Replacing Mormonism with . . . ?

[Hamba Tuhan]

3 minutes ago, Thinking said:

These questions assume that when we lose our faith, we feel some kind of emptiness that needs to be filled.

I think this is a classic case of projection. I would feel beyond empty without my faith. It's the essential element at the base of nearly every daily experience for me. I think that's true for many Saints. It can be hard sometimes not to assume that everyone else is the same.

Quote

Why would I stay in a church that I don't believe can deliver on the elevated promises?

I personally love staying because the Church predictably, reliably and consistently delivers on its (elevated!) promises in my everyday life. If it didn't, I'd look elsewhere.

[flameburns623]

Community of Christ?

United Church of Christ?

Anglican Communion?

Unitarian Universalist?

Any of a plethora of non-Christian faiths?

Or . . .membership in a fraternal order which stresses ethical living and service to mankind?

I think there are several fallback options. 

[california boy]

14 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think this is a classic case of projection. I would feel beyond empty without my faith. It's the essential element at the base of nearly every daily experience for me. I think that's true for many Saints. It can be hard sometimes not to assume that everyone else is the same.

I personally love staying because the Church predictably, reliably and consistently delivers on its (elevated!) promises in my everyday life. If it didn't, I'd look elsewhere.

It is pretty safe to say that Elder Ballards question is also one of projecting.  

[Hamba Tuhan]

33 minutes ago, california boy said:

It is pretty safe to say that Elder Ballards question is also one of projecting.  

Absolutely!

I took a long trip this past weekend to attend a wedding reception for one of the former missionaries who served in our ward. I hate formal wedding receptions! But I love this young man and feel grateful for his service. So I went. I also hoped there would be good food. There wasn't. The dips were insipid. The tabouli lacked punch. The veal was tough. The gravy was tasteless. The roast veg were overdone. The ice cream was soft and under-topped. The wedding cake was pretty good, but the icing was lame.

But there was one exception. On one side of the reception centre was an elaborate cut fruit display that filled an entire table. It looked something like this:

But longer, taller, fancier, and with more variety: watermelon, honeydew, rockmelon, papaya, pomegranates, navel oranges, red grapefruit, passion fruit, kiwi fruit, dragon fruit, pineapple, red and green grapes, strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, blackberries. And it was all ripe and sweet; the berries were huge. It must have cost a fortune.

As soon as I saw it, I thought, Well, that won't last long. But in the end, I was just projecting. I can't tell you how many trips I took to the fruit display, or how many times I just walked past and grabbed just a little bit more. Fantastic! And a few other guests did the same. But at the end of the night, most of the fruit was still there, and the serving staff came, picked up the four corners of the tablecloth, and tipped the lot into a bin.

Tragic! To me. Clearly not to others.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Hamba Tuhan

[Kenngo1969]

I cannot think of any specific cases of which I am aware that someone left the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and replaced his former involvement in the Church with some other specific, systematic activity.  ("Well, duh, Ken!  Since that's what the thread is about, why are you even posting?"  Touché!)  While I don't know of any specific cases in which this theory holds, I would think that it is not uncommon for someone to direct the zeal with which he formerly practiced his religious faith to some other pursuit such as political, social, or environmental activism.  (I'm sorry I don't have something more specific to contribute.  )

Over the years, the Brethren have cautioned Latter-day Saints about the potential pitfalls to which one may fall pray if one such pursuit comes to dominate his life, thereby imbalancing it.  One need not necessarily leave the Church of Jesus Christ to find such pursuits, as then-Elder Dallin H. Oaks reminded us: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2007/10/good-better-best?lang=eng.  (It is interesting how, in that address, while endorsing the then-current programs and practices of the Church of Jesus Christ, Elder Oaks gave an inkling of things to come: He endorsed Home Teaching, but said, essentially, that it is less about visiting than it is about ministering; he endorsed using the manual for that year's course of study in lessons, but then said that teachers should "select and quote from the words of the Prophet on principles specially suited to the needs of class members and then direct a class discussion on how to apply those principles in the circumstances of their lives" (emphasis mine).

Also, then-Elder Oaks once said that he finds some truth in liberalism, and some truth in conservatism (and the same may be said of many other "-isms," whether such an "-ism" refers to a political ideology or to some other cause, such as environmentalism), but no salvation in any of them.  In the same "Good, Better, Best" address, Elder Oaks points out that even "good" things and even "better" things are not worth it if we allow those things to crowd out the "best" things, time with family and loved ones being among the most important.  He illustrates that point by telling of a father who, after a busy summer full of outings, vacations, and other activities, asked his son what he liked best about it.  The boy replied that his favorite memory was of when he and his father had lain together on the lawn, looked at the stars, and talked.

