Former Bishop Hunger Strike for Youth Interview Policy Change

[hope_for_things]

11 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

This probably won’t turn out well.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900026367/lds-church-responds-to-man-engaged-in-hunger-strike-to-protest-bishops-interviews.html

 

I think what he's highlighting is that the steps the church made on this matter aren't going far enough.  I agree with that assessment, but I'm not sure a hunger strike is the right way to highlight this problem. 

Until the church explicitly tells leaders not to discuss sexually explicit topics with minors, you'll still have leaders that are following the examples they were taught, "being guided by the spirit", in interviews and these situations will continue to perpetuate into the future.  The rules from the church need to be clear and explicit.  They need to state without ambiguity that church leaders are never under any circumstances to discuss sexually explicit behavior one on one with a minor.  

This is a step that I think the church will eventually have to make, to protect itself legally and to protect children. 

Edited July 30, 2018 by hope_for_things

[HappyJackWagon]

8 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

It's only in the news in Utah

No one else cares. 

For now. It will be interesting to see if that changes over the next couple of weeks. Time will tell.

I admit I cringe when I hear comparisons to Gandhi but I respect Bishop Young for trying to make a difference on an issue he feels deeply about. 

The church's update to policy earlier this year may have been a small improvement, but it was a baby step. I'd love to see more improvements made to the process. It looks like Bishop Young would also like to see changes made. I wish him luck. 

Edited July 30, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[Tacenda]

40 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Read the article.

The church responded, the policy was clarified in march. It's a perfect compromise.

I read the article and to USU78's comment about the thousands that have been affected, I read that but need to find where I saw that. I do wonder about those members that do need the one on one. That is the dilemma the church has, but maybe it's not true that in order to go through the repentance process you need the bishop.

I heard Sam mention in one of his FB videos, that early in the church there were no meetings for you to tell the bishop your sins. I wonder if that is true and when did we start these interviews or have members meet with the bishop? It sounds more like the Catholic church. It would be interesting to see when the church started the interviews. Or the requirement to meet with a bishop about serious sins. Me personally, I think in my mindset it helped me to meet with my singles ward bishop before I was married in the temple to go over anything in my past that needed clearing up. But thinking about it now, maybe I would have been okay to just go through the Lord.  

[ALarson]

5 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I read the article and to USU78's comment about the thousands that have been affected, I read that but need to find where I saw that.   

Well, there are over 600 who have written up their experiences (on Sam Young's website) and I'd imagine he's heard from more, so maybe that's what is being referred to.

Also, just read through all the Mormon Alliance accounts (there are 3 volumes) and you're over a thousand.  Some of those may be included in that number as well:

http://mormon-alliance.org/casereports/casereports.htm

Edited July 30, 2018 by ALarson

[changed]

4 hours ago, rpn said:

I don't understand him at all.   Once the church made the changes in June formally, setting the list of questions, none of which are explicit, and allow children and youth (and for that matter adults) to bring someone with them, I don't understand why he keeps beating the drum.   He's already won what he says the kids need.

 

As a parent of kids who have been molested by a HP (final trial is happening next weekend) I fully understand the position of Sam.  There is a big difference between "allowing" someone to bring in another adult, and having a standard two-deep policy.  If it is just an option - and an option that goes against the established norm - kids will feel uncomfortable having to request a second adult.  I am very thankful for Sam for bringing attention to this very real, and very big problem within the church.  Abuse is more prevalent than most would like to admit. 

I am very happy to see all of the changes that have been instituted recently such as: putting windows in classroom doors, policy requiring two adult teachers and other two-deep policies.  The reason for all the changes is there have been quite a few cases of abuse.  The changes in policy is evidence of the abuse that is going on.  

This last change that needs to be made - to stop PPI's - it needs to be done, just as all the other changes needed to be done.

I credit Sam with changing what has been changed, and hope he is able to accomplish this one last change too.  

Two deep policies need to be in place for all circumstances.  Two-deep for classes, two-deep for all activities, two-deep for all interviews.  

There are too many cases of too many people being hurt - both leaders being hurt by false accusations, and members (children and adults) being hurt by actual abuse - to not institute an across the board two-deep policy.  

