smac97 Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, rockpond said: Where are those policies and guidelines that impose real constraints on the extent to which such topics (children's sexual experiences) are addressed by bishops? See here: Quote Quote I don't need names or any identifying information. That's not what's important. What's important is how the church responds to the abuse. Which are addressed in the Church policies and guidelines. You're a bishop, aren't you? You're familiar with Section 17.3.2 of Handbook 1, are you not? And what about the Church's announcement in March? And its publication of guidelines providing further clarifation on "how the church responds to abuse?" (with an accompanying letter from the First Presidency)? And what about the Church's training provided to bishops? What about the helpline for bishops to contact attorneys and sort out legal difficulties? What about LDS Family Services? What about bishops having funds and resources to refer victims out to receive counseling and assistance? What about the Church's "zero tolerance" policy on abuse? What about the Church's adherence to its mandate for disciplining members for misconduct (such as committing abuse)? What about the Church's occasional publication of incidents involving misconduct by prominent leaders in the Church, such as Elder Hamula and Philander Knox? What about the extensive and unequivocal statements from various general authorities condemning abuse? I had assumed that you, claiming to be a bishop, would be familiar with these things. Was that an unwarranted assumption? Why aren't you addressing these? Why are you not even mentioning these at all? These materials are chock-a-block full of guidelines for local leaders as to how to respond to situations involving abuse. Why are you acting as if these things don't exist? And if are saying "No, I want more," then what is it you want? What framework are you proposing? What additional details? What limiting principles do you have in mind? What provisions for privacy rights of the victims (and, to an extent, accused persons and convicted persons)? As I see it, this thread has been a big fat waste of time. An exercise in faultfinding and ark-steadying and armchair quarterbacking and fomenting some sort of moral panic. It's not healthy or helpful. And here: Quote 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. And here: Quote STATEMENTS FROM CHURCH SOURCES The Church's handbooks emphasize that one purpose of Church discipline is to protect the innocent, especially against such crimes as predatory sexual behavior: The second purpose of Church discipline is to protect the innocent. With inspiration, a priesthood leader should act to protect others when a transgressor poses a physical or spiritual threat to them, such as by predatory practices, physical harm, sexual abuse, drug misuse, fraud, or apostasy (see Alma 5:59–60). (Handbook 1 [2010], 6.1.2) Likewise, victims of such crimes are innocent of sin: In instances of abuse, the first responsibility of the Church is to help those who have been abused and to protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse. Victims of sexual abuse (including rape) often suffer serious trauma and feelings of guilt. Victims of the evil acts of others are not guilty of sin. Church leaders should be sensitive to such victims and give caring attention to help them overcome the destructive effects of abuse. (Handbook 1 [2010], 17.3.2) And here: Bishop's Guide: Helping Victims of Abuse. And here: Preventing and Responding to Child Abuse: Helps for Members And here: Church Policies and Resources / Child Protection Australia And here: "Gospel Topics, "Abuse" Thanks, -Smac Edited November 8, 2019 by smac97
rockpond Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, smac97 said: See here: And here: Thanks, -Smac CHI 1 17.3.2 speaks to abuse and responding to abuse. Not interviews. Same with the two letters you linked to. Your second quote cites the language in CHI 1 section 7 (as does the referenced letter from June of 2018). While these documents instruct what to discuss, they do not place any "real constraints" on the extent to which sexual topics are discussed in bishops' interviews, as you have claimed. I believe your claim, that such real constraints exist in any documented fashion, is false. Feel free to provide some evidence to the contrary if you'd like. Edited November 8, 2019 by rockpond
smac97 Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 (edited) 16 minutes ago, rockpond said: CHI 1 17.3.2 speaks to abuse and responding to abuse. Not interviews. Um, how do you think bishops come to be aware of allegations of abuse? Quote Same with the two letters you linked to. Including this? Quote When a member of a stake presidency or bishopric 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 participate in the interview. Leaders should avoid all circumstances that could be misunderstood (see Handbook 1, 7.4). There was a six-minute gap between my post and yours. That suggests you didn't read . . . well, any of it before responding. Quote Your second quote cites the language in CHI 1 section 7 (as does the referenced letter from June of 2018). While these documents instruct what to discuss, they do not place any "real constraints" on the extent to which sexual topics are discussed in bishops' interviews, as you have claimed. Yes, they do. Plus, there is ongoing instruction and training from stake presidents and general authorities. By way of illustration: Quote SALT LAKE CITY — The Mormon church for the first time Wednesday posted the list of questions lay leaders are supposed to ask youth during closed door, one-on-one interviews that have come under scrutiny because sexual questions sometimes arise. Only one of the questions seems directed at finding out about a young Mormon's sex life: "Do you live the law of chastity?" ... In the updated guidelines about the interviews, leaders are told to ensure that "discussions