act merely as judges re: sin, and whether one is qualified for callings, or temple recommends. I believe there is an effort to paint bishops as inappropriately engaging in sexual counseling in order to scare the public. It just isn't so. If people are worried about their sexual sins coming to light, then perhaps they should worry about their eternal salvation rather than whether the bishop is trained as a therapist or counselor.

I assume there may continue to be some disagreement as to what constitutes a sexual sin, and I understand that. However, certain things are clearly, scripturally considered sin, and are within the purview of a bishop as a temporal judge to inquire. Otherwise, there would never be any excommunication. While I'm sure critics might like that, it is just unrealistic.

[ALarson]

13 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Bishops don't need training in sexual counseling to ask if someone is using pornography or engaging in premarital intercourse.

Really?

Well, first of all, those conducting youth interviews are not to ask if the young woman or young man is viewing porn or engaging in premarital intercourse.  They are to ask if they are living the Law of Chastity.

Obviously, you have not even been through the training that does exist for Bishopric members and other adult leaders.  

I'm just stating that there needs to be more training and I'm surprised anyone would disagree with that.  Many leaders are simply not prepared to counsel or deal with sexual abuse, etc.  As I've already stated, I would welcome more training regarding this.

Edited March 29, 2018 by ALarson

[RevTestament]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Really?

Well, first of all, those conducting youth interviews are not to ask if the young woman or young man is viewing porn or engaging in premarital intercourse.  They are to ask if they are living the Law of Chastity.

Obviously, you have not even been through the training that does exist for Bishopric members and other adult leaders.  

I'm just stating that there needs to be more training and I'm surprised anyone would disagree with that.  Many leaders are simply not prepared to counsel or deal with sexual abuse, etc.  As I've already stated, I would welcome more training regarding this.

The Church considers use of pornography to be a violation of the law of chastity, and I agree. It is within the purview of the bishop to determine. Of course I guess then the question arises as to what is pornography. If I were a bishop my standard would be any materials which depict a sexual act involving genitalia. I have not been a bishop, but I disagree with your assessment. I don't believe the bishop needs to be trained as a marriage counselor or sexual counselor to ask if someone is living the law of chastity. If they are not, then the bishop should not try to engage in therapy, but should refer the member to an appropriate Church counselor. That is why the Church has professional counselors.

[kllindley]

14 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Really?

Well, first of all, those conducting youth interviews are not to ask if the young woman or young man is viewing porn or engaging in premarital intercourse.  They are to ask if they are living the Law of Chastity.

Obviously, you have not even been through the training that does exist for Bishopric members and other adult leaders.  

I'm just stating that there needs to be more training and I'm surprised anyone would disagree with that.  Many leaders are simply not prepared to counsel or deal with sexual abuse, etc.  As I've already stated, I would welcome more training regarding this.

And yet you are attacking people who resist the idea that all one on one interviews are sexual grooming. I haven't read anyone here saying now training is bad. They seem to be fighting against the idea that one indiviuals abused is enough to do away with all worthiness interviews. That was the whole point of the car analogy. Most people are fine that several thousand children per year are killed in automobile accidents, because the don't want the inconvenience of outlawing private automobiles. But some of those state that the risk of one child being sexually abused outweighs any benefit of individual pastoral care. 

Increase training. Increase safeguards. 

[ALarson]

6 minutes ago, kllindley said:

And yet you are attacking people who resist the idea that all one on one interviews are sexual grooming.

Where have I done that?  I have never stated that I believe "that all one on one interviews are sexual grooming".  Please quote where I have stated that, or withdraw that accusation.  (I do not believe that is true at all.)

I've consistently posted that I believe there should be more training for those who are to conduct youth and other worthiness interviews.  I've also stated that as a member of a Bishopric, I would welcome more training regarding this.  I do not believe the "training is bad".....I simply believe more could be added and there needs to be more thorough training so that the problems being revealed will be avoided as much as possible in the future.

