Former Bishop Hunger Strike for Youth Interview Policy Change

[rpn]

3 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Best PR ever in doing the and/or the right thing. It won't happen...not enough guts to do what is the right thing.

Not about guts.   And showing up wouldn't be " the right thing", either.  And the church has already done what he wants anyway.

[rpn]

4 hours ago, Calm said:

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

Sure, I tell them I'll take them there.  Easy peasy. 

[rpn]

4 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Unfortunately the policy isn't clear about what is out of bounds,

The instruction says to give parents the list of the approved questions in advance (they don't say, but since the guidance explicitly reserves to parents the teaching, I'm assuming it means that the parent will review with the kiddo what the questions are asking), and that means that they aren't going to get inspiration to ask other questions.

[ALarson]

15 minutes ago, rpn said:

And the church has already done what he wants anyway.

You keep saying that like it's true.  It's not.  The changes didn't go far enough for him.  So no, "the church" has not "already done what he wants".  You can disagree with his requests or demands, but it's not accurate to keep stating they've been met.

Edited July 30, 2018 by ALarson

[clarkgoble]

41 minutes ago, Prof said:

I wish that I could hit the like button for this comment.

To me, this is a pretty important question. In my decades in the Church, I have never heard any explanation about how this process (interviews and meeting with the bishop for forgiveness) came about.

I believe this is just for fornication or adultery. I've never heard of anyone going to the Bishop to confess anything else unless they just felt like they had to get it off their shoulders or because they'd been disfellowshipped or excommunicated.

There are examples of people confessing early in the Church. As a general rule for Bishops though it's not clear. Ed Kimball has, in a footnote to his "Confession in LDS Doctrine and Practice", the following: 

• From 1899 to 1910 instructions for bishops were published annually. After 1910 they were published every five years [...] With the 1921 edition these written instructions began to include items on the spiritual roles of bishops including receiving confessions. Over time the instructions became more and more inclusive and specific

Not really a history but suggests it was in place fairly early.

[hope_for_things]

7 minutes ago, rpn said:

The instruction says to give parents the list of the approved questions in advance (they don't say, but since the guidance explicitly reserves to parents the teaching, I'm assuming it means that the parent will review with the kiddo what the questions are asking), and that means that they aren't going to get inspiration to ask other questions.

Except the instructions tell leaders to seek the spirit in preparation for the interviews and it refers them to use other resources like the FTSOY pamphlet that I quoted some portions from earlier that have some language about sexual purity that could invite additional questions from the person being interviewed, and the path towards a leader offering up their personal interpretation as guided by the spirit is set.  

The policy could put all of these risks out of bounds if it explicitly stated that the leaders are not to talk about specific topics relating to sexual purity at all. 

[hope_for_things]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I believe this is just for fornication or adultery. I've never heard of anyone going to the Bishop to confess anything else unless they just felt like they had to get it off their shoulders or because they'd been disfellowshipped or excommunicated.

There are examples of people confessing early in the Church. As a general rule for Bishops though it's not clear. Ed Kimball has, in a footnote to his "Confession in LDS Doctrine and Practice", the following: 

• From 1899 to 1910 instructions for bishops were published annually. After 1910 they were published every five years [...] With the 1921 edition these written instructions began to include items on the spiritual roles of bishops including receiving confessions. Over time the instructions became more and more inclusive and specific

Not really a history but suggests it was in place fairly early.

I wouldn't consider the early 20th century to be "fairly early" evidence.  I would like to see evidence for this practice of ecclesiastical interviews during the lifetime of Joseph.  I'm not aware of any evidence for it at all during the early church. 

[clarkgoble]

18 minutes ago, hope_for_things said:

I wouldn't consider the early 20th century to be "fairly early" evidence.  I would like to see evidence for this practice of ecclesiastical interviews during the lifetime of Joseph.  I'm not aware of any evidence for it at all during the early church. 

Note I didn't say ecclesiastical interviews - just confessions. To me having it formalized by 1921 is pretty early. That's the beginning of the transition period in Mormon history. The earlier practice was to confess to the entire congregation.

 

[hope_for_things]

11 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Note I didn't say ecclesiastical interviews - just confessions. To me having it formalized by 1921 is pretty early. That's the beginning of the transition period in Mormon history. The earlier practice was to confess to the entire congregation.

I think of confessions in general as having some similarities, but really being a different practice, and I don't think a uniquely Mormon practice either.  Our modern ecclesiastical interviews are the practice that I think doesn't have any early Mormon precedent, and doesn't have a revelatory precedent either.  It seems like a policy that developed without those two important elements, so it could much more easily changed or jettisoned.  

[Prof]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I believe this is just for fornication or adultery. I've never heard of anyone going to the Bishop to confess anything else unless they just felt like they had to get it off their shoulders or because they'd been disfellowshipped or excommunicated.