about moral cleanliness do not encourage curiosity or experimentation." And then there are these instructions for TR interviews: Quote Exercise great care when interviewing applicants for recommends to enter a temple. Make it clear that you represent the Lord in determining worthiness to enter his holy house. No unworthy applicant should receive a recommend. Be certain that each applicant is worthy as a result of living up to Church standards and principles. Acceptable answers to the recommend interview questions ordinarily will establish worthiness to receive a recommend. Do not assume that worthiness to enter the temple at one time is reason for a casual interview later. Discuss the interview questions with each applicant, and keep each interview private. Require an applicant who is not living up to Church standards and principles to demonstrate true repentence before receiving a recommend to enter a temple. When interviewing an applicant for a recommend, do not inquire into personal, intimate matters about marital relations between a husband and his wife. Generally, do not deviate from the recommend interview questions. If, during an interview, an applicant asks about the propriety of specific conduct, do not pursue the matter. Merely suggest that if the applicant has enough anxiety about the propriety of the conduct to ask about it, the best course would be to discontinue it. If you are sensitive and wise, you usually can prevent those being interviewed from asking such explicit questions. And then there's this: First Presidency Releases New Guidelines for Interviewing Youth (emphases added): Quote Guidelines for Interviewing Youth June 20, 2018 These guidelines should be shared with youth and their parents before the first interviews held by a bishop, branch president, or counselor in the bishopric or branch presidency. References to a bishop and his counselors may also include a stake, district, or mission president and his counselors. From Handbook 1, 7.1.7, “Guidelines for Youth Interviews” Role of Parents Parents have the primary responsibility for teaching their children the gospel of Jesus Christ. They help their children grow spiritually and prepare to make and keep sacred covenants. Parents also counsel with their children regarding worthiness and help them repent and improve. Bishops and other Church leaders support parents in these efforts. The Bishop’s Communication about Interviews As a young woman prepares to become part of the Young Women organization, and as a young man prepares to receive the Aaronic Priesthood, the bishop shares with youth and their parents the following information about interviews. He could do this as part of the annual Temple and Priesthood Preparation meeting or at other times as needed. Parents have the primary responsibility to teach and nurture their children. Typically, the bishop or one of his counselors will interview the young man or young woman at least twice a year for the reasons outlined in “Purposes of Interviews” below. A bishopric member may also meet with youth to answer questions, give support, or extend assignments. To help youth prepare spiritually, interviews are required for sacred matters such as temple recommends, priesthood ordinations, and mission calls. Leaders work with parents to help youth prepare for these interviews. Parents encourage their children to meet with the bishop when they need his help with spiritual guidance or with repentance. 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. Purposes of Interviews Bishops and their counselors have a sacred responsibility to lead, teach, and inspire youth. Effective personal interviews are one important way they do this. During these interviews, the bishop and his counselors teach youth about becoming disciples of the Savior. They help youth consider how well they are following the Savior and His teachings. Interviews should be uplifting spiritual experiences. Interviews provide an opportunity to reaffirm each youth’s limitless potential as a child of God. Interviews also provide an opportunity to inspire youth to develop plans to draw closer to Heavenly Father and to improve in all areas of their lives. As representatives of the Savior, bishops are divinely appointed judges in Israel. In this role, they conduct interviews to determine worthiness and to help youth repent of transgressions. Those who conduct interviews express love and listen carefully. They encourage youth to talk rather than doing most of the talking themselves. Where, in these "Purposes of Interviews," do you see room for inappropriate topics/questions? Quote Matters for Discussion 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. The bishop and his counselors emphasize the importance of keeping baptismal covenants. They teach youth to prepare to make and keep temple covenants through daily righteous living. Bishopric members encourage youth to pray regularly in private and with their family and to study the scriptures. They also encourage youth to stay close to their parents. 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. The bishop and his counselors may also address the matters listed below: Priesthood ordination. With young men, they discuss the blessings and duties of holding the Aaronic Priesthood (see Doctrine and Covenants 20:46–60; 84:31–48; recent general conference addresses on the subject; and Handbook 2, 8.1.1 and 8.1.3). Seminary. For youth of the appropriate age, they encourage regular seminary attendance and emphasize the blessings that come from regular participation. Missionary service. They give special attention to preparing youth to serve a full-time mission (see 4.2). Young men are encouraged to serve (see 4.3.1), and young women may be recommended to serve (see 4.3.2). They discuss preparing spiritually by being worthy, studying the gospel, and building a testimony. They also discuss preparing physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially. Where in these "Matters for