 

 

Edited July 30, 2018 by changed

[changed]

45 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Well, there are over 600 who have written up their experiences (on Sam Young's website) and I'd imagine he's heard from more, so maybe that's what is being referred to.

Also, just read through all the Mormon Alliance accounts (there are 3 volumes) and you're over a thousand.  Some of those may be included in that number as well:

http://mormon-alliance.org/casereports/casereports.htm

He has heard from more.  My story is not on there yet.

[Jeanne]

I saw all this live last night..and I was very impressed with this former Bishop.  He was straight forward, honest and has many, many reasons to feel he needs to do something.

For me, I am a loser..I talk...but I don't do.  For those still in the church who do not see this..are losers too...they see..but do not do.  There will be empty chairs..although what Sam asks is quite different from what has been proposed and written up since...(for which I give the church great credit) the people damaged and the future children  who confess without help from someone who is trained...will not matter.  The PR...the dollars..they will always come first.  Someone needs to sit in the chair and answer questions.  If not...alll those letters..all those people will cease to matter.  What say ye?

Edited July 30, 2018 by Jeanne

[Calm]

1 hour ago, ALarson said:

Well, there are over 600 who have written up their experiences (on Sam Young's website) and I'd imagine he's heard from more, so maybe that's what is being referred to.

Also, just read through all the Mormon Alliance accounts (there are 3 volumes) and you're over a thousand.  Some of those may be included in that number as well:

http://mormon-alliance.org/casereports/casereports.htm

Any of these vetted or do they just accept as is?  

There was the one review that pull from newspaper accounts and iirc court documents, but I don't think there were more than 300 allegations listed there, iirc.  Over a period of 60 years.

I read one claim on Young's site and several who had been to the right temple in the right time period said the actual site would make it very difficult for the abuse to take place where claimed (not enough room, higher traffic areas).

Edited July 30, 2018 by Calm

[ALarson]

Just now, Calm said:

Any of these vetted or do they just accept as is?  

There was the one review that pull from newspaper accounts and iirc court documents, but I don't think there were more than 300 allegations listed there, iirc.  Over a period of 60 years.

I think those in the Mormon Alliance volumes are (many of those were legally prosecuted as well), but I think the ones on Sam Young's website are accepted as written and posted.  I do remember something in the beginning where some were wondering if any of these stories were "fake" and there was a response.  Do you remember what was stated?

I'll try to see what I can find as well.

[Bernard Gui]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think what he's highlighting is that the steps the church made on this matter aren't going far enough.  I agree with that assessment, but I'm not sure a hunger strike is the right way to highlight this problem. 

Until the church explicitly tells leaders not to discuss sexually explicit topics with minors, you'll still have leaders that are following the examples they were taught, "being guided by the spirit", in interviews and these situations will continue to perpetuate into the future.  The rules from the church need to be clear and explicit.  They need to state without ambiguity that church leaders are never under any circumstances to discuss sexually explicit behavior one on one with a minor.  

This is a step that I think the church will eventually have to make, to protect itself legally and to protect children. 

My son Abogadissimo simply asks the youth if they are living the standards in For the Strength of the Youth.

Edited July 30, 2018 by Bernard Gui

[rpn]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

  They need to state without ambiguity that church leaders are never under any circumstances to discuss sexually explicit behavior one on one with a minor. 

The real test isn't whether they've said that explicitly, though I read the announcement of the questions and it seem explicit enough to me about what questions they are allowed to ask, but whether they immediately release and why spoken about publicly if any bishop anywhere asks an explicit question.

Some suggest (though that isn't what Sam said in his announcement) that only doing away with all child/youth interviews will do, but does that mean children/youth don't get access to the person Christ assigns as their shepherd in His behalf?   How is that right.   Others suggest that it isn't the norm to ask someone with you, but the guidelines now call for a parent to be notified of the meeting and youth/children be told they can have an adult.  I'm wondering how any kiddo is going to tell a leader that his father is molesting or beating him, when the father in question insists on being present in the room.   (Though as a parent I teach that if someone is molesting you we don't go to the bishop, we go to the police.   I don't think I have ever heard any expectation in my lots of years in the church otherwise, but recently I've certainly heard more than a few members/former members who say they grew up being told that.)