 

Edited March 29, 2018 by ALarson

[kllindley]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Not at all a good comparison, IMO.  How does an adult driving to work (who has a driver's license to drive....I'm assuming you do...) compare to a youth being alone in a room with an untrained adult male who may ask inappropriate sexual questions behind closed doors?  I believe the point that some are making here is that there is a need for more training (and I agree) and a need for less sexual questioning of a child or youth while being alone with an adult male (and I agree). 

How does that even compare to an adult driving to a work in the morning?

This. 

[ALarson]

 

17 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

I have not been a bishop, but I disagree with your assessment. I don't believe the bishop needs to be trained as a marriage counselor or sexual counselor to ask if someone is living the law of chastity. 

I've never claimed they need training to simply ask that question.

But, if there has been sexual abuse, then many leaders are not thoroughly trained with how to deal with this (and are not following the little bit of training they have received).  We see evidence of this coming out more and more....just read what is in the news currently.  I could also give numerous examples that I personally know of where a Bishopric member was woefully unprepared and handled the situation horribly.  Many times the perpetrator goes without any punishment or without even being questioned.  Many times the abuse is not reported to the police.   There are way too many examples supporting the conclusion that there needs to be more specific and more thorough and better training of the leaders who are to conduct interviews with the youth, with adult women and with adult men. 

I've repeated this several times and won't continue to repeat myself.

I'm off of here for the day and don't really have much more to add....

[kllindley]

3 hours ago, ALarson said:

Good grief.  The bottom line is that adult leaders who are conducting interviews with some youth (or adults) that may involve counseling on sexual issues or sexual abuse need more training than what they currently receive.  Many Bishops are called one week and then right the next week may be in the position where counseling is needed involving someone who is being sexually abused.

I know that I would welcome more instruction and training on this for the interviews I conduct.  Why are you fighting against something so positive and something that would be a huge step in preventing some of the issues the church is currently dealing with?

And this. I never said you believed or argued those things. But Marginal Gains did. And when people responded you responded indignantly assuming they opposed the idea of additional training. 

[ALarson]

1 minute ago, kllindley said:

This. 

That's not a personal attack.   I stated that it "was not at all a good comparison, IMO".   

Please withdraw your accusation that I am "attacking people" unless you can provide a quote where I have done so.

 

 

 

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, kllindley said:

And this. I never said you believed or argued those things. But Marginal Gains did. And when people responded you responded indignantly assuming they opposed the idea of additional training. 

Still no personal attack as you stated I've done here.

Once again, please supply a quote where I have personally attacked anyone.

You need to withdraw this accusation:

24 minutes ago, kllindley said:

you are attacking people who resist the idea that all one on one interviews are sexual grooming.

I have not done this.

Edited March 29, 2018 by ALarson

[kllindley]

8 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Still no personal attack as you stated I've done here.

Once again, please supply a quote where I have personally attacked anyone.

You need to withdraw this accusation:

I have not done this.

Fair enough. I take comments like those that misrepresent a person's position or take their comments out of context as unhelpful and personalizing, even an "attack."

 

13 minutes ago, ALarson said:

That's not a personal attack.   I stated that it "was not at all a good comparison, IMO".   

You also stated in that same comment that Bishops were "untrained." And then ended with: "How does that even compare to an adult driving to a work in the morning?"

22 minutes ago, kllindley said:

 

I definitely interpreted both those as an attack on those trying to compare the risks of interviews with the risks of cars. 

But I'll take you at your word that it wasn't intended an attack. Withdrawn.

[Kenngo1969]

4 hours ago, ALarson said:

Not at all a good comparison, IMO.  How does an adult driving to work (who has a driver's license to drive....I'm assuming you do...) compare to a youth being alone in a room with an untrained adult male who may ask inappropriate sexual questions behind closed doors?  I believe the point that some are making here is that there is a need for more training (and I agree) and a need for less sexual questioning of a child or youth while being alone with an adult male (and I agree). 

How does that even compare to an adult driving to a work in the morning?

I was simply applying Marginal Gains's "logic" such as it is, to another situation. Even the mere chance, however remote, that a bishop might take advantage of his position in order to perpetrate abuse on a child is too great. Therefore, according to Marginal Gains and others, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints should simply do away with bishop-youth interviews altogether.  