President Ezra Taft Benson once said that if a person fails to put the Kingdom of God first in his life, it will, in the end, make no difference what he has chosen instead.  I agree with that, but, at the same time, I cannot force someone to accept my paradigm: He sees the world as he sees it, and sets his priorities accordingly.  Like you, Smac, it is difficult for me to conceive of someone finding the kind of fulfillment in another faith paradigm (and especially, perhaps, in a paradigm that, as worthwhile as it might be, is not centered on faith).  The only thing I can do, however, is wish such a person well on his continuing faith journey and/or on his search for fulfillment (wherever that journey and that search may take him). See here:  https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2013/12/30/lds-who-join-other-churches/.  See also here: https://greatgourdini.wordpress.com/2017/02/03/a-word-about-lds-disaffection/.

 

 

[bluebell]

9 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

We used to be visited regularly by Witnesses, but I haven't seen them at my door in years. (The last one to visit was an elderly gentleman who told me point-blank that God was going to destroy me for eternity. I told him that wasn't a very attractive message...) I saw a rumour online that JW leadership have stated/suggested that the time for proselyting is over. I haven't been able to verify. Has anyone heard anything similar? I do see some witnesses with their literature trolley in the city each day, but they just park it in the middle of the pedestrian mall and then sit far away from it and eat ice cream and chat with each other.

Last year a whole group of them came through our neighborhood in Utah.  They were very nice.

[smac97]

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think the answer to the 'where would we go' cannot be divorced from the second part of the statement (thou has the words of eternal life) without losing the context of Ballard's talk.

I've already repped you for this, so I just want to point out how important this is.  The context of Elder Ballard's talk is vital.  He assumes that the person questioning his faith is generally aware of the "stakes" involved.  The LDS Church doesn't claim to be just a social club, just a bunch of people getting together to chitchat on Sundays.  It claims to be the custodian of "the words of eternal life."  It claims to possess authority from God pertaining to prophets and apostles, continuing revelation, saving ordinances, and so on.

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

Most people who leave the LDS church seem to no longer believe that eternal life is even a thing, or, if they still believe it's a thing and they still seek it, they no longer believe they need to do or believe anything specific to get it.

This encapsulates my assessment, but I have never been able to formulate it as well as you do here.  Thanks!

And I started this thread, in part, to see if this assessment is borne out by the experience of whose who leave the Church.

18 hours ago, bluebell said:

They just believe they'll get it regardless because they are a good person and God loves them and they agree that Jesus died for them (etc.).  So, when most people leave, they aren't looking for a way to receive eternal life.  They aren't even trying to get there anymore.  That means that, for people with that mindset, there are lots of options for where to go. 

Like the cheshire cat says in Alice in Wonderland, if you aren't trying to get to a specific place "it really doesn't matter" what road you take.   If a person isn't trying to receive eternal life, then there are millions of places to happily go when leaving the church.  And each destination is pretty equal regardless of where it is.

I hope those who are have gone through this process will weigh in.  Again, this reflects my generalized assessment of how people who leave the Church reconcile themselves and their situation.

Thanks,

-Smac

[changed]

23 hours ago, smac97 said:

During the October 2016 General Conference, Elder Ballard made the following remarks:

Elder Ballard was, to some extent, asking these as rhetorical questions.  They were meant to provoke introspection within the individual.

However, as this is a message board, I would like to re-frame Elder Ballard's questions and use them to initiate an actual discussion.  This message board has participants who are frustrated/irritated with the Church, or who are estranged from it in some material sense, or who have actually left it.  I would like to hear from these folks. 

I will clarify here that this is not intended to be an attempt to dissuade you from your current position.  Rather, I would like to better understand your perspective and plans regarding a community that can replace Mormonism and is "better" than Mormonism.  One that meets or exceeds your standards and expectations.  Or is this an unfair/unreasonable inquiry?  Mormonism is a fairly high-demand community.  In stepping back from it, is there really a need to replace it with any comparable system of social interaction?

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I am someone who has left recently.  I left after a bishopric member repeatedly molested my children (I do not trust priesthood authority).  I support and stand with Sam Young.

Recently I have fallen in love with Hinduism, the "oldest religion in the world", and have fallen in love with their temples, scriptures, healthy life style, and selfless practices.   Saṃsāra has given me peace that everyone has all the experiences and everyone has equal and just resources.  In Hinduism, everyone is "saved", infinite opportunity for growth and development for everyone - not a "small flock" - it is a huge flock, an all-encompassing flock - everyone is welcomed, and everyone is loved.  

Edited August 7, 2018 by changed

[smac97]

15 hours ago, Coop said:

I’m not so sure that Elder Ballard was speaking to those who were actually considering leaving the Church.

I think he was.  From his talk (emphases added):

Quote

One of the most heart-wrenching stories in scripture occurred when “many of [the Lord’s] disciples” found it hard to accept His teachings and doctrine, and they “went back, and walked no more with him.”

As these disciples left, Jesus turned to the Twelve and asked, “Will ye also go away?”

Peter responded:

“Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.

“And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God.”

In that moment, when others focused on what they could not accept, the Apostles chose to focus on what they did believe and know, and as a result, they remained with Christ.

Later, on the day of Pentecost, the Twelve received the gift of the Holy Ghost. They became bold in their witness of Christ and began to understand more fully Jesus’s teachings.