Discussion," do you see room for inappropriate topics/questions? Quote Temple. They ensure that youth understand the blessings of temple covenants and temple marriage and the requirements for receiving these blessings. To issue or renew a temple recommend, they ask the standard limited-use temple recommend questions. As needed, they adapt the questions to the age and circumstances of youth. Interview Questions for a Limited-Use Temple Recommend Do you have faith in and a testimony of God the Eternal Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost? Do you have a testimony of the Atonement of Christ and of His role as Savior and Redeemer? Do you have a testimony of the Restoration of the gospel in these, the latter days? Do you sustain the President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints as the prophet, seer, and revelator and as the only person on the earth who possesses and is authorized to exercise all priesthood keys? Do you sustain the members of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles as prophets, seers, and revelators? Do you sustain the other General Authorities and local authorities of the Church? Do you live the law of chastity? Is there anything in your conduct relating to members of your family that is not in harmony with the teachings of the Church? Do you support any group or person whose teachings oppose those accepted by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Do you strive to keep the covenants you have made, to attend your sacrament and priesthood meetings, and to keep your life in harmony with the laws and commandments of the gospel? Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen? Are you a full-tithe payer? Do you keep the Word of Wisdom? Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been? Do you consider yourself worthy to enter the Lord’s house and participate in temple ordinances? Where, in these interview questions, do you see room for inappropriate topics/questions? Quote From Handbook 1, 7.4, “Protecting against Misunderstandings” 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. Where, in this item about "protecting against misunderstandings," do you see room for inappropriate topics/questions? Quote I believe your claim, that such real constraints exist in any documented fashion, is false. Says the guy who didn't even bother to read the materials I provided. And who apparently can't be bothered to do a stitch of research on his own, and who instead jumps to a conclusion that is both ignorant about and hostile to the Church. Quelle suprise. Quote Feel free to provide some evidence to the contrary if you'd like. Nah. I provided quite a bit of documentation, and you didn't even bother to read it. Plus you have the ability to do a little research yourself (though given the above-referenced six-minute interval between the plethora of links I provided and your ignorant conclusion, I won't hold my breath). Thanks, -Smac Edited November 8, 2019 by smac97 1
rockpond Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 (edited) 22 minutes ago, smac97 said: Um, how do you think bishops come to be aware of allegations of abuse? I'm not sure but this is a not a real constraint on what is being discussed. Quote Including this? Having an adult in the foyer or an adjoining room is not a real constraint on what is being discussed in the interview. That was your claim that church guidelines and policies impose real constraints on what is discussed in the interviews. Quote There was a six-minute gap between my post and yours. That suggests you didn't read . . . well, any of it before responding. I opened every document and the handbook: None of these letters/texts are new. Having served in bishoprics for the majority of the last eight years, I'm already familiar with them. Quote Yes, they do. Quote a constraint on what is discussed in an interview. Not a guideline on what can or should be discussed, but a constraint on what is discussed. That was your claim. Quote Plus, there is ongoing instruction and training from stake presidents and general authorities. Do we have a record of it? Where would my newly called bishop access it? Regardless, your claim is that current church policies and guidelines impost these restraints. Those policies and guidelines should be documented somewhere, right? Quote Says the guy who didn't even bother to read the materials I provided. I've read everything you cited. Quote Quelle suprise. Nah. I provided quite a bit of documentation, and you didn't even bother to read it. Plus you have the ability to do a little research yourself (though given the above-referenced six-minute interval between the plethora of links I provided and your ignorant conclusion, I won't hold my breath). Thanks, -Smac Again, I am familiar with it and have read it. As noted, your claim (that current church policies and guidelines impose real constraints on the extent to which such topics (children's sexual experiences) are addressed by bishops) appears to be wholly unsupported. Edited November 8, 2019 by rockpond 1
smac97 Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 (edited) Rockpond, I'm not sure but this is a not a real constraint on what is being discussed. ==Your say-so about what does and does not constitute "a real constraint" carries little weight in this discussion. The Church provides very good instruction to bishops about interacting with youth. The Church also expects bishops to use their own intellect, common sense, and the Spirit in such discussions. The Church also provides clear guidelines as to the parameters and topics of bishop interviews. Having an adult in the foyer or an adjoining room is not a real constraint on what is being discussed in the interview. That was your claim that church guidelines and policies impose real constraints on what is discussed in the interviews. =="Leaders should avoid all circumstances that could be misunderstood." ==Are you seriously going to suggest that a bishop could read that an