Church provides more guidance for youth interviews

[Hamba Tuhan]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

If a child is needing to share information that implicates a parent in wrong doing, then they should be going to the police, not the bishop.

Your dislike of bishops is actually dangerous to children.

Two years ago, our government created a new office for family safety. Their first task was intensive consultations with women and children who had lived experience of abuse. One of the central points that came out of this process was the fact that, overwhelmingly, victims do not want to go to the police. Instead, they want to speak to a trusted individual outside of a legal or law enforcement context. This means that, in many cases, they don't even want to speak to a person who might work in an office designed to support victims of abuse.

As a consequence of this clear finding, our family safety office has completely shifted its plans from having a physical hub that victims can visit to focussing on building capacity in persons whom victims reported that they do want to work with: GPs, clergy, librarians, etc.

[Hamba Tuhan]

2 hours ago, bluebell said:

However, statically speaking the child is at much more risk of being abused by a parent than by a bishop, and a parent's determination to be present against the child's wishes could keep the child from feeling safe enough to tell someone.

The member whom I serve has the portfolio for child protection in our parliament's opposition. As a consequence, I have become very familiar with this issue. You are 100% correct on this point. The data are conclusive.

Edited June 22, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Your dislike of bishops is actually dangerous to children.

Two years ago, our government created a new office for family safety. Their first task was intensive consultations with women and children who had lived experience of abuse. One of the central points that came out of this process was the fact that, overwhelmingly, victims do not want to go to the police. Instead, they want to speak to a trusted individual outside of a legal or law enforcement context. This means that, in many cases, they don't even want to speak to a person who might work in an office designed to support victims of abuse.

As a consequence of this clear finding, our family safety office has completely shifted its plans from having a physical hub that victims can visit to focussing on building capacity in persons whom victims reported that they do want to work with: GPs, clergy, librarians, etc.

For some reason, a librarian seems very comforting.

[Hamba Tuhan]

6 minutes ago, Calm said:

For some reason, a librarian seems very comforting.

It was one of the surprises that emerged from the consultation process, but having grown up with a mother who was a librarian, I wasn't surprised. All kinds of people confided in her, especially mothers who had escaped to the library with their children. Sometimes it was abuse. Sometimes it was neglect. (One family were in the library every day during winter just trying to stay warm.) My mum seemed to know intuitively how to get help for these people. No doubt, she could have benefitted from targeted upskilling. One Christmas, we forewent all presents and treats in order to buy food for a family whose needs she'd assessed just from their frequent library visits and their physical appearance.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

It was one of the surprises that emerged from the consultation process, but having grown up with a mother who was a librarian, I wasn't surprised. All kinds of people confided in her, especially mothers who had escaped to the library with their children. Sometimes it was abuse. Sometimes it was neglect. (One family were in the library every day during winter just trying to stay warm.) My mum seemed to know intuitively how to get help for these people. No doubt, she could have benefitted from targeted upskilling. One Christmas, we forewent all presents and treats in order to buy food for a family whose needs she'd assessed just from their frequent library visits and their physical appearance.

Makes me grateful just to hear this.  

Edited June 22, 2018 by Calm

[HappyJackWagon]

12 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Your dislike of bishops is actually dangerous to children.

Two years ago, our government created a new office for family safety. Their first task was intensive consultations with women and children who had lived experience of abuse. One of the central points that came out of this process was the fact that, overwhelmingly, victims do not want to go to the police. Instead, they want to speak to a trusted individual outside of a legal or law enforcement context. This means that, in many cases, they don't even want to speak to a person who might work in an office designed to support victims of abuse.

As a consequence of this clear finding, our family safety office has completely shifted its plans from having a physical hub that victims can visit to focussing on building capacity in persons whom victims reported that they do want to work with: GPs, clergy, librarians, etc.

I don't dislike bishops. I know many. I've been one. But that doesn't mean they should have special exemptions from child safety protocols.