Today is no different. For some, Christ’s invitation to believe and remain continues to be hard—or difficult to accept. Some disciples struggle to understand a specific Church policy or teaching. Others find concerns in our history or in the imperfections of some members and leaders, past and present. Still others find it difficult to live a religion that requires so much. Finally, some have become “weary in well-doing.” For these and other reasons, some Church members vacillate in their faith, wondering if perhaps they should follow those who “went back, and walked no more” with Jesus.

If any one of you is faltering in your faith, I ask you the same question that Peter asked: “To whom shall [you] go?” If you choose to become inactive or to leave the restored Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, where will you go? What will you do? The decision to “walk no more” with Church members and the Lord’s chosen leaders will have a long-term impact that cannot always be seen right now. There may be some doctrine, some policy, some bit of history that puts you at odds with your faith, and you may feel that the only way to resolve that inner turmoil right now is to “walk no more” with the Saints. If you live as long as I have, you will come to know that things have a way of resolving themselves. An inspired insight or revelation may shed new light on an issue. Remember, the Restoration is not an event, but it continues to unfold.

I think Elder Ballard's comments were intended to convey love and concern.  To a cynical ear, however...

15 hours ago, Coop said:

Instead I believe that his intended audience was those who are faithful. 

Well, in part, yes.  Part of being faithful is not leaving.  And avoid being "weary in well-doing."  And not "vacillating in their faith."

I feel that I have a very rich and rewarding relationship with my wife.  I love her and she loves me.  We counsel each other on important issues.  We work hard together.  And yet when the General Authorities speak on strengthening marital relationships, we listen quite closely to what they have to say.  Our relationship is strong because we constantly look for ways to maintain and strenghten it.

So it is, I think, with persevering in the Church.  My relationship with the Church is strong because I am constantly looking for ways to improve and maintain it.  

15 hours ago, Coop said:

And I believe this because every Sunday I hear variations of this argument repeated over and over again.  I can imagine these faithful members thinking something like, “Only an idiot would leave the Church!” or “Where else can I go to go to find the words of eternal life?” 

I don't think Elder Balalrd was encouraging the Saints to think things like "Only an idiot would leave the Church."  That is entirely at odds with the tone and content of his talk.

But the second question you pose ("Where else can I go to find the words of eternal life?") is essentially identical to the discussion Jesus had with Peter in John 6.  It's a question worth asking.

15 hours ago, Coop said:

Anyone who comes to this conclusion then pats themselves on the back because they aren’t idiots who are considering leaving the Church.  It is a simple little exercise meant to buoy up the faithful.

When Jesus asked Peter "Will ye also go away?", I don't think He intended it as an invitation for Peter to "pat [himself] on the back because [he isn't an] idiot who [is] considering leaving the Church," or as "a simple little exercise meant to buoy up the faithful."

I choose to not filter Elder Ballard's talk through a filter of cynicism and skepticism.  I've been listening to him for too long to attribute such repugnant motives to him.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

19 minutes ago, changed said:

I am someone who has left recently.  I left after a bishopric member repeatedly molested my children (I do not trust priesthood authority).  I support and stand with Sam Young.

I am very sorry to hear about this.  The man who harmed your children violated a very sacred trust reposed in him by both your family and the Church.

I'm not sure why his misconduct is an indictment of all priesthood holders, though.  Some teachers molest children.  So do neighbors.  So do family members.  And yet we don't consequently find all teachers / neighbors / family members to be guilty of that same conduct.

Nevertheless, the betrayal of trust is a hard thing to overcome.  I wish you well.

Quote

Recently I have fallen in love with Hinduism, the "oldest religion in the world", and have fallen in love with their temples, scriptures, healthy life style, and selfless practices.   Saṃsāra has given me peace that everyone has all the experiences and everyone has equal and just resources.  In Hinduism, everyone is "saved", infinite opportunity for growth and development for everyone - not a "small flock" - it is a huge flock, an all-encompassing flock - everyone is welcomed, and everyone is loved.  

Thank you for this.  Is Hinduism an actual "community" you have joined?  Or is it only a set of beliefs to which you subscribe?

-Smac

Edited August 7, 2018 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am very sorry to hear about this.  The man who harmed your children violated a very sacred trust reposed in him by both your family and the Church.

I'm not sure why his misconduct is an indictment of all priesthood holders, though.  Some teachers molest children.  So do neighbors.  So do family members.  And yet we don't consequently find all teachers / neighbors / family members to be guilty of that same conduct.

Nevertheless, the betrayal of trust is a hard thing to overcome.  I wish you well.

Thank you for this.  Is Hinduism an actual "community" you have joined?  Or is it only a set of beliefs to which you subscribe?

-Smac

True. Not all priesthood holders are molesters, any more than all teachers, neighbors etc. are? No one has said differently.

With the possible exception of family (parents) the difference is that a teacher isn't going to have a one-on-one meeting with a student behind closed doors and talk about things of a sxual nature. The church wants to be the exception to child safety practices. Sam Young is challenging that. Changed's story illustrates why the church shouldn't have exceptional access to our kids and youth. It would be best for church leaders to follow the same rules as everyone else.