reasonably conclude "Huh, so I guess asking a 7-year old about masturbation is *totally* legit"? I opened every document and the handbook: None of these letters/texts are new. Having served in bishoprics for the majority of the last eight years, I'm already familiar with them. ==I also spent the last eight years in a bishopric. I have first-hand experience in receiving, on multiple occasions, both written and in-person instruction on properly handling youth interviews. Quote a constraint on what is discussed in an interview. Not a guideline on what can or should be discussed, but a constraint on what is discussed. That was your claim. ==I did. Several times, actually. See my previous posts (and perhaps you could spend more than six minutes on them). Do we have a record of it? ==I do. I attended the meetings. I took notes. ==Again, there is no real dispute here. The Church has provided a lot of guidance on this issue. Where would my newly called bishop access it? ==Your bishop could do what any other bishop could do: Do some reading. Ask some questions. Seek counsel if needed. Use common sense. Regardless, your claim is that current church policies and guidelines impost these restraints. ==Yes. This is not really in dispute. Those policies and guidelines should be documented somewhere, right? ==Yes. I've read everything you cited. ==And yet you were apparently unaware of this: "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." ==You responded as follows: "While these documents instruct what to discuss, they do not place any 'real constraints.'" As noted, your claim (that current church policies and guidelines impose real constraints on the extent to which such topics (children's sexual experiences) are addressed by bishops) appears to be wholly unsupported. ==It is plainly and manifestly supported. "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." "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." "The bishop and his counselors may also address the matters listed below: Priesthood ordination. Seminary. Missionary service." "To issue or renew a temple recommend, they ask the standard limited-use temple recommend questions." Thanks, -Smac Edited November 8, 2019 by smac97
rockpond Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: Rockpond, I'm not sure but this is a not a real constraint on what is being discussed. ==Says the guy who has obviously done no research, and who spent all of six minutes perusing the multiple links to documents I provided. I had already read the letters and texts you provided. These were documents already in my possession with which I was already familiar. Not sure how many times I need to clarify this for you. 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: ==And your say-so about what does and does not constitute "a real constraint" carries little weight in this discussion. You haven't identified any actual constraints. Just claimed that they exist. 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: You made an assertion in ignorance, and are now sticking to it. You are getting confused here. You've made the assertion. I've just asked you to provide the evidence of it. Which you haven't done. 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: The Church provides very good instruction to bishops about interacting with youth. The Church also expects bishops to use their own intellect, common sense, and the Spirit in such discussions. The Church also provides clear guidelines as to the parameters and topics of bishop interviews. It is simply dishonest or ignorant to claim otherwise. All true. Also, none of what you said here constitutes a constraint on what is discussed in interviews imposed by church policies and guidelines. 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: Having an adult in the foyer or an adjoining room is not a real constraint on what is being discussed in the interview. That was your claim that church guidelines and policies impose real constraints on what is discussed in the interviews. ==Oh, brother. "Leaders should avoid all circumstances that could be misunderstood." Circumstances. Yes. There should be another adult nearby. That is still not a constraint on topics that can be discussed. 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: ==Are you seriously going to suggest that a bishop could read that an reasonably conclude "Huh, so I guess asking a 7-year old about masturbation is *totally* legit"? I don't know. I've heard of bishops asking young children (11+) about masturbation. However, what you and I can reasonably conclude is not evidence of policies and guidelines imposing real constraints on interview discussion topics (this was your claim). 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: I opened every document and the handbook: None of these letters/texts are new. Having served in bishoprics for the majority of the last eight years, I'm already familiar with them. ==Funny, I also spent the last eight years in a bishopric. I have first-hand experience in receiving, on multiple occasions, both written and in-person instruction on properly handling youth interviews. "...on properly handling youth interviews." I did as well. But we're talking about your claim that church policies and guidelines exist that impose real constraints on interview discussion topics. Constraints. 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: Quote a constraint on what is discussed in an interview. Not a guideline on what can or should be discussed, but a constraint on what is discussed. That was your claim. ==I did. Several times, actually. See my previous posts (and perhaps you could spend more than six minutes on them). I've read your posts and cannot find the church policies and guidelines that impose the constraints. 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: Do we have a record of it? ==I do. I attended the meetings. I took notes. Your notes are not church guidelines and policies. 