Law enforcement is just one option. There are many people a youth could speak to. Pretending like a bishop is the only good option, or that a youth "should" go to the bishop for this purpose isn't reasonable. It isn't the role of a bishop or the interviews to uncover inappropriate behavior of the parents. Teachers and other school personnel like librarians or counselors would be a good example of that. Granting broad exemptions to bishops as if they are the only one a youth could confide in is dangerous. If a youth really wants to speak to the bishop without a parent, fine. There should at least be another adult present.

[carbon dioxide]

18 hours ago, jkwilliams said:

I see your point. Do other churches have these kinds of interviews? Seems to me that this concept of worthiness is unique to Mormonism. I don’t know. 

What other church has something similar to an LDS temple or priesthood ordination for youth?  Many one just shows up for a sermon on Sunday that that is about it.

[HappyJackWagon]

9 minutes ago, carbon dioxide said:

What other church has something similar to an LDS temple or priesthood ordination for youth?  Many one just shows up for a sermon on Sunday that that is about it.

There are often many ways youth are involved in other churches. Ushers (which help pass plates for donations), some help with communion. Ever heard of alter boys? For those I know, they have gone through training courses and/or confirmation services that call them into positions of trust. Not exactly the same as priesthood ordination and temple, but similar.

[ALarson]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't dislike bishops. I know many. I've been one. But that doesn't mean they should have special exemptions from child safety protocols.

Law enforcement is just one option. There are many people a youth could speak to. Pretending like a bishop is the only good option, or that a youth "should" go to the bishop for this purpose isn't reasonable. It isn't the role of a bishop or the interviews to uncover inappropriate behavior of the parents. Teachers and other school personnel like librarians or counselors would be a good example of that. Granting broad exemptions to bishops as if they are the only one a youth could confide in is dangerous. If a youth really wants to speak to the bishop without a parent, fine. There should at least be another adult present.

I agree...100%.

I have seen too many examples where someone has confided abuse to a Bishop regarding an adult male priesthood holder in their ward and the Bishop calls that man in to work with him instead of getting the child (or woman) help and out of the home if necessary.  I hope this will be ending and that more will stop doing this.  I've seen this happen a lot and also have seen the man repeat the abuse (to the same victim and to others later).  I understand the man (or woman) who is abusing needs to confess and hopefully guided to repent....but that is VERY secondary to protecting the victim.  It's been handled like it's the first concern though by too many Bishops from my experience.

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It isn't the role of a bishop or the interviews to uncover inappropriate behavior of the parents. Teachers and other school personnel like librarians or counselors would be a good example of that.

I'm not sure this makes sense.  How is it the role of a librarian to "uncover inappropriate behavior."  How is it the role of a teacher? 

I would say this is more a bishops role than a librarians.  Bishops have a responsibility to look after that temporal and spiritual well being of their flock.  They are called and set apart to do this.  They have the necessary priesthood power and authority.  Do librarians?

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, ksfisher said:

I'm not sure this makes sense.  How is it the role of a librarian to "uncover inappropriate behavior."  How is it the role of a teacher? 

I would say this is more a bishops role than a librarians.  Bishops have a responsibility to look after that temporal and spiritual well being of their flock.  They are called and set apart to do this.  They have the necessary priesthood power and authority.  Do librarians?

I wasn't very clear. It is not a bishop's primary role, or the purpose of interviews to uncover abusive behaviors by parents, though that likely happens on occasion. I mentioned this because I've seen it used as an argument for why a bishop should be exempt from the one-on-one rule. After all, how could a youth tell anyone about abusive parents if a parent must be in the interview with the bishop? The answer (for me) is that placing youth at risk by exempting bishops from safety protocols is unnecessary because there are many other people a youth may speak with, like librarians or teachers, school counselor, coach etc. None of those individuals have the primary role of uncovering abuse at home, but they also aren't exempted from safety protocols. The calls for exemption for bishop seems to follow the reasoning that the bishop is the best, and possibly even the only source to whom a youth can share their problems.

If the church is serious about child/youth protections, it is unwise IMO to grant some people exemptions. Scouting youth protections don't give certain leaders exemption from the 2 party rule and I don't believe the church should either.