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

True. Not all priesthood holders are molesters, any more than all teachers, neighbors etc. are? No one has said differently.

I was responding to the parenthetical statement (I do not trust priesthood authority").

If a teacher molests a child, I would not say "I do not trust teachers."

Quote

With the possible exception of family (parents) the difference is that a teacher isn't going to have a one-on-one meeting with a student behind closed doors and talk about things of a sexual nature.

Oh, come on.  How do you think teachers / family members / neighbors end up molesting children?  They groom the victim.  They isolate the victim.  They abuse trust given to them.

There is no meaningful difference here.  Teachers / neighbors / family members who molest children do so by misusing their access to the victim.

Quote

The church wants to be the exception to child safety practices.

No, it doesn't.

Quote

Changed's story illustrates why the church shouldn't have exceptional access to our kids and youth.

There really isn't anything "exceptional" here.  Teachers circumvent safeguards.  So do neighbors.  So do family members.  And so do some few religious leaders.

-Smac

Edited August 7, 2018 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I was responding to the parenthetical statement (I do not trust priesthood authority").

If a teacher molests a child, I would not say "I do not trust teachers."

Oh, come on.  How do you think teachers / family members / neighbors end up molesting children?  They groom the victim.  They isolate the victim.  They abuse trust given to them.

There is no meaningful difference here.  Teachers / neighbors / family members who molest children do so by misusing their access to the victim.

No, it doesn't.

There really isn't anything "exceptional" here.  Teachers circumvent safeguards.  So do neighbors.  So do family members.  And so do some few religious leaders.

-Smac

You're right. These people circumvent safeguards. But as a matter of policy the church doesn't even employ those safeguards. They claim that they're an exception and that normal safeguards don't apply to them.

[changed]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

I am very sorry to hear about this.  The man who harmed your children violated a very sacred trust reposed in him by both your family and the Church.

I'm not sure why his misconduct is an indictment of all priesthood holders, though.  Some teachers molest children.  So do neighbors.  So do family members.  And yet we don't consequently find all teachers / neighbors / family members to be guilty of that same conduct.

Nevertheless, the betrayal of trust is a hard thing to overcome.  I wish you well.

Thank you for this.  Is Hinduism an actual "community" you have joined?  Or is it only a set of beliefs to which you subscribe?

-Smac

The abuse was going on for many years - it is not just one person, it is the organization who allowed the abuse to continue, the organization that was not led by the spirit to stop it, the organization who put the abuser in positions of authority.

I do have some Hindu friends who have tried to teach me a little cooking (it is not something you just learn from a recipe).  The closest temple is around 45 minutes from where I live, although all that is needed is a  peaceful place for quiet meditation.  My real community right now is where I work - I serve low-income and immigrant populations (paid and unpaid work) - my family and my work is my support and my purpose right now.  

 

[smac97]

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You're right. These people circumvent safeguards.

That includes priesthood leaders.

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But as a matter of policy the church doesn't even employ those safeguards.

Yes, it does.  Priesthood leaders are chaperoned.  And they are circumscribed in what the questions and topics they can discuss.  And the interviews are supposed to be brief.

12 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

They claim that they're an exception and that normal safeguards don't apply to them.

CFR.  I will hold you to this.  Please cite, chapter and verse, where the LDS Church has claimed this.  If you do not respond I will report you to the mods.

This is a serious subject, and I am getting tired of the reckless rhetoric being used about it.

-Smac

[smac97]

1 minute ago, changed said:

The abuse was going on for many years - it is not just one person, it is the organization who allowed the abuse to continue, the organization that was not led by the spirit to stop it, the organization who put the abuser in positions of authority.

Are you saying that the LDS Church was aware of the abuse and "allowed" it to continue?  I am fine with you sharing your story, but I will admit to some skepticism on this point.  If the Church was aware of "many years" of abuse by this person and nevertheless "allowed the abuse to continue," then that is an extremely serious and disturbing accusation.

1 minute ago, changed said:

I do have some Hindu friends who have tried to teach me a little cooking (it is not something you just learn from a recipe).  The closest temple is around 45 minutes from where I live, although all that is needed is a  peaceful place for quiet meditation.  My real community right now is where I work - I serve low-income and immigrant populations (paid and unpaid work) - my family and my work is my support and my purpose right now.  

That sounds very fulfilling.  I wish you every success in your endeavors.

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

That includes priesthood leaders.

Yes, it does.  Priesthood leaders are chaperoned.  And they are circumscribed in what the questions and topics they can discuss.  And the interviews are supposed to be brief.

CFR.  I will hold you to this.  Please cite, chapter and verse, where the LDS Church has claimed this.  If you do not respond I will report you to the mods.

This is a serious subject, and I am getting tired of the reckless rhetoric being used about it.