[rpn]

26 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

I saw all this live last night..and I was very impressed with this former Bishop.  He was straight forward, honest and has many, many reasons to feel he needs to do something.

For me, I am a loser..I talk...but I don't do.  For those still in the church who do not see this..are losers too...they see..but do not do.  There will be empty chairs..although what Sam asks is quite different from what has been proposed and written up since...(for which I give the church great credit) the people damaged and the future children  who confess without help from someone who is trained...will not matter.  The PR...the dollars..they will always come first.  Someone needs to sit in the chair and answer questions.  If not...alll those letters..all those people will cease to matter.  What say ye?

I certainly wouldn't be advising PR to have an apostle show up and sit in the chair. 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think it's a good step as well.  Give parents and youth a choice regarding not being alone in their interviews with an adult male. 

But from what I understand, Sam Young wants NO one-on-one interviews at all (between a church leader and a child or youth) and also absolutely no sexually explicit questions.  I know that Bishops are only supposed to ask if the youth lives the Law of Chastity, but some Bishops are still going into more detail and asking more questions (if I'm understanding correctly).  He wants that to end.

He has stated that he will end the strike early if:

I was discussing this with my Bishop yesterday, and he said that he'd step forward and commit to always honoring requests for a parent or adult to be in the room (he does that now with several families in our ward), but not to such extremes as are being asked for here. 

He already doesn't ask "sexually explicit questions" (and never did), so that one isn't too difficult for him to commit to.

It might be better if the bishops did what their stake presidents instruct them to do rather than a following self-appointed fixer. 

[Calm]

Quote

The PR...the dollars..they will always come first

If someone described your family that way, what would you think of them?

For many of us, the church community is part of our family and what you are saying here are misrepresentations**** in our experience.  We have seen how generous the Church is with welfare, with strangers, and no publicizing of much that is done.  

And they rarely jump out with sharing confidential information when it could be very beneficial like the bishop and stake president being able to tell their side of the story.

Local leaders are allowed to decide for themselves what to do about members who are crossing into apostasy and taking others with them, most likely, thus cutting into those dollars you claim always come first.

****I used "lies" originally because the misrepresentation seemed intentional as I don't see how a former member and longtime board participant could be unaware of at least some of the unadvertised charitable efforts of the Church, but I have decided to withhold that level of judgement.

Edited August 1, 2018 by Calm

[Calm]

7 minutes ago, rpn said:

The real test isn't whether they've said that explicitly, though I read the announcement of the questions and it seem explicit enough to me about what questions they are allowed to ask, but whether they immediately release and why spoken about publicly if any bishop anywhere asks an explicit question.

Some suggest (though that isn't what Sam said in his announcement) that only doing away with all child/youth interviews will do, but does that mean children/youth don't get access to the person Christ assigns as their shepherd in His behalf?   How is that right.   Others suggest that it isn't the norm to ask someone with you, but the guidelines now call for a parent to be notified of the meeting and youth/children be told they can have an adult.  I'm wondering how any kiddo is going to tell a leader that his father is molesting or beating him, when the father in question insists on being present in the room.   (Though as a parent I teach that if someone is molesting you we don't go to the bishop, we go to the police.   I don't think I have ever heard any expectation in my lots of years in the church otherwise, but recently I've certainly heard more than a few members/former members who say they grew up being told that.)

Do you explain how they are to go to the police?  Most kids wouldn't have a clue I am guessing.

[hope_for_things]

13 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

My son Abogadissimo simply asks the youth if they are living the standards in For the Strength of a Youth.

Good for him.  I'm sure many leaders do a very good job in spite of the lack of training and specific guidance on this topic.  The rules need to change to prevent abuses and poor judgment by the majority of well intentioned leaders as well as the minority with bad intentions.  

[ALarson]

17 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

It might be better if the bishops did what their stake presidents instruct them to do rather than a following self-appointed fixer. 