By that same logic, likewise, even the mere chance, however remote, that I might be involved in a traffic accident on my way to work today nonetheless was too great for me to risk going to work.  So I simply said, "Eh, bag it!"  And I'm enjoying the extra day off.  Of course, I haven't checked my phone messages to see if anyone is wondering where the heck I am, but, I suppose I'll worry about that tomorrow.  And of course, my chances of being involved in an automobile accident won't be any less tomorrow or on any other day, but I suppose I'll simply have to cross that bridge when I come to it.  (And by the way, I'm shocked and dismayed  that you would be so cavalier as to even suggest that I disregard the risk that I might be involved in an accident on my way to work.  Awfully callous, that, but ... why should you care?! )

Edited March 29, 2018 by Kenngo1969

[RevTestament]

19 minutes ago, ALarson said:

 

I've never claimed they need training to simply ask that question.

But, if there has been sexual abuse, then many leaders are not thoroughly trained with how to deal with this (and are not following the little bit of training they have received).  We see evidence of this coming out more and more....just read what is in the news currently.  I could also give numerous examples that I personally know of where a Bishopric member was woefully unprepared and handled the situation horribly.  Many times the perpetrator goes without any punishment or without even being questioned.  Many times the abuse is not reported to the police.   There are way too many examples supporting the conclusion that there needs to be more specific and more thorough and better training of the leaders who are to conduct interviews with the youth, with adult women and with adult men. 

I've repeated this several times and won't continue to repeat myself.

I'm off of here for the day and don't really have much more to add....

Reporting requirements vary from state to state. How the Bishop should respond therefore varies from state to state. Therefore, I believe in such situations, the bishop should contact a central legal department of the Church to ensure appropriate response. That should really be the limit of "training" imho. Yes, I believe sometimes bishops have responded inappropriately. Contacting a centralized Church dept such as the legal department I feel should be the appropriate response to ensure the bishop responds to the situation appropriately for his state. If the interviewee ends up being a victim, I believe a referral to a Church counselor would usually be in order, but for minors that is going to be frought with problems such as notifying the parents and getting the parents' permission when often one of them could be the perpetrator. Unfortunately, there is no one uniform way to respond, so again, imho, the Bishop should seek guidance from appropriate Church departments. Maybe the Church could also prepare a handbook for each state, but I think the former is more appropriate. Trying to train a bishop for all contingencies is just not feasible - and laws change. Bishops already have a hard enough job. We should make it easier rather than harder.  

[bsjkki]

20 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Therefore, I believe in such situations, the bishop should contact a central legal department of the Church to ensure appropriate response. That should really be the limit of "training" imho.

The new policy states:

" The bishop or stake president should promptly call the help line about every situation in which he believes a person may have been abused or neglected or is at risk of being abused or neglected." (Bold mine but the italics are in the document)

Bishop should not be debating whether or not they call the hotline...they are required to call every time. The church can advise a Bishop on legally what the church should do and give some expert advice, but, just like Doctors, all the training in the world won't improve on some doctors bedside manners. Bishops should receive basic training on how to respond to abuse victims and some characteristics of abuse victims and what not to do. They should be trained on some basic, "do no harm" guidelines.

[RevTestament]

19 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

The new policy states:

" The bishop or stake president should promptly call the help line about every situation in which he believes a person may have been abused or neglected or is at risk of being abused or neglected." (Bold mine but the italics are in the document)

Bishop should not be debating whether or not they call the hotline...they are required to call every time. The church can advise a Bishop on legally what the church should do and give some expert advice, but, just like Doctors, all the training in the world won't improve on some doctors bedside manners. Bishops should receive basic training on how to respond to abuse victims and some characteristics of abuse victims and what not to do. They should be trained on some basic, "do no harm" guidelines.