-Smac

Ooh. Threats. Some might consider that bullying . Go ahead and report me if you want. I make no claim that the church admits it wants an exception. It is my opinion based on how I view their position. I will amend my statement to better reflect what I meant: ORIGINALLY STATED- "They claim that they're an exception and that normal safeguards don't apply to them" and instead I will say, "it seems to me the church expects and approves of it's leaders having one-on-one access to children/youth, behind closed doors, even when talking of sxual issues, when they would normally support standard rules of protection in other situations".

Think of the way the church supports and enforces 2 deep leadership policies in scouting. I suspect they support those rules because they recognize risk in having one-on-one situations between a youth/child and adult leader. Also consider policies that require 2 deep leadership for teaching classes in primary. They seem to recognize there's a risk of having one-on-one situations. Then compare that with the practice of having children/youth meeting one-on-one with a bishop or member of a bishopric, behind closed doors, discussing personal issues including things of a sxual nature. Even though they have made small policy adjustments, such as allowing a child to request another adult be with them in these interviews scheduled by adult leaders, they still seem to want one-on-one time for church leaders to have discussions/interviews behind closed doors.

Does the church allow one-on-one interviews of scouts with scout leaders behind closed doors? Nope. Does it allow one-on-one teachings situations? Nope. Have they ever fought against 2 deep leadership rules in scouting? Not that I'm aware of. I'm curious if the church would support one-on-one interviews behind closed doors between school teachers. I think the church is very accepting of standard child protection safeguards, yet don't have the same requirements for children/youth interviews. A child shouldn't have to request someone else come with them. It should be the expectation that a leader will never meet with a child/youth one-on-one behind closed doors. The church seems to have different expectations for interviews between youth and ecclesiastical leaders than it would in any other situation.

So go ahead and report me to the mods. If you can't understand this I'm not going to waste more time explaining it to you. But just for fun, aside from youth worthiness interviews, can you share any examples where you believe the church would support one-on-one interviews with youth and adults behind closed doors, discussing sxual matters?

ETA- Sam Young wouldn't be on a hunger strike right now if the church followed standard youth protection safeguards. He's doing what he's doing precisely because there's a difference in how church leaders operate and how society expects organizations, leaders, and adults in general, to operate. Namely, no one-on-one, closed door meetings about topics of a sxual nature.

Edited August 7, 2018 by HappyJackWagon

[smac97]

39 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Ooh. Threats.

Not really.

Quote

Some might consider that bullying .

Nope.  I'm acting within board rules.

Quote

Go ahead and report me if you want.

No need.  You amended your statement below.

Quote

I make no claim that the church admits it wants an exception.

You said (speaking of the LDS Church): "They claim that they're an exception and that normal safeguards don't apply to them."

I took exception to that, as you were attributing (falsely, I think) a "claim" to the LDS Church.  You have retracted your attribution.  I consider the CFR answered.

Quote

It is my opinion based on how I view their position.

I am not interested in your opinion at the moment.

You made an assertion of fact.  I am asking for you to back it up (or, in the alternative, retract it).

That's the purpose of CFRs.

Quote

I will amend my statement to better reflect what I meant: ORIGINALLY STATED- "They claim that they're an exception and that normal safeguards don't apply to them" and instead I will say, "it seems to me the church expects and approves of it's leaders having one-on-one access to children/youth, behind closed doors, even when talking of sxual issues, when they would normally support standard rules of protection in other situations".

Ah.  Much better.  I disagree with your opinion.  It seems factually incorrect, in fact.

Quote

Think of the way the church supports and enforces 2 deep leadership policies in scouting. I suspect they support those rules because they recognize risk in having one-on-one situations between a youth/child and adult leader.

I really have to wonder how often a predatory bishop has used a five-minute interview, with a chaperone mere feet away, to sexually assault a child.  I suspect that the answer is . . . not often.  The abuse seems to happen in other situations.  Situations that are not contemplated or condoned by the Church's policies regarding interviews.  

Quote

Also consider policies that require 2 deep leadership for teaching classes in primary. They seem to recognize there's a risk of having one-on-one situations. Then compare that with the practice of having children/youth meeting one-on-one with a bishop or member of a bishopric, behind closed doors, discussing personal issues including things of a sxual nature.

This whole "including things of a sexual nature" thing seems to be getting a lot of play.  Counselors may interview a youth for a temple recommend.  That interview includes a single question about obeying the Law of Chastity.  If there is any answer other than "Yes," then the counselor is supposed to terminate the discussion and immediately refer to the matter to the bishop.  So counselors really never have any legitimate reason to ask a youth or child questions "of a sexual nature."

Bishops are a bit different, but not much.  Bishops have received specific and clear instructions about the scope of youth interviews.  A letter from the First Presidency dated June 20, 2018, entitled "Guidelines for Interviewing Youth," clarified the parameters of youth interviews. 

The instructions state that "If a youth desires, he or she may invite a parent or another adult to be present when meeting with the bishop or one of his counselors."

The instructions provide for interviews every 6 months as a default, with further (or fewer) interviews if appropriate and necessary.

