High Councilman arrested for filming a woman getting undressed

[Amulek]

13 minutes ago, rockpond said:

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.

Exceptions which were only allowed by appealing to the First Presidency for approval. 

If a bishop seeks First Presidency approval to deviate from the temple recommend questions during youth worthiness interviews and obtains permission to do so, I'm fine with that. 

But, again, without an express indicator that it is permissible to deviate from the instructions provided in the handbook, the presumption is that you don't deviate. If you want to deviate, you run it up the chain of command and see if you can get approval to do so, but you don't get to assume you have permission to deviate from what has been outlined just because, you know, sometimes are exceptions allowed. 

 

Quote

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.

Whatevs. It's still a bishop having a discussion with an adult - which has nothing to do with youth worthiness interviews.

If my YSA bishop had asked me how many times I planned on having sex with my future wife, I would have just smiled and said, "Every day, and three times on Sunday."  

Then again, I got along really well with my college bishop. I was one of the clerks, so we got to be pretty good friends. I could see him (or possibly on of the counselors) jokingly asking me something like that back then. We would have had a good laugh about it. Maybe it would have led to a serious discussion - maybe not. 

If your nephew ended up having an uncomfortable discussion, I'm sorry about that. Bishops aren't perfect, and sometimes their well-intentioned advice ends up coming out wrong. Is the solution then to tell bishops to never broach such subjects at all, or should we just try to not get too hung up on it when they falter and remember that they are doing their best and just trying to help?

 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Amulek said:

Exceptions which were only allowed by appealing to the First Presidency for approval. 

If a bishop seeks First Presidency approval to deviate from the temple recommend questions during youth worthiness interviews and obtains permission to do so, I'm fine with that. 

But, again, without an express indicator that it is permissible to deviate from the instructions provided in the handbook, the presumption is that you don't deviate. If you want to deviate, you run it up the chain of command and see if you can get approval to do so, but you don't get to assume you have permission to deviate from what has been outlined just because, you know, sometimes are exceptions allowed. 

Your claim was:  "The church's handbook of instructions is pretty good about detailing when deviations either are or may be permitted."  I cited an example where deviations were NOT detailed and yet they were permitted.

 

Quote

Whatevs. It's still a bishop having a discussion with an adult - which has nothing to do with youth worthiness interviews.

I mentioned it to show that bishops have different ideas about what are "wildly inappropriate questions".

 

Quote

Is the solution then to tell bishops to never broach such subjects at all, or should we just try to not get too hung up on it when they falter and remember that they are doing their best and just trying to help?

No.  I love bishops (as a general rule).  For the most part they are incredibly loving, faithful, kind, caring, and self-sacrificing men.  It's an honor for me right now to be in a calling where I get to so closely support my bishop.

But, is suggesting that the handbook could provide some additional guidance on what types of things should not discussed, somehow an insult to them or their office?

Edited November 15, 2019 by rockpond

[kllindley]

4 hours ago, Amulek said:

Whatevs. It's still a bishop having a discussion with an adult - which has nothing to do with youth worthiness interviews.

And yet here we are presented with these claims about what some bishop said without any sense of the context. 

There are a number of situations where I could see that being a fantastic question.  

[Calm]

23 minutes ago, kllindley said:

There are a number of situations where I could see that being a fantastic question.  

If the person asked had a negative reaction to it, that might indicate it wasn’t one of those situations.

[kllindley]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

If the person asked had a negative reaction to it, that might indicate it wasn’t one of those situations.

Were we informed that the person had a negative reaction? 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

Your claim was:  "The church's handbook of instructions is pretty good about detailing when deviations either are or may be permitted."  I cited an example where deviations were NOT detailed and yet they were permitted.

I didn't say that the handbook is infallible. But yes, it is pretty good about detailing when deviations either are or may be permitted. In other words, when adaptation, special circumstances, or some other reason might give rise to deviating from the general guidelines, the handbook usually indicates as much. In the absence of such indication though, the presumption is that you shouldn't deviate from the policies as outlined. 

Bishops don't get to look through the handbook and say, 'well, the handbook does say to do it like this, but unspecified deviations have been approved in the past, so I guess I'm free to use my personal discretion in deviating whenever / however I wish.' 

