High Councilman arrested for filming a woman getting undressed

[Amulek]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

The question of invasion, imo, arises if an interview goes beyond the usual limits to determine worthiness.

Perhaps. Maybe I just conceptualize "invasion of privacy" to mean something stronger than what most others mean by the phrase. 

I don't generally think of questions - regardless of how unnecessary - as being an invasion of privacy.

Merely asking somebody about an area of their life that they don't want to reveal doesn't rise to the level of 'invasion' in my opinion. 

That being said, I agree that Bishops and others conducting interviews should follow the church's council and avoid asking unnecessary (even if well-intended) questions with respect to worthiness matters. There may be times when such questions are appropriate, but they don't need to be routine.

 

[rockpond]

8 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Perhaps. Maybe I just conceptualize "invasion of privacy" to mean something stronger than what most others mean by the phrase. 

I don't generally think of questions - regardless of how unnecessary - as being an invasion of privacy.

Merely asking somebody about an area of their life that they don't want to reveal doesn't rise to the level of 'invasion' in my opinion. 

When a person of authority asks questions, it is different than just generally being asked questions about things you don't want to reveal.  And in the case of a Bishop, his authority grants him the unilateral ability to place significant restrictions on the life of an active church member.  So I think that inappropriate questions asked by a bishop can rise to the level of an invasion of privacy.

 

8 minutes ago, Amulek said:

That being said, I agree that Bishops and others conducting interviews should follow the church's council and avoid asking unnecessary (even if well-intended) questions with respect to worthiness matters. There may be times when such questions are appropriate, but they don't need to be routine.

Where is that counsel documented?

[Amulek]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

It's hard to argue with that when a person is old enough to consent.

Quite so.

 

Quote

But when they're a minor, how old do they need to be to able to consent?

Unless a child has a learning disability or some other extenuating circumstance, I would say that most minors are able to understand what is / isn't appropriate during the interviews they receive at the ages they receive them.

 

Quote

How can a church or parent know that a child really is going into an interview fully-informed and understanding that they will be asked to disclose private information?

If a parent is concerned they can always attend the interview with their child. 

 

[Amulek]

53 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

What is in your opinion the standard of conduct of bishops and how is it enforced? 

Bishops are expected to adhere to living the gospel of Jesus Christ - a much higher standard than any form of professional ethic. 

As for how it's enforced: familiarity with the individual by those above him in authority and regular worthiness interviews with the same. 

 

Quote

Do you not see an issue in the difference between the three: medical professionals, teachers, and bishops which might hinder reporting? I would think that it can be more difficult to report misconduct when both parties share the same social group, and wards are inherently a social group.

I don't know that kids really think of it in those terms. And, even if they did, I don't know that most youth would consider their bishop to be part of their social group. I certainly didn't think of my bishop in that way when I was a teenager.

 

[Amulek]

28 minutes ago, rockpond said:

When a person of authority asks questions, it is different than just generally being asked questions about things you don't want to reveal.  And in the case of a Bishop, his authority grants him the unilateral ability to place significant restrictions on the life of an active church member.  So I think that inappropriate questions asked by a bishop can rise to the level of an invasion of privacy.

Wouldn't that then make any question asked by a Bishop an invasion of privacy?

Say, for example, you are a teenager who frequently shoplifts. You go into your interview with the bishop and he asks if you are honest in your dealings with your fellow men. You aren't (obviously), and even though you would prefer not to say, you feel obligated to answer truthfully because he's an authority figure and has the power to affect your activity in the church. 

This would be an invasion of privacy by this line of reasoning would it not?

 

Quote

Where is that counsel documented?

The counsel, as documented in Handbook 1, is to "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."

 

[rockpond]

5 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Wouldn't that then make any question asked by a Bishop an invasion of privacy?

Say, for example, you are a teenager who frequently shoplifts. You go into your interview with the bishop and he asks if you are honest in your dealings with your fellow men. You aren't (obviously), and even though you would prefer not to say, you feel obligated to answer truthfully because he's an authority figure and has the power to affect your activity in the church. 

This would be an invasion of privacy by this line of reasoning would it not?

Yes.

5 minutes ago, Amulek said:

The counsel, as documented in Handbook 1, is to "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."