Thanks for pointing out the hotline. I do not know the number, but that is for bishops to know, and for reasons stated, I feel the bishop should at the least call that every time, if not other centralized departments - but that would probably be at the advice of the hotline. However, I think the Church has addressed the issue of general how-to-talk-to-victims instruction/training to bishops. The Church has that available too. Here is a little known video prepared for bishops which I think goes towards your concern:

I am not a bishop, but I am sure this or newer instructions still apply, and are available to bishops. 

[Gray]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

The church creates a playground fro molesters...wow. Just...wow. 

 

Obviously not intentionally!

[Calm]

16 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

So, what’s the benefit you see in Bishop one to one interviews with minors that’s worth the risk of even one child being sexually abused?

Why did Church leaders defend the policy (of one to one interviews with minors) against the petition back in December 2017... and then 3 months later, make a policy change allowing for parents to be present in the interview after the leak and immediately before Conference? Revelation perhaps?

One possible benefit is that a child may be saved from an abusive relationship at home.

We have heard of times it has gone wrong when a minor has told a bishop about abuse, so we know (if we choose to trust these stories) that sometimes the bishop has been the first to hear.  It is possible there are more success stories (minors believed and helped effectively) than there are failures.  It is also possible there are more failures.  We are more likely to hear the failures, Imo.  I do believe it is up to Church leadership to research whether or not interviews are doing more good than bad in this area rather than just assuming the overall result is good.  I don't know if they do and yes, I realize this is an area that could benefit from transparency.

Another benefit may be to help healing from abuse, to learn there are loving adults in the world that they can rely upon.

Did you read Jane Doe's experience?

Many (likely most from reports I have heard) bishops have been allowing kids (and adults) to have a trusted adult present for a couple of decades at least.  I see the Church's statement in December as defending the practice of interviews, not specifying they must be one on one.

This makes the additional person policy official such that the likely few bishops that weren't allowing it now will.

Again, imo the quote you quote defends the interview, it doesn't insist it has to be one on one.

Edited March 30, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

15 hours ago, Amulek said:

This is easily the most romanticized description of Driver's Ed I have ever heard. Qualified professionals...oh man, I'm going to be smiling at that all day long. 

Also, you don't need a license to drive a car. You need a license to drive a car on public roadways. You can drive a car on your own property or on private drives any time you like, without any sort of 'certified training program.' 

 

I was trashed for the way I chose to drive by my driver's ed instructor---too cautious she said and gave me the one C I ever got in High School.  Much more traumatized by that woman than all my bishops ever combined...and multiplied by 100 (not by the C, but by the mocking and scorn for being careful and paying attention to other drivers, but if she hadn't seen a problem, it did not exist).

I have also never been in an accident where I was the driver or even gotten a parking ticket.

Training is usually less important than being someone who cares about the individualfrom what I have seen when we are talking about emotional and spiritual health.

 

Edited March 30, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

14 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

More than one person in this discussion have referred  to bishops as untrained. I’m not sure that is accurate. As LDSFS missionaries, Sister Gui and I participate in stake, bishopric, and ward leadership meetings in which we train them on addiction-related issues. We provide access to LDS Family Services Addiction Recovery Program materials and resources (including information on spousal and child abuse). LDSFS has an extensive website that supports Church leaders and members in these matters. The Stake President and LDS Hotline are only a phone all away. I made those calls several times.

For anyone interested, here is the abuse support website. Further materials are available to Priesthood leaders on a restricted basis.

https://www.lds.org/topics/abuse?lang=eng

I am just talking about bishops, anyone really, pushing a kid to talk about potential abuse just as a standard approach...children, especially younger ones often want to be helpful and might respond in ways that leads an adult to think there was abuse when there wasn't and in the cases of abuse, an adult not trained for detailed investigating may confuse the actual picture.  This is one area (questioning a child for details about abuse) I think professionals are needed.  Being supportive, being someone safe for a child to seek help from, I believe a bishop, any loving adult can serve that role.

I am aware of a lot of training provided by the Church in many areas.  I also know that sometimes there is no followup if the individual in a leadership or teaching role neglects to take advantage of that training.  I hope that this kind of training is mandatory and ongoing for bishops these days, but that is not a question I have asked before so I don't know.