 

Quote

I mentioned it to show that bishops have different ideas about what are "wildly inappropriate questions".

Only we aren't having a discussion about inappropriate questions that might have ever been uttered by any bishop anywhere. We're talking about discussions which take place within the scope of youth recommend interviews. 

And, when participating in worthiness interviews, I think the overwhelming majority of bishops keep things well within the realm of acceptability. 

They don't need any sort of special guidance telling them not to be asking twelve-year-olds how many times they plan on having sex each week when they get married. 

 

Quote

No.  I love bishops (as a general rule).  For the most part they are incredibly loving, faithful, kind, caring, and self-sacrificing men.  It's an honor for me right now to be in a calling where I get to so closely support my bishop.

But, is suggesting that the handbook could provide some additional guidance on what types of things should not discussed, somehow an insult to them or their office?

An insult to their office? No.

But, as I indicated before, I do have some concerns about how effective such changes would be and whether or not they would actually be a net benefit.

I get that you feel differently. I just don't share your same level of concern. 

 

[rockpond]

12 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Were we informed that the person had a negative reaction? 

They did have a negative reaction and felt that it was extremely inappropriate. 

[rockpond]

16 minutes ago, Amulek said:

I didn't say that the handbook is infallible. But yes, it is pretty good about detailing when deviations either are or may be permitted. In other words, when adaptation, special circumstances, or some other reason might give rise to deviating from the general guidelines, the handbook usually indicates as much. In the absence of such indication though, the presumption is that you shouldn't deviate from the policies as outlined. 

I gave an example of where the handbook was ignored (the policy about children of gay couples).  Would you care to quote an example where the handbook supports your statement?

16 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Bishops don't get to look through the handbook and say, 'well, the handbook does say to do it like this, but unspecified deviations have been approved in the past, so I guess I'm free to use my personal discretion in deviating whenever / however I wish.' 

Except that President Nelson’s comments at the BYU devotional tell us that Bishops did do exactly that... deviated from what the handbook said.  And I have personal experience with observing bishops deviating from the handbook. So reality does not support your conclusion here. 

16 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Only we aren't having a discussion about inappropriate questions that might have ever been uttered by any bishop anywhere. We're talking about discussions which take place within the scope of youth recommend interviews. 

You implication was that bishops know not to ask “wildly inappropriate questions” so I countered with an example to show that not everyone agrees on what is inappropriate. 

16 minutes ago, Amulek said:

And, when participating in worthiness interviews, I think the overwhelming majority of bishops keep things well within the realm of acceptability.

I don’t have any data one way or the other.  I’m guessing that you don’t either. 

16 minutes ago, Amulek said:

They don't need any sort of special guidance telling them not to be asking twelve-year-olds how many times they plan on having sex each week when they get married.

Maybe.  You *know* that this bishop who asked that you question to a single 20 yr old wouldn’t have asked the same question to a 16 yr old.

16 minutes ago, Amulek said:

An insult to their office? No.

But, as I indicated before, I do have some concerns about how effective such changes would be and whether or not they would actually be a net benefit.

I get that you feel differently. I just don't share your same level of concern. 

That’s fine. 

[Amulek]

1 hour ago, rockpond said:

I gave an example of where the handbook was ignored (the policy about children of gay couples).  

The policy stated that children being raised by LGBT parents would not automatically be eligible for baptism at age eight. It also noted that exceptions to the policy would require First Presidency approval.

So, no, you didn't give an example of where the "handbook was ignored." You gave an example of where the handbook was followed.

As directed by the handbook, bishops would contact the First Presidency and request exceptions for those children who wished to be baptized but who happened to be living with their gay parent(s). After reviewing the request, the general guidance provided in the handbook could then superseded on a case by case basis by the First Presidency.

As I said before, if a bishop seeks (and obtains) permission from the First Presidency to include additional questions other than those listed in the temple recommend interviews during youth worthiness interviews then I'm cool with that. 

 

Quote

Would you care to quote an example where the handbook supports your statement?

Which statement? That the handbook does a pretty good job of indicating when bishops (or others) have got some discretion? Sure.

And, just to keep it relevant to the topic at hand, please feel free to peruse Handbook 1, Section 7.1.7.4 (Frequency of Interviews).