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: ==Again, there is no real dispute here. The Church has provided a lot of guidance on this issue. That you are claiming otherwise is just bizarre. Great. Some where in the "lot of guidance" provided by the Church, can you please cite the constraints imposed on interview discussion topics? 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: Where would my newly called bishop access it? ==Your bishop could do what you have apparently not done: Do some reading. Ask some questions. Seek counsel if needed. Use common sense. I've read about this. To continue to claim that I have not, after I've corrected you, is blatantly dishonest. Counsel and common sense are not policies and guidelines. Would you like to change your claim? 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: Regardless, your claim is that current church policies and guidelines impose these restraints. ==Yes. This is not really in dispute. What is in dispute is the existence of any evidence to support your claim. 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: Those policies and guidelines should be documented somewhere, right? ==Yes. For those who are willing to spend more than six minutes. For those who are not demanding that others hop to and do a bit of reading and inquiry. You can't seem to cite them. 20 minutes ago, smac97 said: I've read everything you cited. ==And yet you were unaware of this: "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." ==You responded as follows: "While these documents instruct what to discuss, they do not place any 'real constraints.'" ==So you'll understand my skepticism regarding your familiarity with the materials and training the Church has provided. As noted, your claim (that current church policies and guidelines impose real constraints on the extent to which such topics (children's sexual experiences) are addressed by bishops) appears to be wholly unsupported. ==It is plainly and manifestly supported. "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." "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." "The bishop and his counselors may also address the matters listed below: Priesthood ordination. Seminary. Missionary service." "To issue or renew a temple recommend, they ask the standard limited-use temple recommend questions." This is a dumb argument, Rockpond. Seriously. -Smac Again, these are guidelines on the circumstances of an interview (another adult in an adjoining room/hall) and on topics that can be discussed. These are not *constraints* on *topics of discussion* as you have claimed. I'll repeat. I'll consider your claim (that church guidelines and policies impose real constraints on topics, regarding sexual matters, that can be discussed in interviews) as false until you can provide some sort of evidence to support it.
Calm Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, rockpond said: You haven't identified any actual constraints. Maybe you could identify what you mean by constraints. From what I am reading, I believe you may mean something different than Smac. Edited November 9, 2019 by Calm 1
Calm Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, smac97 said: Are you seriously going to suggest that a bishop could read that an reasonably conclude "Huh, so I guess asking a 7-year old about masturbation is *totally* legit"? I think there is a problem with using anything that isn't precise as evidence of constraint because it depends on an assumption that everyone will interpret something pretty much the same way and that just isn't demonstrated by human interaction, especially given the manual is used in a variety of different local cultures all over the world. Even laws that are written to direct behaviour in specific ways are often interpreted differently, from what I have seen. A bishop whose experience includes knowing some seven year olds who masturbate may see that as a legit question, for example. Or one whose native culture sees masturbation as a natural part of growing up might not view asking as out of place or likely to be misunderstood. Edited November 8, 2019 by Calm 2
smac97 Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 1 minute ago, Calm said: Maybe you could identify what you mean by constraints. From what I am reading, I believe you may mean something different that Smac. Constraint = "a limitation or restriction." Here's one: "Leaders should avoid all circumstances that could be misunderstood." A bishop talking to a child about sex behind closed doors in anything close to inappropriate terms is the very definition of "circumstances that could be misunderstood." Here's another: "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." A bishop, in the course of a one-on-one interview with a youth or child, going outside the temple recommend interview questions and the contents of For the Strength of Youth by asking sexually explicit questions would, in pretty much all circumstances, typify "circumstances that could be misunderstood." I could see some (very limited) circumstances in which a bishop might need to ask clarifying questions. If a youth says "I did something wrong with my girlfriend," then an additional question or two might be apropos. "Something" can cover a broad spectrum of behavior. Here's another: "The bishop and his counselors may also address the matters listed below: Priesthood ordination. Seminary. Missionary service." I'm not seeing "invasive and titillating questions about sex" in there. Here's another: "To issue or renew a temple recommend, they ask the standard limited-use temple recommend questions." The instructions 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." And these are just the materials I found offhand. They do not include the repeating instructions from the bishop and the stake president I received while in the bishopric. Thanks, -Smac