 

[ksfisher]

13 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I wasn't very clear. It is not a bishop's primary role, or the purpose of interviews to uncover abusive behaviors by parents, though that likely happens on occasion. I mentioned this because I've seen it used as an argument for why a bishop should be exempt from the one-on-one rule. After all, how could a youth tell anyone about abusive parents if a parent must be in the interview with the bishop? The answer (for me) is that placing youth at risk by exempting bishops from safety protocols is unnecessary because there are many other people a youth may speak with, like librarians or teachers, school counselor, coach etc. None of those individuals have the primary role of uncovering abuse at home, but they also aren't exempted from safety protocols. The calls for exemption for bishop seems to follow the reasoning that the bishop is the best, and possibly even the only source to whom a youth can share their problems.

If the church is serious about child/youth protections, it is unwise IMO to grant some people exemptions. Scouting youth protections don't give certain leaders exemption from the 2 party rule and I don't believe the church should either.

 

I don't think uncovering abuse is even among the top 10 of bishops responsibilities.

However, being a judge in Israel is.  I think it is in this role, as one who advises youth on spiritual matters as well as hearing confessions that having another adult in the room would make difficult.

Personally, I know that as a teenager having a parent with me would have put a serious damper on conversations I had with my bishop.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I don't dislike bishops. I know many. I've been one. But that doesn't mean they should have special exemptions from child safety protocols.

Law enforcement is just one option. There are many people a youth could speak to. Pretending like a bishop is the only good option, or that a youth "should" go to the bishop for this purpose isn't reasonable. It isn't the role of a bishop or the interviews to uncover inappropriate behavior of the parents. Teachers and other school personnel like librarians or counselors would be a good example of that. Granting broad exemptions to bishops as if they are the only one a youth could confide in is dangerous. If a youth really wants to speak to the bishop without a parent, fine. There should at least be another adult present.

I think it's an issue of offering situations where it's easier to tell someone, if an abused kid decided to.  There are not that many opportunities for a kid to be in a kid-not-initiated, one-on-one, private conversation, with a 'trusted' adult where they are asked sincere questions on how they are doing.  Not all kids would take such an opportunity to let someone know they were being abused, but as far as opportunities go, it's set up to be a good one.

It would be harder to find that kind of a chance with a police officer, librarian, or teacher. 

[HappyJackWagon]

47 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I think it's an issue of offering situations where it's easier to tell someone, if an abused kid decided to.  There are not that many opportunities for a kid to be in a kid-not-initiated, one-on-one, private conversation, with a 'trusted' adult where they are asked sincere questions on how they are doing.  Not all kids would take such an opportunity to let someone know they were being abused, but as far as opportunities go, it's set up to be a good one.

It would be harder to find that kind of a chance with a police officer, librarian, or teacher. 

But lets not forget, this isn't just about a bishop being available if someone wants to talk to him. It's the bishop systematically pulling every youth into one-on-one interviews a couple of times a year at minimum to determine their spiritual worthiness, at which time the youth may also share about being abused.

If a youth comes to the bishop of their own accord, not because they were summoned for an interview, it's a it different. But even then, if a parent expressly forbids the youth from going one-on-one with the bishop, that should be honored. So what are some solutions if the youth wants to talk to the bishop but parents forbid a one-one-one meeting behind closed doors?

1- don't hold it behind closed doors. Speak in a public space in a way that still allows some privacy while also allowing for the safety of being seen. There can be drawbacks to this for sure, but the parents wishes are honored and the youth is able to speak to the bishop privately.

2- Ask the youth to bring a trusted adult with them to speak to the bishop or have the bishop choose one if they don't know who to bring

IMO- having the expectation/requirement that youth meet regularly one-on-one behind closed doors is a larger problem than not having the bishop available for private conversation in the rare situation that the kid wants to tell him of parental abuse. It's not safe for the kid to meet alone, but it's not safe for the bishop either. When I was bishop I faced this exact scenario where a youth ran away from home because of parental abuse. She wanted to meet with me which I gladly did, but I asked her to have someone else present, which she gladly did. It worked fine.

 

[JulieM]

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I don't think uncovering abuse is even among the top 10 of bishops responsibilities.