I'm familiar with that.  But it is not the same as what you said:  "I agree that Bishops and others conducting interviews should follow the church's council and avoid asking unnecessary (even if well-intended) questions with respect to worthiness matters."

I'm not aware of any counsel to avoid asking unnecessary questions.  Thought, I wish such counsel was documented in the handbook.

[Amulek]

8 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Yes.

Fascinating.

 

Quote

I'm familiar with that.  But it is not the same as what you said:  "I agree that Bishops and others conducting interviews should follow the church's council and avoid asking unnecessary (even if well-intended) questions with respect to worthiness matters."

I'm not aware of any counsel to avoid asking unnecessary questions.  Thought, I wish such counsel was documented in the handbook.

You mean you wish such counsel was documented explicitly, in those exact terms in the handbook.

But that's clearly what the handbook instructs.

Questions about worthiness for youth interviews are to be taken from the temple recommend questions and the standards / explanations documented in For the Strength of Youth.

The church doesn't need to outline every possible thing you should not be doing in an interview when they have already explicitly told you what to do in the interview.

 

[rockpond]

20 minutes ago, Amulek said:

You mean you wish such counsel was documented explicitly, in those exact terms in the handbook.

I wish what you claimed was there, was actually there.  

20 minutes ago, Amulek said:

But that's clearly what the handbook instructs.

Questions about worthiness for youth interviews are to be taken from the temple recommend questions and the standards / explanations documented in For the Strength of Youth.

It says to "make appropriate use" of those questions, standards, and explanations.  It does not counsel against asking other questions.  Nor does it speak to what may be unnecessary questions.

20 minutes ago, Amulek said:

The church doesn't need to outline every possible thing you should not be doing in an interview when they have already explicitly told you what to do in the interview.

Of course not.  But when you say that the church counsels against asking unnecessary questions, that is not accurate.  While there is guidance of what should be asked, there is not guidance as to what shouldn't be asked.  I'd like to see more detail added to the handbook in that regard.

[Amulek]

10 minutes ago, rockpond said:

It says to "make appropriate use" of those questions, standards, and explanations.  It does not counsel against asking other questions.  Nor does it speak to what may be unnecessary questions.

I think you're being a bit too legalistic here. But if that's the game you want to play then fine:

Where, specifically, in the handbook pertaining to youth worthiness interviews does the church counsel bishops (or others) to ask questions outside of what is listed in the temple recommend questions and For the Strength of Youth?

 

Quote

Of course not.  But when you say that the church counsels against asking unnecessary questions, that is not accurate.  While there is guidance of what should be asked, there is not guidance as to what shouldn't be asked.  I'd like to see more detail added to the handbook in that regard.

Guidance about what should be asked is, implicitly, guidance about what should not be asked as well.

 

[rockpond]

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I think you're being a bit too legalistic here. But if that's the game you want to play then fine:

We're talking about a handbook that goes into details such as what process a husband and wife should follow when they are considering a vasectomy for the husband.  Surely placing some limits on what bishops shouldn't ask of youth isn't out of bounds.

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Where, specifically, in the handbook pertaining to youth worthiness interviews does the church counsel bishops (or others) to ask questions outside of what is listed in the temple recommend questions and For the Strength of Youth?

It doesn't.  I was just responding to your claim that there was counsel against asking unnecessary questions.  The truth of the matter is that there is counsel about about what should be asked but not counsel about what should not be asked.

2 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Guidance about what should be asked is, implicitly, guidance about what should not be asked as well.

I don't agree.  And given what some bishops have asked people I know, I think some counsel about what should not be asked wouldn't hurt.

[Amulek]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

We're talking about a handbook that goes into details such as what process a husband and wife should follow when they are considering a vasectomy for the husband.  Surely placing some limits on what bishops shouldn't ask of youth isn't out of bounds.

I believe there are limits on what bishops shouldn't be asking. They are counseled to make use specific resources, and they are specifically counseled to avoid encouraging curiosity and experimentation. That seems pretty clear to me.

 

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

Where, specifically, in the handbook pertaining to youth worthiness interviews does the church counsel bishops (or others) to ask questions outside of what is listed in the temple recommend questions and For the Strength of Youth?

It doesn't. 

Excellent.

So if a bishop were to ask a question outside of what he has been counseled to ask, would you say that he is following or not following the church's counsel?