Calm Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 (edited) 8 minutes ago, smac97 said: Here's one: "Leaders should avoid all circumstances that could be misunderstood." And I think there is a good probability that there will be different views on what "could be misunderstood". After all, you and rockpond appear to view this line above differently in whether or not it could be misunderstood...or possibly what it even means to begin with....and I bet I have a third set of expectations of possible interpretations of that line. Quote anything close to inappropriate term But just what is inappropriate will likely vary among bishops and counselors....as we have already seen from the fact that some bishops are comfortable being pretty explicit in the past and others have expressed how they would never ask _____. Quote I could see some (very limited) circumstances in which a bishop might need to ask clarifying questions. If a youth says "I did something wrong with my girlfriend," then an additional question or two might be apropos. "Something" can cover a broad spectrum of behavior. Which opens a door for you in very limited ways, but perhaps not so limited with someone who interprets appropriateness differently. Edited November 8, 2019 by Calm 1
smac97 Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 7 minutes ago, Calm said: I think there is a problem with using anything that isn't precise as evidence of constraint because it depends on an assumption that everyone will interpret something pretty much the same way and that just isn't demonstrated by human interaction, especially given the manual is used in a variety of different local cultures all over the world. Not really. There is nothing in the Church's published guidelines that could be reasonably construed as license for bishops to ask inappropriate, invasive sex-related questions in an interview with a youth or child. Meanwhile, there are lots of stuff that can only be reasonably construed as prohibiting inappropriate, invasive sex-related questions in an interview with a youth or child. 7 minutes ago, Calm said: Even laws that are written to direct behaviour in specific ways are often interpreted differently, from what I have seen. Again, not really. Consider this legal commentary: Quote The general rule of statutory construction is to effectuate the intent of the Legislature, which basically requires the courts to give the statutory language its usual and ordinary meaning. The fundamental rule of statutory construction is known as the plain language rule. Basically, this rule provides that when the meaning of a statute is clear and unambiguous, there’s usually no need for a court to apply any of those rules of statutory construction because the plain meaning of the statute can be ascertained without resorting to what we call the use of extrinsic aids to help in understanding the language. I think this could be adapted to apply to the Church's guidelines, particularly this one: "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." The "usual and ordinary meaning" of that bolded party pretty much entirely rules out asking children any sex-related questions. Moreover, the guidelines, taken as a whole, provide a "closed set" of topics about which the bishop can ask questions (Priesthood ordination, Seminary, Missionary service, Temple, Temple Recommend questions, "For the Strength of Youth" content). 7 minutes ago, Calm said: A bishop whose experience includes knowing some seven year olds who masturbate may see that as a legit question, for example. And yet asking a seven year old about masturbation would fall squarely within "circumstances that could be misunderstood." If the bishop has some concern about it, he could confer with the parents. 7 minutes ago, Calm said: Or one whose native culture sees masturbation as a natural part of growing up might not view asking as out of place or likely to be misunderstood. Well, maybe. Thanks, -Smac
smac97 Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Calm said: And I think there is a good probability that there will be different views on what "could be misunderstood". After all, you and rockpond appear to view this line above differently in whether or not it could be misunderstood...or possibly what it even means to begin with....and I bet I have a third set of expectations of possible interpretations of that line. I never read that line in isolation. But if I did and had a question about the propriety of posing sex-related questions to children/youth, I would have sought clarification from my stake president. As it is, that was never necessary, as I received plenty of preemptive instruction from the bishop and stake president about properly conducting youth interviews. Asking kids about sex was simply not on the table. Quote But just what is inappropriate will likely vary among bishops and counselors....as we have already seen from the fact that some bishops are comfortable being pretty explicit in the past and others have expressed how they would never ask _____. Which opens a door for you in very limited ways, but perhaps not so limited with someone who interprets appropriateness differently. I don't think so. The training I received pretty much eliminated the need for personal interpretation or hairsplitting. Thanks, -Smac Edited November 8, 2019 by smac97
rockpond Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 38 minutes ago, Calm said: Maybe you could identify what you mean by constraints. From what I am reading, I believe you may mean something different that Smac. I'll got with the definition that @smac97 cited: a limitation or restriction. When applied to discussion topics regarding sexual matters, a constraint might be: Do not ask if a youth masturbates unless the youth brings up the topic first. This is just an example, I'm not suggesting that *this* should be a policy, just giving a possible example. 1