However, being a judge in Israel is.  I think it is in this role, as one who advises youth on spiritual matters as well as hearing confessions that having another adult in the room would make difficult.

Personally, I know that as a teenager having a parent with me would have put a serious damper on conversations I had with my bishop.

 Maybe when needing to confess serious sins, but as a YW in the church, I would never have talked to the Bishop if my Dad was abusing me. I always thought they were all friends.  

I think for many youth, they’d feel the same way if they’d watched them serve together or even just talk in the hallway.  I would have gone to a teacher or good friend who I trusted.  Or even one of my YW leaders before I would have talked to the Bishop about my Dad.  Then she could have gone with me to take it further.

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But lets not forget, this isn't just about a bishop being available if someone wants to talk to him. It's the bishop systematically pulling every youth into one-on-one interviews a couple of times a year at minimum to determine their spiritual worthiness, at which time the youth may also share about being abused.

If a youth comes to the bishop of their own accord, not because they were summoned for an interview, it's a it different. But even then, if a parent expressly forbids the youth from going one-on-one with the bishop, that should be honored. So what are some solutions if the youth wants to talk to the bishop but parents forbid a one-one-one meeting behind closed doors?

1- don't hold it behind closed doors. Speak in a public space in a way that still allows some privacy while also allowing for the safety of being seen. There can be drawbacks to this for sure, but the parents wishes are honored and the youth is able to speak to the bishop privately.

2- Ask the youth to bring a trusted adult with them to speak to the bishop or have the bishop choose one if they don't know who to bring

IMO- having the expectation/requirement that youth meet regularly one-on-one behind closed doors is a larger problem than not having the bishop available for private conversation in the rare situation that the kid wants to tell him of parental abuse. It's not safe for the kid to meet alone, but it's not safe for the bishop either. When I was bishop I faced this exact scenario where a youth ran away from home because of parental abuse. She wanted to meet with me which I gladly did, but I asked her to have someone else present, which she gladly did. It worked fine.

 

I agree it should be honored. Legally I'm sure it probably has to be honored.  I'm just saying that statistically speaking, we can't trust parents to always have the best interest of their kids at heart and I feel like that needs to be acknowledged.  Some people act like a child is likely to be abused by a bishop and that's why parents need to intervene.  The truth is that a child is much much more likely to be abused by a parent. Remembering that helps to keep bishop youth interviews in perspective.   

[JulieM]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

I agree it should be honored. Legally I'm sure it probably has to be honored.  I'm just saying that statistically speaking, we can't trust parents to always have the best interest of their kids at heart and I feel like that needs to be acknowledged.  Some people act like a child is likely to be abused by a bishop and that's why parents need to intervene.  The truth is that a child is much much more likely to be abused by a parent. Remembering that helps to keep bishop youth interviews in perspective.   

But what are the numbers for a child or teen going to their bishop when they’re being abused by a parent (especially if their parent is active or a leader in the ward or a friend of the bishop’s) vs. the chances of them going to a teacher, friend or other independent (from the church) adult that they trust?  

Edited June 23, 2018 by JulieM

[bsjkki]

The article also give this guidance, 

Interviews provide an opportunity to reaffirm each youth’s limitless potential as a child of God. Interviews also provide an opportunity to inspire youth to develop plans to draw closer to Heavenly Father and to improve in all areas of their lives.

As representatives of the Savior, bishops are divinely appointed judges in Israel. In this role, they conduct interviews to determine worthiness and to help youth repent of transgressions.

Those who conduct interviews express love and listen carefully. They encourage youth to talk rather than doing most of the talking themselves.

I would hope Bishop interviews are a positive experience for most youth but I am wary about the, "they conduct interviews to determine worthiness" part. This is one reason for the interviews. As adults we are asked the temple recomment questions and we answer them. Sometimes it seems, Bishops feel they need to ask more probing questions to the youth about topics not addressed in the temple recommend questions. I feel this statement could promote more probing interviews...not less. Am I off base with this concern? Sometimes I feel the youth are over managed and not given room to work out their own salvation. If a Bishop in my youth ever addressed pornography, masturbation or anything more than, "do you live the law of chastity," I would have been mortified! In general, I feel the Bishops should stick to the temple recommend questions unless the youth bring up other topics they have questions about or bring up a need to repent. 