Under a header of "Matters for Discussion," the instructions state that "Key matters for discussion include the growth of the young person’s testimony of Heavenly Father, the mission and Atonement of Jesus Christ, and the restored gospel," and that "The bishop and his counselors may also address the matters listed below," which matters include:

• Priesthood ordination
• Seminary
• Missionary service
• Temple

I'm not seeing "issues including things of sexual nature" in there.

The instructions also include the questions for Limited Use Temple Recommends, #5 of which is "Do you live the Law of Chastity."  That's the closest thing we get to "things of a sexual nature."

The instructions conclude with a quote from the Handbook 1 (section 7.4): 

Quote

When a member of a bishopric or stake presidency or another assigned leader meets with a child, youth, or woman, he or she should ask a parent or another adult to be in an adjoining room, foyer, or hall. If the person being interviewed desires, another adult may be invited to be present during the interview. Leaders should avoid all circumstances that could be misunderstood.

Huh.  "Avoid all circumstances that could be misunderstood" probably means, most of the time, discussion of "things of a sexual nature."

Of course, sometimes the youth might bring such issues up.  Such matters can, and almost always are, handled by bishops with tact and decorum and dignity.   And sometimes such disclosures can be vitally important, such as when a youth discloses to the bishop that he or she has been or is being abused.

And yet Sam Young and his ilk are moving heaven and earth to scare the bejeebers out of LDS kids by painting all bishops as sexual perverts and child molesters.  

Quote

Even though they have made small policy adjustments, such as allowing a child to request another adult be with them in these interviews scheduled by adult leaders, they still seem to want one-on-one time for church leaders to have discussions/interviews behind closed doors.

Five minute discussions, yes.

Discussions about a closed set of topics (see above), none of which are sexually titillating, yes.

Quote

Does the church allow one-on-one interviews of scouts with scout leaders behind closed doors? Nope. Does it allow one-on-one teachings situations? Nope. Have they ever fought against 2 deep leadership rules in scouting? Not that I'm aware of. I'm curious if the church would support one-on-one interviews behind closed doors between school teachers. I think the church is very accepting of standard child protection safeguards, yet don't have the same requirements for children/youth interviews.

There are quite a few safeguards in place.

Quote

A child shouldn't have to request someone else come with them.

What if the youth doesn't want to have someone else come with them?

Quote

It should be the expectation that a leader will never meet with a child/youth one-on-one behind closed doors.

That's not self-evidently correct.

Quote

The church seems to have different expectations for interviews between youth and ecclesiastical leaders than it would in any other situation.

To a very limited extent.  And the Church has pretty solid reasons for having interviews which are A) very brief, B) held only about twice a year, C) are chaperoned, D) allow the youth to choose to have another adult present, and E) address a closed set of topics (see above), none of which are sexually titillating.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 7, 2018 by smac97

[Calm]

Quote

really have to wonder how often a predatory bishop has used a five-minute interview, with a chaperone mere feet away, to sexually assault a child

I think the concerns are primarily with grooming or they see questions of any sexual nature as abuse.

Edited August 7, 2018 by Calm

[smac97]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I think the concerns are primarily with grooming or they see questions of any sexual nature as abuse.

The interviews are presumptively held twice a year.  And are only a few minutes long.  And they only address a closed set of topics, none of which is "sexual" (except for the single temple recommend question about the Law of Chastity).  

These are the parameters for interviews of youth in by bishops (and counselors).  It seems pretty unlikely that these instructions, if followed, would provide an opportunity for "grooming."

As for "questions of any sexual nature," those would seem to run afoul of the Church's instructions in pretty much all instances.  

Thanks,

-Smac

[HappyJackWagon]

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

The interviews are presumptively held twice a year.  And are only a few minutes long.  And they only address a closed set of topics, none of which is "sexual" (except for the single temple recommend question about the Law of Chastity).  

These are the parameters for interviews of youth in by bishops (and counselors).  It seems pretty unlikely that these instructions, if followed, would provide an opportunity for "grooming."

As for "questions of any sexual nature," those would seem to run afoul of the Church's instructions in pretty much all instances.  

Thanks,

-Smac

1- I'm not sure why you think these interviews are 5 minutes. Some are shorter than others, but 5 minutes is really short

2- They have an annual and semi-annual interview + a temple recommend interview. That's 3 one-on-one interviews in one year

3- Law of chastity questions are often expanded. I believe the new guidelines state that using For The Strength of Youth can be used as guidelines on what to discuss. FTSOY goes into much more detail than just "do you live the law of chastity".

[smac97]

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

1- I'm not sure why you think these interviews are 5 minutes. Some are shorter than others, but 5 minutes is really short

That's been my experience.

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

2- They have an annual and semi-annual interview + a temple recommend interview. That's 3 one-on-one interviews in one year

Once every four months, then.  And it seems like a lot of bishops combine the annual interview tih the TR interview.

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

3- Law of chastity questions are often expanded.

Not in my experience.

9 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I believe the new guidelines state that using For The Strength of Youth can be used as guidelines on what to discuss. FTSOY goes into much more detail than just "do you live the law of chastity".