rockpond Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 23 minutes ago, smac97 said: Constraint = "a limitation or restriction." Here's one: "Leaders should avoid all circumstances that could be misunderstood." A bishop talking to a child about sex behind closed doors in anything close to inappropriate terms is the very definition of "circumstances that could be misunderstood." Here's another: "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." A bishop, in the course of a one-on-one interview with a youth or child, going outside the temple recommend interview questions and the contents of For the Strength of Youth by asking sexually explicit questions would, in pretty much all circumstances, typify "circumstances that could be misunderstood." I could see some (very limited) circumstances in which a bishop might need to ask clarifying questions. If a youth says "I did something wrong with my girlfriend," then an additional question or two might be apropos. "Something" can cover a broad spectrum of behavior. Here's another: "The bishop and his counselors may also address the matters listed below: Priesthood ordination. Seminary. Missionary service." I'm not seeing "invasive and titillating questions about sex" in there. Here's another: "To issue or renew a temple recommend, they ask the standard limited-use temple recommend questions." The instructions 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." And these are just the materials I found offhand. They do not include the repeating instructions from the bishop and the stake president I received while in the bishopric. Thanks, -Smac These are guidelines about what can and/or should be discussed. But they are not constraints on discussion topics. Identifying things that can/should be talked about is not the same as limiting or restricting other topics. Masturbation is a good example. It is not mentioned. I know of bishops who feel it is appropriate to ask. And, no limitations (constraints) have been identified. 1
Calm Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 (edited) 21 minutes ago, smac97 said: As it is, that was never necessary, as I received plenty of preemptive instruction from the bishop and stake president about properly conducting youth interviews. Asking kids about sex was simply not on the table. Good to know. But unfortunately since training isn't open to everyone, is there any way that we can be certain that this level of training is done for every leader? Edited November 8, 2019 by Calm
smac97 Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 5 minutes ago, Calm said: Good to know. But unfortunately since training isn't open to everyone, is there any way that we can be certain that this level of training is done for every leader? I suppose a concerned parent could speak with the bishop and ask (or ask the stake president). Thanks, -Smac
Calm Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 8 minutes ago, smac97 said: I suppose a concerned parent could speak with the bishop and ask (or ask the stake president). Thanks, -Smac A wise thing to do, but unless they have handouts or some sort of documentation, it becomes a matter of trust that the leader is being accurate and not just reassuring as word of mouth is not the most accurate form of communication. I have had generally great bishops, but I have had a few bishops who seemed to feel the extent of communication needed with me as a parent amounted to patting me on the head and assuring me it would all be okay, no need to worry. Having documents outlining specifics on what is and isn't acceptable and not just using categories like 'don't say anything inappropriate' or 'easily misunderstood' would, imo, be very helpful in establishing assurance that needed changes that have taken place are being effectively conveyed to leaders....Something along the lines of the language around using the hotline, which iirc, is very definite about always following in certain cases. 1
rockpond Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 15 minutes ago, Calm said: Having documents outlining specifics on what is and isn't acceptable and not just using categories like 'don't say anything inappropriate' or 'easily misunderstood' would, imo, be very helpful in establishing assurance that needed changes that have taken place are being effectively conveyed to leaders....Something along the lines of the language around using the hotline, which iirc, is very definite about always following in certain cases. I'll add this: my oldest child turned 8 about a decade ago. In that time, since his first interview, we have had 5 bishops (we've lived in the same house but ward boundaries change frequently here). Assuming that trend continues, I'll have 4 more bishops before my youngest leaves for college in 8 years. Should I be going to the stake president every two years to have a discussion about what the new bishop is going to discuss with my children? 1
kllindley Posted November 8, 2019 Posted November 8, 2019 1 hour ago, rockpond said: These are guidelines about what can and/or should be discussed. But they are not constraints on discussion topics. Identifying things that can/should be talked about is not the same as limiting or restricting other topics. Masturbation is a good example. It is not mentioned. I know of bishops who feel it is appropriate to ask. And, no limitations (constraints) have been identified. Aren't the instructions quite clear that interviewers are not supposed to stray from, or add to, the temple recommend questions? Is that not a significant constraint?
rockpond Posted November 9, 2019 Posted November 9, 2019 5 minutes ago, kllindley said: Aren't the instructions quite clear that interviewers are not supposed to stray from, or add to, the temple recommend questions? Is that not a significant constraint? When doing a temple recommend interview. Yes. But this discussion is about bishop's youth interviews, not necessarily temple recommend interviews which are just a subset of those interviews. Aside from temple recommends (often renewed by counselors), the bishop is instructed to meet annually with each youth. No limits or constraints are given as to what topics can be discussed in those interviews.