 

Quote

I was just responding to your claim that there was counsel against asking unnecessary questions.  The truth of the matter is that there is counsel about about what should be asked but not counsel about what should not be asked.

No, the truth of the matter is merely that the church doesn't provide a list of specific questions that shouldn't be asked - nor should they. 

But that doesn't mean we have got no clue about what is actually wanted. 

 

Quote

I don't agree. 

Quelle surprise. 

 

Quote

And given what some bishops have asked people I know, I think some counsel about what should not be asked wouldn't hurt.

By people, you mean youth right? If so, I'm sorry to hear that. I have never lived in an area where a bishop has had a problem with asking inappropriate questions during youth interviews. 

Any bishop who adheres to the affirmative counsel contained in the handbook would not be running into those kinds of problems. 

 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Unless a child has a learning disability or some other extenuating circumstance, I would say that most minors are able to understand what is / isn't appropriate during the interviews they receive at the ages they receive them

Unless a parent or other person has discussed this with them, I imagine there are a number of minors who like myself as a minor would assume that if an adult in authority in the Church started talking about something it would be appropriate unless it was bordering on extreme. 

And I was as a teen very aware of the fallibility of leaders, there wasn’t a hint of hero worship in me. 

Edited November 14, 2019 by Calm

[bsjkki]

3 hours ago, Amulek said:

Unless a child has a learning disability or some other extenuating circumstance, I would say that most minors are able to understand what is / isn't appropriate during the interviews they receive at the ages they receive them.

They may know it is inappropriate but the don’t know how to deal with it.

[rockpond]

13 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I believe there are limits on what bishops shouldn't be asking. They are counseled to make use specific resources, and they are specifically counseled to avoid encouraging curiosity and experimentation. That seems pretty clear to me.

It is clear.  It also doesn't give any specific counsel on what should be off limits.

13 minutes ago, Amulek said:

So if a bishop were to ask a question outside of what he has been counseled to ask, would you say that he is following or not following the church's counsel?

Since there is no counsel on what not to ask, he is following the counsel that exists.

13 minutes ago, Amulek said:

No, the truth of the matter is merely that the church doesn't provide a list of specific questions that shouldn't be asked - nor should they.

When I suggest that I would like to see some boundaries on what is discussed, I don't necessarily picture a specific list of "Questions NOT to be asked".  I see it more as topics or level of details that shouldn't be broached unless the youth asks on their own.  

13 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Quelle surprise. 

Were you looking for an echo chamber?

13 minutes ago, Amulek said:

By people, you mean youth right? If so, I'm sorry to hear that.

Yes.  And, thanks.

[Amulek]

3 minutes ago, rockpond said:

Quote

So if a bishop were to ask a question outside of what he has been counseled to ask, would you say that he is following or not following the church's counsel?

Since there is no counsel on what not to ask, he is following the counsel that exists.

Oh, this is just getting silly now.

So if I were to provide my children with counsel on how to conduct a lemonade stand, and I told them they would need to make some lemonade by combining water, lemon juice, and sugar, but instead of using sugar they decided to use salt instead (I mean, I never specifically told them not to use salt) then, by your line of reasoning, they would be following my counsel. Right?

 

9 minutes ago, rockpond said:

When I suggest that I would like to see some boundaries on what is discussed, I don't necessarily picture a specific list of "Questions NOT to be asked".  I see it more as topics or level of details that shouldn't be broached unless the youth asks on their own.  

There's already some language in the handbook about keeping discussions on par with a child's understanding, so I think that would cover the level of details bit. 

But what sort of topics do you have in mind that should not be broached unless the youth specifically asks?

 

[rockpond]

1 minute ago, Amulek said:

Oh, this is just getting silly now.

So if I were to provide my children with counsel on how to conduct a lemonade stand, and I told them they would need to make some lemonade by combining water, lemon juice, and sugar, but instead of using sugar they decided to use salt instead (I mean, I never specifically told them not to use salt) then, by your line of reasoning, they would be following my counsel. Right?

 

There's already some language in the handbook about keeping discussions on par with a child's understanding, so I think that would cover the level of details bit. 

But what sort of topics do you have in mind that should not be broached unless the youth specifically asks?