Here it makes clear that the bishop interviews each young man and young woman at least annually. It goes on to provide some guidelines on how to handle second interviews, and then concludes as follows: "Acting with inspiration and wisdom, bishops may adjust the frequency of interviews. Some youth may need added attention, while others may need less frequent interviews than are suggested, though all should be interviewed at least annually. Ward size, geography, schedules, and other circumstances may also affect the frequency of interviews."

This kind of formulation is found throughout the handbooks. A general guideline is proffered, and then (when applicable) language is added saying that you may need to make modifications / adjustments based on certain circumstances (e.g., inspiration, needs, practical limitations, etc.). 

So, yes, the presumption is that you follow the handbook as written and if no deviation is outlined then you don't go making one up on your own.

If the handbook is silent about something or if you have some question about what should be done, you don't just make up your own rules - you follow the guidance on page flipping one: "Leaders who have questions about information in the handbooks or about issues that are not addressed should direct the questions to their immediate presiding authority."

 

Quote

Except that President Nelson’s comments at the BYU devotional tell us that Bishops did do exactly that... deviated from what the handbook said.  

I believe you are mistaken - both about what President Nelson said and what bishops did (see above).

 

Quote

And I have personal experience with observing bishops deviating from the handbook. So reality does not support your conclusion here.  

Then you are misunderstanding me. 

I'm wasn't saying that bishops never deviate from the handbook - that is obviously not the case.

What I was saying was that, just because deviations are sometimes permitted, does not mean that any deviation a bishop may wish to enact is automatically justified. 

 

Quote

I don’t have any data one way or the other.  I’m guessing that you don’t either. 

Data on the content of conversations taking place in worthiness interviews across the church worldwide? Nope. You've got me there.

But I do have anecdotal data just like you. My experience as a youth, along with the experiences of my children and (as you previously indicated) your children, were all perfectly uneventful.

And I think most worthiness interviews are pretty much the same. If bishops were frequently asking inappropriate questions in interviews, we would be hearing about it much more often than we do. 

 

Quote

Maybe.  You *know* that this bishop who asked that you question to a single 20 yr old wouldn’t have asked the same question to a 16 yr old.

You're the one with some measure of connection to the fellow, so why don't you tell us? Do you know if he ever has?

I would be surprised if that were the case.

The overwhelming majority of the 'bad bishop question' stories I have ever heard come from college age adults. And they tend to be Utah-centric as well.

 

[rockpond]

9 hours ago, Amulek said:

The policy stated that children being raised by LGBT parents would not automatically be eligible for baptism at age eight. It also noted that exceptions to the policy would require First Presidency approval.

It actually does not say that.  The words automatically, eligible, and exception do not even appear in the section.  Did you read it before responding?

It says that children of a parent living in a same-gender relationship may not be baptized until they are 18.  At that time, if they meet certain criteria, First Presidency approval can be requested.

In September, President Nelson told us that exceptions to this were requested and granted.  So here we have an example of a handbook section that does not allow for exception and yet leaders decided that they could disregard the clear directive in the section and request an exception.

Quote

So, no, you didn't give an example of where the "handbook was ignored." You gave an example of where the handbook was followed.

As directed by the handbook, bishops would contact the First Presidency and request exceptions for those children who wished to be baptized but who happened to be living with their gay parent(s). After reviewing the request, the general guidance provided in the handbook could then superseded on a case by case basis by the First Presidency.

There is absolutely nothing in that section about requesting exceptions for children still living with a parent in a same-gender relationship to be baptized.  Your statement here is absolutely false.  You should really read the section.

Quote

Which statement? That the handbook does a pretty good job of indicating when bishops (or others) have got some discretion? Sure.

And, just to keep it relevant to the topic at hand, please feel free to peruse Handbook 1, Section 7.1.7.4 (Frequency of Interviews).

Here it makes clear that the bishop interviews each young man and young woman at least annually. It goes on to provide some guidelines on how to handle second interviews, and then concludes as follows: "Acting with inspiration and wisdom, bishops may adjust the frequency of interviews. Some youth may need added attention, while others may need less frequent interviews than are suggested, though all should be interviewed at least annually. Ward size, geography, schedules, and other circumstances may also affect the frequency of interviews."