Calm Posted November 9, 2019 Posted November 9, 2019 12 minutes ago, rockpond said: I'll add this: my oldest child turned 8 about a decade ago. In that time, since his first interview, we have had 5 bishops (we've lived in the same house but ward boundaries change frequently here). Assuming that trend continues, I'll have 4 more bishops before my youngest leaves for college in 8 years. Should I be going to the stake president every two years to have a discussion about what the new bishop is going to discuss with my children? My son's family has had a new bishop every year and a half for the last 7 years. The oldest is 13 and youngest just turning 8. Ward is splitting again, but probably same bishop. There is also the issue of new converts, parents, or just plain highly introverted parents who worry, but don't know what is appropriate for them to do and are too worried about asking or know that it is okay and proper to ask, but can't bring themselves to do it. I like to think that we as a community are there for those who can't be proactive for themselves or others at this point in their lives, even if we believe people in general should be assuming that responsibility. I love that Handbook 2 got put online. I see this as helping in this much needed imo (having been the highly introverted parent) way. 1
Calm Posted November 9, 2019 Posted November 9, 2019 (edited) I think it might save bishops a lot of time dealing with concerned parents if there was more precision in the instruction documentation. Just speculation based on me not having to ask to borrow or for quotes from handbook 2 from anyone since it was put online plus no more debates on what certain rules are (can straw be used in decorating the gym is one memory...) (I can't comment on training in general, it may or may not be there...it appears from what Smac has said it has been specific in his case, but then he sees some of the quotes here as precise enough if I understand him while I see them as more ambiguous). Edited November 9, 2019 by Calm 1
rockpond Posted November 9, 2019 Posted November 9, 2019 8 minutes ago, Calm said: My son's family has had a new bishop every year and a half for the last 7 years. The oldest is 13 and youngest just turning 8. Ward is splitting again, but probably same bishop. There is also the issue of new converts, parents, or just plain highly introverted parents who worry, but don't know what is appropriate for them to do and are too worried about asking or know that it is okay and proper to ask, but can't bring themselves to do it. I like to think that we as a community are there for those who can't be proactive for themselves or others at this point in their lives, even if we believe people in general should be assuming that responsibility. I love that Handbook 2 got put online. I see this as helping in this much needed imo (having been the highly introverted parent) way. Agreed. It's great that they've given CHI 2 access to all members.
kllindley Posted November 9, 2019 Posted November 9, 2019 3 hours ago, smac97 said: Matters for Discussion 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. The bishop and his counselors emphasize the importance of keeping baptismal covenants. They teach youth to prepare to make and keep temple covenants through daily righteous living. Bishopric members encourage youth to pray regularly in private and with their family and to study the scriptures. They also encourage youth to stay close to their parents. 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. The bishop and his counselors may also address the matters listed below: Priesthood ordination. With young men, they discuss the blessings and duties of holding the Aaronic Priesthood (see Doctrine and Covenants 20:46–60; 84:31–48; recent general conference addresses on the subject; and Handbook 2, 8.1.1 and 8.1.3). Seminary. For youth of the appropriate age, they encourage regular seminary attendance and emphasize the blessings that come from regular participation. Missionary service. They give special attention to preparing youth to serve a full-time mission (see 4.2). Young men are encouraged to serve (see 4.3.1), and young women may be recommended to serve (see 4.3.2). They discuss preparing spiritually by being worthy, studying the gospel, and building a testimony. They also discuss preparing physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially. 10 minutes ago, rockpond said: When doing a temple recommend interview. Yes. But this discussion is about bishop's youth interviews, not necessarily temple recommend interviews which are just a subset of those interviews. Aside from temple recommends (often renewed by counselors), the bishop is instructed to meet annually with each youth. No limits or constraints are given as to what topics can be discussed in those interviews. The above list of things to discuss definitely places a defacto limitation on what can be covered in an interview. The instructions above don't exactly say, "talk about this and anything else you feel like."
rockpond Posted November 9, 2019 Posted November 9, 2019 6 minutes ago, kllindley said: The above list of things to discuss definitely places a defacto limitation on what can be covered in an interview. The instructions above don't exactly say, "talk about this and anything else you feel like." Yes, there is an implication that this, and possibly nothing else, is what should be discussed. But, giving guidelines of what to talk about is not a policy which "imposes a real constraint" (this was the claim) on which topics can be discussed in an interview. See Calm's good example of masturbation and how questions could be impacted by different bishops' personal experiences and cultures. I'm willing to concede that there are guidelines on what should be talked about. Are others willing to concede that there are no documented constraints on what could be talked about in a youth interview with a bishop?
Recommended Posts