As long as they are following the new guidelines (Stake Presidents and Bishops), I agree.  Some Bishops are still asking probing questions (from what I've heard, not in our ward) or too sexually explicit questions and that needs to end.  Also, Bishops need to honor any parent's (or youth's) request to have another adult present in the interview.

I know that my Bishop and our SP are in full agreement....so no problem in my ward with following his instructions.

 

Edited July 30, 2018 by ALarson

[Storm Rider]

I do turn a jaundiced eye on these stories and stories people have heard from others. In a period when most second graders have heard every foul word, every sexual perversion known to man we are supposed to believe that a bishop asking young Johnny, a 12-year-old boy, if he has anything he would like to talk about, or even the more blunt, "do you masturbate", that the world falls in on the young lad and he is crushed for the rest of his life.

I don't know - it is as if we are to believe that only Mormon youth are hyper-sensitive little children that cannot bear to hear any discussion of a sexual nature, much less talk about beer and cigarettes or drugs.  

Now, just to be clear, never was I ever asked by any bishop or stake president about masturbation or anything else of the nature. Having grown up in the outdoors and been around farms may off tempered me to sexual things. It also helped that each of us seven children felt comfortable asking our parents about anything at the dinner table - anything and did. I did not think I grew up odd or having a singular experience. If children of today in the Church are so incredibly sheltered - which I don't believe - then shame on the parents. Grow up and talk about life - that includes sex and the temptations of the flesh, etc. 

[hope_for_things]

19 minutes ago, rpn said:

The real test isn't whether they've said that explicitly, though I read the announcement of the questions and it seem explicit enough to me about what questions they are allowed to ask, but whether they immediately release and why spoken about publicly if any bishop anywhere asks an explicit question.

Some suggest (though that isn't what Sam said in his announcement) that only doing away with all child/youth interviews will do, but does that mean children/youth don't get access to the person Christ assigns as their shepherd in His behalf?   How is that right.   Others suggest that it isn't the norm to ask someone with you, but the guidelines now call for a parent to be notified of the meeting and youth/children be told they can have an adult.  I'm wondering how any kiddo is going to tell a leader that his father is molesting or beating him, when the father in question insists on being present in the room.   (Though as a parent I teach that if someone is molesting you we don't go to the bishop, we go to the police.   I don't think I have ever heard any expectation in my lots of years in the church otherwise, but recently I've certainly heard more than a few members/former members who say they grew up being told that.)

Unfortunately the policy isn't clear about what is out of bounds, and in the letter distributed it states:

Quote

Those who conduct interviews with youth should prepare themselves spiritually to be guided by the Holy Ghost. 

It also directs leaders to use the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet which goes into greater detail about topics that can lead to more detailed discussions of a sexual nature.  A few statements from the FTSOY that could lead to inappropriate sexual discussion:  

https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/sexual-purity?lang=eng

Quote

Before marriage, do not participate in passionate kissing, lie on top of another person, or touch the private, sacred parts of another person’s body, with or without clothing. Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body.

As for how this impacts a minor being able to talk in private to a church leader, this would definitely impact that.  I can tell from the language that you're using that you believe this is a non-negotiable, when you says "Christ assigned" them on his behalf.  But I'm not even aware of any scriptures or canonized revelations to support this assumption directly.  The church has to consider liability and safety as important factors in this matter in our present culture.  

Kids still have a number of outlets that can function as safe places for them to go.  Trained school counselors, a doctor, a trusted friend or family member.  The purpose of these interviews has never been to act as a mechanism by which abuse is disclosed.  I don't believe the church even acts in the best interest of abuse victims when these disclosures are made, they seem more interested in institutional protection.  

 

[hope_for_things]

29 minutes ago, Calm said:

Do you explain how they are to go to the police?  Most kids wouldn't have a clue I am guessing.

What about 911.  I think most kids know how to call it.  