From the First Presidency letter:

Quote

When discussing obedience to the commandments, the bishop and his counselors make appropriate use of the limited-use temple recommend interview questions and the standards and explanations in For the Strength of Youth. Leaders adapt the discussion to the understanding and questions of the youth. They ensure that discussions about moral cleanliness do not encourage curiosity or experimentation.

Here's the part of FTSOY that addresses "Sexual Purity."  Here's the most explicit part:

Quote

Never do anything that could lead to sexual transgression. Treat others with respect, not as objects used to satisfy lustful and selfish desires. 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. Pay attention to the promptings of the Spirit so that you can be clean and virtuous. The Spirit of the Lord will withdraw from one who is in sexual transgression.

Avoid situations that invite increased temptation, such as late-night or overnight activities away from home or activities where there is a lack of adult supervision. Do not participate in discussions or any media that arouse sexual feelings. Do not participate in any type of pornography. The Spirit can help you know when you are at risk and give you the strength to remove yourself from the situation. Have faith in and be obedient to the righteous counsel of your parents and leaders.

Homosexual and lesbian behavior is a serious sin. If you find yourself struggling with same-gender attraction or you are being persuaded to participate in inappropriate behavior, seek counsel from your parents and bishop. They will help you.

Victims of sexual abuse are not guilty of sin and do not need to repent. If you have been a victim of abuse, know that you are innocent and that God loves you. Talk to your parents or another trusted adult, and seek your bishop’s counsel immediately. They can support you spiritually and assist you in getting the protection and help you need. The process of healing may take time. Trust in the Savior. He will heal you and give you peace.

If you are tempted to commit any form of sexual transgression, seek help from your parents and bishop. Pray to your Father in Heaven, who will help you resist temptation and overcome inappropriate thoughts and feelings. If you have committed sexual transgression, talk to your bishop now and begin the process of repentance so that you can find peace and have the full companionship of the Spirit.

This seems pretty innocuous, particularly given the instruction to bishops to "ensure that discussions about moral cleanliness do not encourage curiosity or experimentation."

Thanks,

-Smac

[kllindley]

37 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I believe the new guidelines state that using For The Strength of Youth can be used as guidelines on what to discuss. FTSOY goes into much more detail than just "do you live the law of chastity".

You prefaced this with I believe, so I can't really be concerned whether you believe untruths or not, but do you have any reference for this claim?  

Surely you aren't referring to the 2016 Area Leadership Minutes FearlessFixxer posted a few days ago?  The one that suggested FTSOY be a guide for talking about Chastity with prospective missionaries?  The one with the highlighted statement at the top that the Document was private property not for distribution (meaning it was stolen)?  The one that would have been twice superseded by newer guidelines?  

[HappyJackWagon]

Quote

Never do anything that could lead to sexual transgression. Treat others with respect, not as objects used to satisfy lustful and selfish desires. 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. Pay attention to the promptings of the Spirit so that you can be clean and virtuous. The Spirit of the Lord will withdraw from one who is in sexual transgression.

Avoid situations that invite increased temptation, such as late-night or overnight activities away from home or activities where there is a lack of adult supervision. Do not participate in discussions or any media that arouse sexual feelings. Do not participate in any type of pornography. The Spirit can help you know when you are at risk and give you the strength to remove yourself from the situation. Have faith in and be obedient to the righteous counsel of your parents and leaders.

Homosexual and lesbian behavior is a serious sin. If you find yourself struggling with same-gender attraction or you are being persuaded to participate in inappropriate behavior, seek counsel from your parents and bishop. They will help you.

Victims of sexual abuse are not guilty of sin and do not need to repent. If you have been a victim of abuse, know that you are innocent and that God loves you. Talk to your parents or another trusted adult, and seek your bishop’s counsel immediately. They can support you spiritually and assist you in getting the protection and help you need. The process of healing may take time. Trust in the Savior. He will heal you and give you peace.

If you are tempted to commit any form of sexual transgression, seek help from your parents and bishop. Pray to your Father in Heaven, who will help you resist temptation and overcome inappropriate thoughts and feelings. If you have committed sexual transgression, talk to your bishop now and begin the process of repentance so that you can find peace and have the full companionship of the Spirit.

14 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

This seems pretty innocuous, particularly given the instruction to bishops to "ensure that discussions about moral cleanliness do not encourage curiosity or experimentation." 

Thanks,

-Smac

 

And outside of this handbook instruction, how much training to bishops receive on having these discussions so that they ensure they don't encourage curiosity or experimentation. I know of my experiences and experiences shared by others when bishop interviews encouraged curiosity and experimentation and I'd bet in the vast majority of those cases it was done by accident.

Regarding the innocuous sxual topics of discussion.

1- "And outside of a handbook instruction, how much training to bishops receive on having these discussions"- discussion of mstrbation are extremely sensitive and could get very personal and graphic, depending on the interviewer.

2- "Do not participate in any type of pornography" - In determining whether or not a youth has a "problem" with pornography, follow up questions might be asked. "How often do you view it", "What is the end result? - Mstrbation?", what types of images or videos are you watching? Are they clothed, partially, totally nde? etc.  These discussion could also get pretty graphic depending on the interviewer.