 

I think your comparison is silly and not really a valid comparison.  I'm fine with you feeling like the handbook provides sufficient instruction.  Based on my experiences, I think it could use some more detail.  Enough said.

[Amulek]

26 minutes ago, Calm said:

Unless a parent or other person has discussed this with them, I imagine there are a number of minors who like myself as a minor would assume that if an adult in authority in the Church started talking about something it would be appropriate unless it was bordering on extreme. 

I can appreciate that this may very well be the case for some - maybe many. I don't know. 

What I do know is that the level of concern expressed by critics with respect to youth interviews seems to be wildly disproportionate to the actual potential risk of harm - especially now that the church expressly permits youth to be accompanied by a parent during interviews. 

 

[Amulek]

32 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I think your comparison is silly and not really a valid comparison.

I think it's a completely valid comparison. 

The church expressly counsels bishops who are conducting worthiness interviews with youth to make use of the temple recommend questions and the standards and explanations in For the Strength of Youth. 

In other words, the church affirmatively counsels bishops to conduct interviews by making use of A and B. 

However, when a bishop goes outside what he has been counseled to do and includes X instead, you claim that he is following the church's counsel because the church never expressly said not to do X.

Hence, the lemonade analogy.

If I tell my kids to do A+B+C, but they decide to do A+B+X instead, then (again, by your line of reasoning) they would be following my counsel because I never expressly told them not to include X.

Only when you break it down like that, it seems obvious that they aren't actually "following my counsel." They obviously aren't - just like a bishop who goes off book and starts asking wildly inappropriate questions during an interview isn't following the church's counsel either.

 

Edited November 14, 2019 by Amulek

[rockpond]

23 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I think it's a completely valid comparison. 

The church expressly counsels bishops who are conducting worthiness interviews with youth to make use of the temple recommend questions and the standards and explanations in For the Strength of Youth. 

In other words, the church affirmatively counsels bishops to conduct interviews by making use of A and B. 

However, when a bishop goes outside what he has been counseled to do and includes X instead, you claim that he is following the church's counsel because the church never expressly said not to do X.

Hence, the lemonade analogy.

If I tell my kids to do A+B+C, but they decide to do A+B+X instead, then (again, by your line of reasoning) they would be following my counsel because I never expressly told them not to include X.

Only when you break it down like that, it seems obvious that they aren't actually "following my counsel." They obviously aren't - just like a bishop who goes off book and starts asking wildly inappropriate questions during an interview isn't following the church's counsel either.

 

He has followed the Church's counsel in that he has asked what they told him to.  Asking other stuff that they didn't mention is neither following nor disregarding because no counsel exists.

Here's the thing:  What you think are "wildly inappropriate questions" are not wildly inappropriate to other people.  And what I think are wildly inappropriate questions, are not wildly inappropriate.  The bishop that asked my 20 year old nephew how many times he planned to have sex per week when he was married, seemed to think that was not "wildly inappropriate".

Over the 10 years in which I have had kids who were of interviewing age, I've had absolutely stellar bishops who I knew/know well and had/have great trust in their judgment.  (It helps that I have served in bishoprics with three of them.)  I argued in favor of giving parents the option to come in to interviews before the church made it a policy.  But, I have never felt the need to join any of my own kids in their interviews.  I'm confident that inappropriate questions won't be asked.

All that said, because there isn't universal agreement on where questions cross over into "wildly inappropriate" territory, I'd love to see additional parameter and limitations put into handbook.  I get that you feel what is there is sufficient.  Does that mean you are opposed to my suggestion or just don't see it as needed?

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

If I tell my kids to do A+B+C, but they decide to do A+B+X instead, then (again, by your line of reasoning) they would be following my counsel because I never expressly told them not to inclu

Actually I think a better analogy would be they do A, B, and C, but then add x, y, and/or z.  Which may work out well in some cases where for lemonade, x are raspberries, y are limes, and z is salt...which may work in a small amount for a sweet salty mix, but ruins it if too much.

Anyway, I am getting the impression the concern is more with adding questions not forbidden rather than substituting for advised questions.

[strappinglad]

Ever wonder why the Jews wanted 600+ commandments , including how many steps to walk on the Sabbath? Making a list of what not to ask will always just give SOMEONE the idea to ask a technically askable question that will be inappropriate to someone else. Humans are so inventive. 