There are examples of people confessing early in the Church. As a general rule for Bishops though it's not clear. Ed Kimball has, in a footnote to his "Confession in LDS Doctrine and Practice", the following: 

• From 1899 to 1910 instructions for bishops were published annually. After 1910 they were published every five years [...] With the 1921 edition these written instructions began to include items on the spiritual roles of bishops including receiving confessions. Over time the instructions became more and more inclusive and specific

Not really a history but suggests it was in place fairly early.

Clark,

Thanks for posting this!

Quite an interesting article!

[Prof]

1 hour ago, hope_for_things said:

I think of confessions in general as having some similarities, but really being a different practice, and I don't think a uniquely Mormon practice either.  Our modern ecclesiastical interviews are the practice that I think doesn't have any early Mormon precedent, and doesn't have a revelatory precedent either.  It seems like a policy that developed without those two important elements, so it could much more easily changed or jettisoned.  

Agreed

[Guest]

20 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 thought new policies had already been adopted? If not, it should happen for the safety of both Bishops, and children. 

[carbon dioxide]

Is there a documented case in history where a hunger strike accomplished anything other than those involved losing some weight.  I would do the opposite. I would just eat 10 meals a day.  At least that would be more enjoyable.

[Bernard Gui]

1 hour ago, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

I thought new policies had already been adopted? If not, it should happen for the safety of both Bishops, and children. 

Yep. Looks like some people don’t think it went far enough for the protester guy.

 

[Calm]

6 hours ago, Jeanne said:

..not enough guts to do what is the right thing.

Feel the love.

Edited July 31, 2018 by Calm

[CV75]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think of confessions in general as having some similarities, but really being a different practice, and I don't think a uniquely Mormon practice either.  Our modern ecclesiastical interviews are the practice that I think doesn't have any early Mormon precedent, and doesn't have a revelatory precedent either.  It seems like a policy that developed without those two important elements, so it could much more easily changed or jettisoned.  

Mosiah 26 talks about maintaining order in the Church not only by repentance and confession to a high priest, but by the high priest regulating all the affairs (verse 36), which would reasonably include interviews. The certificates mentioned in D&C 20 would require some sort of interview or conversation between the issuer and the carrier regarding the latter’s good standing as authoritatively ascertained by the former. Alma 5 is a pretty heavy duty group interview. "The First Presidency and the Council of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, who preside over the Church, are empowered to make many decisions affecting Church policies and procedures—matters such as the location of Church buildings and the ages for missionary service." https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng It is important to recognize how they are empowered (by God, and by common consent, in a spirit of unity and love). In any case, the commonality between "then" and "now" is that the high priests regulate the affairs if the Church, issue "certificates" and recommends, and interview the members individually and collectively. 

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Jeanne said:

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...

"Loser" as not a label that promotes positive change.  More likely to lead to people feeling helpless or giving up or to be dismissive of someone who calls them that because they know they are not. 

No one is a loser in my view.

[Prof]

3 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think of confessions in general as having some similarities, but really being a different practice, and I don't think a uniquely Mormon practice either.  Our modern ecclesiastical interviews are the practice that I think doesn't have any early Mormon precedent, and doesn't have a revelatory precedent either.  It seems like a policy that developed without those two important elements, so it could much more easily changed or jettisoned.  

Your comments have caused me to reflect on how much we do based on policy and culture that has no scriptural or early church precidence. Interviews seem to fall into that category. After reading the referenced article,it seems like much of church discipline falls into that category. 

Last Sunday, we had a discussion about the sacrament. White shirts and ties were brought up as was taking it with the right hand. All that time, I was thinking "there's nothing in the scriptures about this."

It seems that some things we do just seem to evolve, perhaps like these interviews, but I tend to think that important things should have a scriptural (ancient or modern) basis.

[katherine the great]

5 hours ago, Prof said:

I wish that I could hit the like button for this comment.

To me, this is a pretty important question. In my decades in the Church, I have never heard any explanation about how this process (interviews and meeting with the bishop for forgiveness) came about.

Just a guess, but perhaps had its roots in the "reformation" of the 1850's? Some of the questions the apostles asked adult members in their interviews:

1. Have you shed innocent blood or assented thereto?
2. Have you committed adultery?
3. Have you betrayed your brother?
4. Have you borne false witness against your neighbor?
5. Do you get drunk?
6. Have you stolen?
7. Have you lied? (This was expanded to include questions "made specific as to the use of fields, animals, lost property, strays, irrigation water, and to borrowing and branding"—see below.)
8. Have you contracted debts without prospect of paying?
9. Have you labored faithfully for your wages?
10. Have you coveted that which belongs to another?
11. Have you taken the name of the Lord in vain?
12. Do you preside in your family as a servant of God?
13. Have you paid your tithing in all things?
14. Do you teach your family the gospel of Salvation?
15. Do you speak against your brethren or against any principle taught us in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Book of Doctrine & Covenants, revelations given through Joseph Smith the prophet and the Presidency of the Church as now organized?
16. Do you wash your body and have your family do so as often as health and cleanliness require and circumstances permit?
17. Do you labor six days and rest or go to the house of the Worship on the seventh?
18. Do you and your family attend ward meetings?
19. Do you oppress the hireling in his wages?