3- "Homosexual and lesbian behavior is a serious sin"- that conversation could certainly become explicit. What kinds of activities do you engage in? Again, to determine the level of the "problem" these questions could be rather probing.

Pretty much any conversation that touches on issues of a sxual nature can delve easily into detailed/graphic conversations, even when the interviewer has good intentions. You were fooling around with your boyfriend? Tell me what that means to you? Petting? Above clothes or under? How many times? Were you aroused, did you arouse your partner? Did you orgsm? etc. etc.  Some leaders honestly believe that probing questions is the best way to uncover sin and help the person repent. But that can lead to very explicit conversations which I feel are inappropriate for an adult and a youth to have one-on-one behind closed doors. As Calm said, if nothing else, these conversation can be a part of either intentional or unintentional grooming.

 

 

[smac97]

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

And outside of this handbook instruction, how much training to bishops receive on having these discussions so that they ensure they don't encourage curiosity or experimentation. I know of my experiences and experiences shared by others when bishop interviews encouraged curiosity and experimentation and I'd bet in the vast majority of those cases it was done by accident.

Hence the wisdom of the Church's counsel to avoid precipitating such things.

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Regarding the innocuous sxual topics of discussion.

1- "And outside of a handbook instruction, how much training to bishops receive on having these discussions"- discussion of mstrbation are extremely sensitive and could get very personal and graphic, depending on the interviewer.

Which, I think, falls outside the parameters of what the Church is saying in its instructions to bishops.

"[Bishops should] ensure that discussions about moral cleanliness do not encourage curiosity or experimentation."

"Leaders should avoid all circumstances that could be misunderstood."

"When a  member of a bishopric or stake presidency or another assigned lea der meets with a child, youth,  or wom a n, he or she should ask a parent or another adult to be in an adjoining room, foyer, or hall. If the person being interviewed des ires, another ad ult may be invited to be present  during t he interview."

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

2- "Do not participate in any type of pornography" - In determining whether or not a youth has a "problem" with pornography, follow up questions might be asked. "How often do you view it", "What is the end result? - Mstrbation?", what types of images or videos are you watching? Are they clothed, partially, totally nde? etc.  These discussion could also get pretty graphic depending on the interviewer.

"Could" being the operative word there.  "Needn't" being a missing word.

Bishops don't need to parse out the particulars.  If a youth has a porn problem, the "level" of porn is not really relevant.  That's like a bishop interviewing someone struggling with the Word of Wisdom and delving into whether they drink beer or whiskey, and when, and how much.

Part of the problem with pornography is the secrecy of the habit.  Part of the solution, part of getting help, is to admit it.  The bishop doesn't need to know about the production values of the porn.

As for how often bishops veer into "inappropriate" territory, I don't know.  Neither do you.  But turning porn into a topic so super-duper secret that you can't even tell your bishop about it is, I think, not helpful.  The youth is going to feel more shame, more embarrassment, and feel more inclined to hide his habit rather than get help for it.

So I think bishops can be a useful resource for addressing this.  They might not handle it perfectly, but then, parents might mess up as well.  Or school counselors.  Or a trusted friend.  Or a therapist.  

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

3- "Homosexual and lesbian behavior is a serious sin"- that conversation could certainly become explicit. What kinds of activities do you engage in? Again, to determine the level of the "problem" these questions could be rather probing.

Or it may not.  If the Church's guidelines are followed, it should not.

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Pretty much any conversation that touches on issues of a sxual nature can delve easily into detailed/graphic conversations, even when the interviewer has good intentions.

I acknowledge that.  The same can be said when the interviewer is a parent.  Or a teacher.  Or a therapist.  Or a police officer.  Or a friend.

But in only one instance are the Sam Young types demanding that any avenue of discussion of this very difficult topic be obliterated: when a bishop is involved.  Because bishops are presumptively perverted chomos.  Or something.

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

You were fooling around with your boyfriend? Tell me what that means to you? Petting? Above clothes or under? How many times? Were you aroused, did you arouse your partner? Did you orgsm? etc. etc. 

Much of this seems to fall outside of the Church's guidelines.

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Some leaders honestly believe that probing questions is the best way to uncover sin and help the person repent.

And yet . . . the Church's instructions don't account for "probing questions."  So bishops need to pay more attention to the guidelines that the Church has put out.

5 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

But that can lead to very explicit conversations which I feel are inappropriate for an adult and a youth to have one-on-one behind closed doors.

Hence the Church's guidelines, which if followed will ameliorate such risks.

I don't think bishops should be having "very explicit conversations" about sex with youth.  But the Sam Young strategy is to demonize the LDS Church and characterize all of its bishops as presumptive perverts and child molesters.  His strategy is to scare the bejeebers out of youth about one of the most complex and difficult topics to address during adolescence.  His strategy is to undermine one of multiple sources of guidance for a youth.  

Thanks,

-Smac