This kind of formulation is found throughout the handbooks. A general guideline is proffered, and then (when applicable) language is added saying that you may need to make modifications / adjustments based on certain circumstances (e.g., inspiration, needs, practical limitations, etc.). 

That's a good example - Bishops may increase youth interview frequency.

Quote

I believe you are mistaken - both about what President Nelson said and what bishops did (see above).

I'm not.  You were.  As I demonstrated above.

Quote

I'm wasn't saying that bishops never deviate from the handbook - that is obviously not the case.

I'm glad we agree on this.

Quote

What I was saying was that, just because deviations are sometimes permitted, does not mean that any deviation a bishop may wish to enact is automatically justified. 

Also agreed.

Quote

And I think most worthiness interviews are pretty much the same. If bishops were frequently asking inappropriate questions in interviews, we would be hearing about it much more often than we do. 

I don't agree with this.  The bishop is in a position of authority and we teach our kids about his inspiration, his keys, and that he's a judge in Israel.  I think, if a youth is asked an inappropriate question, I think they'd be more likely to assume that the bishop should be asking the question.

Quote

You're the one with some measure of connection to the fellow, so why don't you tell us? Do you know if he ever has?

I don't have a connection to the bishop.  My connection is to my nephew.

Quote

The overwhelming majority of the 'bad bishop question' stories I have ever heard come from college age adults. And they tend to be Utah-centric as well.

So you have heard of 'bad bishop question" stories.  Okay.  The one I cited did not happen in Utah (although I don't know that where it happens really matters).

Edited November 16, 2019 by rockpond

[Amulek]

58 minutes ago, rockpond said:

There is absolutely nothing in that section about requesting exceptions for children still living with a parent in a same-gender relationship to be baptized.  Your statement here is absolutely false.  You should really read the section.

I have read it. And I've also read the First Presidency letter which accompanied it which, with respect to that section, specifically states that "[o]ur concern with respect to children is their current and future well-being and the harmony of their home environment. [...] As always, local leaders may request further guidance in particular instances when they have questions."

So, you have got a letter from the First Presidency saying that the purpose of the baptism policy is to preserve harmony in the home, and you have got a policy which provides exceptions for children of gay parents to be baptized (provided they aren't living with their gay parent(s)), but you've got a situation where a child is living with gay parents and wants to be baptized; and the gay parents are supportive of it and tell you that it won't impact the harmony in their home. 

In other words, you've got a situation where the content of the handbook doesn't perfectly encapsulate every circumstance which would actually fall within the expressed intent behind the policy contained in the handbook. 

So what do you do? Oh yeah, you follow the direction from the First Presidency and "request further guidance in particular instances when [you] have questions." 

Which was done. Exceptions were granted. And now the handbook is going to be updated to better reflect that original intent. 

So I disagree with your characterization of this being a case where the "handbook was ignored."

A new policy was in-artfully written in a way which didn't completely reflect the original intent behind the policy, so bishops asked questions and sought additional guidance from their priesthood leaders (as instructed) when individual circumstances came up.

 

58 minutes ago, rockpond said:

I don't agree with this.  The bishop is in a position of authority and we teach our kids about his inspiration, his keys, and that he's a judge in Israel.  I think, if a youth is asked an inappropriate question, I think they'd be more likely to assume that the bishop should be asking the question.

Agree to disagree. Kids can't keep their mouths shut for nothing. If it were happening, we would be hearing about it.

This will by my last post on this subject. Feel free to have the last word, and enjoy the rest of your weekend. 

 

[Meadowchik]

30 minutes ago, Amulek said:

Agree to disagree. Kids can't keep their mouths shut for nothing. If it were happening, we would be hearing about it.

This will by my last post on this subject. Feel free to have the last word, and enjoy the rest of your weekend. 

That's highly generalistic about kids. Some are raised in environments which impacts the likelihood that they talk about everything that happens to them. I was the fifth of eight with parents who were deeply depressed for several years of my childhood. There were experiences I had--the way other adults treated me--which were illegal and at best negligent--but at the time it did not even occur to me to tell them, and they were usually too overwhelmed to ask about how events went. If they had known at the time, my parents would have been mortified. 