I like that Bishops are told to "express love and listen." It is sad that this needs to be pointed out but I know this guidance is well needed because it is not always followed.

[The Nehor]

On 6/21/2018 at 5:23 PM, katherine the great said:

I felt that way about my children's interviews too. The interview process presents potential problems no matter how it is conducted. Inappropriate questions can be asked if the parent is not present and the flip side is that in the rare case where the child is being abused at home, there is no chance for the child to report to the Bishop if the parent is always present. I'm just glad that all my children are grown and I don't have to deal with it directly any more. 

I find it more likely that the parent will screw up the child then the Bishop. I would have hated to have my parents there in youth interviews even when I was not confessing anything.

I know of one incidence where an adult (19 year old prospective missionary) wanted his mom with him for all interviews. That was a little weird. He ended up not going. Not sure if that was related.

[The Nehor]

On 6/21/2018 at 8:43 PM, Traela said:

Or, the child might want to discuss something personal without the parents present.

 

This is my concern. Even if the parents are not involved with what the child (or more likely, teen)  there are times they may want to discuss something and would feel awkward if their parents were there. I would hope that even the most paranoid parent would be okay with their kid saying they would rather have one of their other leaders go in with them rather than a parent.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, JulieM said:

 Maybe when needing to confess serious sins, but as a YW in the church, I would never have talked to the Bishop if my Dad was abusing me. I always thought they were all friends.  

I think for many youth, they’d feel the same way if they’d watched them serve together or even just talk in the hallway.  I would have gone to a teacher or good friend who I trusted.  Or even one of my YW leaders before I would have talked to the Bishop about my Dad.  Then she could have gone with me to take it further.

And that would have worked.

I know of one case where a child under terrible abuse broke down crying after seminary and told her seminary teacher what was going on. The bishop was called, legal authorities got involved, and by all accounts things got better.

My possibly paranoid fear is an abusive parent trying to shield the child from those the child could go to for help.

[Danzo]

On 6/21/2018 at 2:05 PM, JulieM said:

My husband has requested (in writing) that none of our kids are interviewed without one of us being present.  Our bishop has been very supportive and wonderful about it.  

This just sounds like extreme helicopter parenting to me. A bit creepy as well.  It could seriously stunt their development. Mommy and daddy won't always be there. They have to grow up sometime.

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

This just sounds like extreme helicopter parenting to me. A bit creepy as well.  It could seriously stunt their development.

So could abuse.

For us (and our bishop), this has been very positive and has actually opened up even better communication between us and our son.  We have complete support from our leaders on this too (YM and bishopric).  We are not the only parents doing this in our ward now either and I believe there will just continue to be more working with their youth in this manner.  If it doesn’t seem right for you and your kids, I understand that too.

[Danzo]

14 minutes ago, JulieM said:

So could abuse.

For us (and our bishop), this has been very positive and has actually opened up even better communication between us and our son.  We have complete support from our leaders on this too (YM and bishopric).  We are not the only parents doing this in our ward now either and I believe there will just continue to be more working with their youth in this manner.  If it doesn’t seem right for you and your kids, I understand that too.

What will they do when when they suddenly turn 18 and they have to start dealing with adults without their parents to hold their hands? The danger of abuse doesn't stop when they turn 18.   In my opinion, putting children in a bubble  just makes it harder to cope when they become adults.  Makes them more vulnerable to abuse. Much better to teach them and let them practice with controlled situations.  If you think bishops are dangerous, wait till they go to college.

[JulieM]

2 minutes ago, Danzo said:

What will they do when when they suddenly turn 18 and they have to start dealing with adults without their parents to hold their hands? The danger of abuse doesn't stop when they turn 18. 

Oh, of course not!  We’ve openly talked to our kids about this too.  For us, what we’re doing is working amazingly well and we have a very open and healthy relationship with them.  If you don’t want to do it this way with your kids, you need to do what feels right for your family.  But don’t judge others who choose a different approach (with the complete support of our leaders).