There is an expanded list at this site: 

IIRC, eligible children were also asked some pointed questions (including the support of plural marriage) to participate in re baptism during this time but I don't have a source at the moment.

 

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

I think of confessions in general as having some similarities, but really being a different practice, and I don't think a uniquely Mormon practice either.  Our modern ecclesiastical interviews are the practice that I think doesn't have any early Mormon precedent, and doesn't have a revelatory precedent either.  It seems like a policy that developed without those two important elements, so it could much more easily changed or jettisoned.  

There's several issues we're all (myself included) somewhat conflating.

For worthiness questioning, it seems to me those have always been with us since the rise of the temple ceremony in Nauvoo. The Development of LDS Temple Worship: A Documentary History goes through the first issue. As far back as 1853 we have the following from Brigham Young:

• The persons who can get their endowments must be those who pray, who pay their tithing from year to year; who live the lives of saints from day to day; setting good examples before their neighbors. Men and women, boys and girls over 16 years of age who are living the lives of saints, believe in the plurality [of wives], do not speak evil of the authorities of the Church, and possess true integrity towards their friends, can come up after their spring crops are sown, and their case shall be attended to." (First presidency letter to Stake Presidents and Bishops in Iron and Washington Counties, Mar 2 1856, in Parowan Historical Record, Mar. 16 1856, 13.)

So those questions seem here from the beginning. (It's more indirect for Nauvoo but appears to be present) I don't know how young they did baptisms for the dead. My daughter, who just recently turned 12, had her recommend interview for baptisms and it was identical with the adult questions which caused more than a little confusion. Having a version for kids might be nice. However from the above it seems like it was administered to boys and girls who were at least 16.

Since most active members would have a recommend, in practice I think this leads to these sorts of confessions to a Bishop. But it's not the sort of thing where one seeks out the Bishop while repenting.

For the rest we have to recognize that during the reform period in Utah (1856-1857) people were called to confess (usually publicly). This then quickly becomes systematized. Quoting from "The Mormon Reformation of 1856-1867: The Rhetoric and the Reality" people confessed for rebaptism to their leaders. The more organized and perhaps less charismatic and chaotic system involved "training a cadre of select home missionaries to teach the people...and providing a checklist of questions to help missionaries (and sometimes bishops and teachers) determine how far individuals had lapsed." (68) Interestingly one of the key questions was personal hygiene and how often they washed in clean water. This then became 27 questions, much more involved than what Bishops now ask. (Things like "have you branded an animal you know isn't yours?") Because Home Missionaries were the key force in this there were conflicts at times between them and Bishops. There also was the problem of over zealous Home Missionaries. Further the questions were usually asked in groups which could lead to embarrassments. This led to asking the questions individually rather than in families. 

As the reform movement progressed, leaders decided that getting rid of "incorrigibles" was as important as purifying the members. So that shift starts at the beginning of 1857. This then starts up the blood atonement talk. (Which the author, Paul Peterson, sees mostly as just talk to get people to leave who weren't willing to follow community norms)

Home Missionaries continued, although not as actively as in the reform period. These eventually became Stake High Counselors as church organization changed. Although in the 1870's and 1880's women were called as Home Missionaries to work with women. However it appears that Bishops took up the responsibility of asking people questions about worthiness. It's just that it's not until the 1920's that I see explicit formalized process for this, despite the checklist in the 1850's.

[Judd]

 

[JulieM]

4 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Yep. Looks like some people don’t think it went far enough for the protester guy.

 

It’s not really just what “some people” think, but it’s actually what the “protester guy” has stated and is asking for.  Read what Sam Young wants and you’ll see it’s more than even the new changes.  

 

 

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, JulieM said:

It’s not really just what “some people” think, but it’s actually what the “protester guy” has stated and is asking for.  Read what Sam Young wants and you’ll see it’s more than even the new changes.  

None of the news reports I read were clear on this. Talking with people more familiar with his writings, It seems like he wants to end all worthiness interviews. Which of course just isn't going to happen. So I guess he's going to be pretty hungry.

Edited July 31, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Calm]

Quote

I guess he's going to be pretty hungry.

Has it been made clear whether it is a hunger strike (no eating until he gets some concession at least) or a protest fast (won't eat for the time period of his political action of two weeks)?

[The Nehor]

Is he dead yet? Is there streaming of his descent into madness?