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

Unfortunately the policy isn't clear about what is out of bounds, and in the letter distributed it states:

It also directs leaders to use the For the Strength of Youth pamphlet which goes into greater detail about topics that can lead to more detailed discussions of a sexual nature.  A few statements from the FTSOY that could lead to inappropriate sexual discussion:  

https://www.lds.org/youth/for-the-strength-of-youth/sexual-purity?lang=eng

As for how this impacts a minor being able to talk in private to a church leader, this would definitely impact that.  I can tell from the language that you're using that you believe this is a non-negotiable, when you says "Christ assigned" them on his behalf.  But I'm not even aware of any scriptures or canonized revelations to support this assumption directly.  The church has to consider liability and safety as important factors in this matter in our present culture.  

Kids still have a number of outlets that can function as safe places for them to go.  Trained school counselors, a doctor, a trusted friend or family member.  The purpose of these interviews has never been to act as a mechanism by which abuse is disclosed.  I don't believe the church even acts in the best interest of abuse victims when these disclosures are made, they seem more interested in institutional protection.  

 

Great points about FtSoY.

Two deep leadership- It's not a challenging concept so I struggle to see why so many people have a problem with  applying it to all aspects of church.

I'll also note, that for me there is a little bit of a difference between a child/youth who seeks out the bishop because they want to talk about something, and being called to speak to the bishop. If a youth takes initiative to talk to the bishop privately there is still a risk of abuse but this is where the "bring an adult" provision could come in pretty handy. But it's quite different IMO for a bishop or counselor to summon youth on a regular basis to meet privately. In one case the youth wants the meeting, in the other, the adult wants the meeting. As long as adults are seeking private meetings with youth, in which sxual discussions are possible, there will be a need to seek change. Don't get me wrong, the vast majority of leaders are simply doing what they've been taught to do. It's what's expected. Most youth participate in the interviews because it's what they've been taught to do. It's what's expected. Those expectations need to change. A youth should not feel that they are obligated to comply by meeting privately with an adult where sxual topics may come up.

 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

I think it's a good step as well.  Give parents and youth a choice regarding not being alone in their interviews with an adult male. 

But from what I understand, Sam Young wants NO one-on-one interviews at all (between a church leader and a child or youth) and also absolutely no sexually explicit questions.  I know that Bishops are only supposed to ask if the youth lives the Law of Chastity, but some Bishops are still going into more detail and asking more questions (if I'm understanding correctly).  He wants that to end.

He has stated that he will end the strike early if:

I was discussing this with my Bishop yesterday, and he said that he'd step forward and commit to always honoring requests for a parent or adult to be in the room (he does that now with several families in our ward), but not to such extremes as are being asked for here. 

He already doesn't ask "sexually explicit questions" (and never did), so that one isn't too difficult for him to commit to.

I never did either, but I think the option for a child to essentially turn in their parents is not negotiable. Who else can they talk to?

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

For now. It will be interesting to see if that changes over the next couple of weeks. Time will tell.

I admit I cringe when I hear comparisons to Gandhi but I respect Bishop Young for trying to make a difference on an issue he feels deeply about. 

The church's update to policy earlier this year may have been a small improvement, but it was a baby step. I'd love to see more improvements made to the process. It looks like Bishop Young would also like to see changes made. I wish him luck. 

And let abusive parents continue?

No one thinks about that

Let the relief society pres be the second person in that case

 

Edited July 30, 2018 by mfbukowski

[california boy]

58 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said:

My son Abogadissimo simply asks the youth if they are living the standards in For the Strength of a Youth.

I am curious.  What does your son do when a youth answers that they are not living the standards in For the Strength of Youth?

[HappyJackWagon]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And let abusive parents continue?

No one thinks about that

You discovered the hidden truth- we all want children to be abused by their parents, unchecked.

Or more likely, I think most reasonable people just realize it's a false dichotomy: Let bishops meet one-on-one with youth to discuss sxual issues or allow parents to abuse their kids. Come on, man.  That's weak sauce.

Bishop's interviews are not intended to route out parental abuse. It's not even one of multiple purposes to the interviews. Youth have access to other adults and as I've stated earlier, there's a bit of a difference between a youth requesting a meeting with an adult than with an adult requesting a one-on-one meeting with a youth, to which the youth feels obligated to participate.