[Amulek]

15 hours ago, rockpond said:

He has followed the Church's counsel in that he has asked what they told him to.  Asking other stuff that they didn't mention is neither following nor disregarding because no counsel exists.

That's not how I read the handbook. The church's handbook of instructions is pretty good about detailing when deviations either are or may be permitted. The absence of such language in the section pertaining to youth worthiness interviews should be interpreted as a presumption against such a practice. 

 

Quote

Here's the thing:  What you think are "wildly inappropriate questions" are not wildly inappropriate to other people.  And what I think are wildly inappropriate questions, are not wildly inappropriate.  The bishop that asked my 20 year old nephew how many times he planned to have sex per week when he was married, seemed to think that was not "wildly inappropriate".

I thought we were talking about worthiness interviews for youth - not ill-delivered pre-marital counseling for adults. 

 

Quote

Over the 10 years in which I have had kids who were of interviewing age, I've had absolutely stellar bishops who I knew/know well and had/have great trust in their judgment.  (It helps that I have served in bishoprics with three of them.)  I argued in favor of giving parents the option to come in to interviews before the church made it a policy.  But, I have never felt the need to join any of my own kids in their interviews.  I'm confident that inappropriate questions won't be asked.

Same here. I've never had a problem with any bishop I have ever known. Even when I was a teenager and was dating the bishop's daughter - against both his and my parent's wishes - all of my interviews were strictly by the book and uneventful. 

 

Quote

All that said, because there isn't universal agreement on where questions cross over into "wildly inappropriate" territory, I'd love to see additional parameter and limitations put into handbook.  I get that you feel what is there is sufficient.  Does that mean you are opposed to my suggestion or just don't see it as needed?

I certainly don't see it as being needed. As for whether or not I would actively oppose something - that would depend on what was actually done.

I think good, thoughtful bishops are already handling youth interviews just as you think they ought to.

I've got no way to measure how many bishops are going off the rails with youth interviews, but I imagine the number is pretty small.

So, I guess the concerns I would have about such a change are: (1) would a handbook addition actually reign those bishops in? or would they just continue to do what they have always done?; and (2) how would those limitations be interpreted by the good, thoughtful bishops? would it result in them withholding their concern and counsel on the rare occasions where they feel such discussion would be beneficial? or would they feel ham-stringed by the limitations, say nothing, and leave the youth to deal with it on their own? 

I'm honestly not sure how you would go about determining whether such a change would be a net benefit or a net loss. 

My personal opinion is that the current guidance is sufficient - even if it is not as perfect as some would like.

 

[Amulek]

14 hours ago, Calm said:

Actually I think a better analogy would be they do A, B, and C, but then add x, y, and/or z.  Which may work out well in some cases where for lemonade, x are raspberries, y are limes, and z is salt...which may work in a small amount for a sweet salty mix, but ruins it if too much.

I wasn't really trying to discern between substitution vs addition. I think the logic works the same way in either scenario though.

If you were told to do X, there are only three possible things you can actually do:

1. You can do X
2. You can do something other than X (i.e., ~X)
3. You can do X AND ~X

But no matter how you parse it, you can't escape the simple fact that X <> (X AND ~X). 

So you don't get to say you were doing what you were told when it comes to ~X. 

 

[Amulek]

13 hours ago, strappinglad said:

Ever wonder why the Jews wanted 600+ commandments [...]

Or why employee handbooks get to be so ginormous...

[rockpond]

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

That's not how I read the handbook. The church's handbook of instructions is pretty good about detailing when deviations either are or may be permitted. The absence of such language in the section pertaining to youth worthiness interviews should be interpreted as a presumption against such a practice. 

I disagree.  Take the Nov 2015 policy for example.  The text in the handbook provides no path for children (under 18) of gay couples to be baptized, in fact it is expressly prohibited.  Yet, in September of this year at the BYU devotional, President Nelson said that nearly every exception sought by parents wanting their children to be baptized was granted.  So apparently exceptions were allowed even though they are not mentioned.

5 hours ago, Amulek said:

I thought we were talking about worthiness interviews for youth - not ill-delivered pre-marital counseling for adults.

It was NOT pre-marital counseling.   He was a college student and his bishop thought it was appropriate to discuss what he imagined his future married sex life might be like.