Edited November 16, 2019 by Meadowchik

[Tacenda]

10 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

That's highly generalistic about kids. Some are raised in environments which impacts the likelihood that they talk about everything that happens to them. I was the fifth of eight with parents who were deeply depressed for several years of my childhood. There were experiences I had--the way other adults treated me--which were illegal and at best negligent--but at the time it did not even occur to me to tell them, and they were usually too overwhelmed to ask about how events went. If they had known at the time, my parents would have been mortified. 

So true, I didn't tell my parents about an old man abusing girls, and exposing himself, nobody told. Luckily I ran out of his apartment for home. He was where school kids would go for treats that he handed out, he was a member but I think was not all there. In his younger years he was quite prominent and lived in the biggest home in town. And word got around between the girls walking home from school, that he gave out a bunch of candy. I was in 5th grade, but things like that weren't really talked about back then nor the warnings about it given.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, rockpond said:

There is absolutely nothing in that section about requesting exceptions for children still living with a parent in a same-gender relationship to be baptized

My understanding is it is the same with the allowing of second sealings for living women. Exceptions are known to have been made,  but no mention of this exception to the policy is in the handbook. 

[Calm]

9 hours ago, Amulek said:

Kids can't keep their mouths shut for nothing

And yet it is estimated that for every abuse reported , 2 are not reported. 

My son I know little of his childhood away from home because he would say "nothing", literally, when I asked him about his day. Good kid so I didn’t pushed. He was quiet about his feelings and experiences from toddler age.

My daughter told us everything it seemed.  And yet I didn’t learn that her 4th grade group at school was tormenting another classmate for at least 6 months to the point the girl was transferring schools the next year  I found out from the girl’s mother.  My daughter was so relieved when I asked her about it.  She was very ashamed of saying nothing at school or to me to let it happen, but was afraid of the queen bee who was the only malicious soul in the group and had them terrified of her and following her lead.

If kids couldn’t keep their mouths shut for nothing, abusers would have one or two victims most likely before getting caught. And yet there are some who have hundreds of victims.

Edited November 17, 2019 by Calm

[Tacenda]

I'm not trying to bring the church down, I'm just trying to show that we need two deep interviews. Another former bishop/stake president has been arrested. I know that he served in the past, but this man still wasn't good inside if he were to go onto doing these things.

https://www.idahopress.com/news/local/boise-man-arrested-on-suspicion-of-sexual-exploitation-of-a/article_d52599e8-cd68-52f7-9aa3-50652c0a7ee6.html

Ronald Terry Brockner, 32, owner of consumer finance company, former high councilor, bishop, seminary teacher, and elders quorum president, married Kim Melissa Magee.https://www.thechurchnews.com/archives/1991-05-11/new-stake-presidencies-410-146861

 

[smac97]

44 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm not trying to bring the church down, I'm just trying to show that we need two deep interviews.

The Church's current policy already allows for two-deep interviews.  So I guess I don't understand what it is you are "trying to show."

Quote

Another former bishop/stake president has been arrested.

Texas sharpshooter fallacy.  Are you familiar with it?

Quote

I know that he served in the past, but this man still wasn't good inside if he were to go onto doing these things.

What does this mean?

Also, I have previously posted a voluminous list of female teachers who have been prosecuted for sexual misconduct with minor students.  

Where are the marches and protests characterizing all female teachers of as sexual perverts, as threats to children, as sexually and emotionally abusing children and causing them "pain", as "shaming" youth to death and driving them to suicide?  'Cuz that's what some folks have been doing vis-à-vis bishops.

Quote

https://www.idahopress.com/news/local/boise-man-arrested-on-suspicion-of-sexual-exploitation-of-a/article_d52599e8-cd68-52f7-9aa3-50652c0a7ee6.html

This article indicates he was recently arrested "on suspicion of child pornography."

Quote

Ronald Terry Brockner, 32, owner of consumer finance company, former high councilor, bishop, seminary teacher, and elders quorum president, married Kim Melissa Magee.https://www.thechurchnews.com/archives/1991-05-11/new-stake-presidencies-410-146861

That Mr. Brockner has been arrested for as-yet-to-be-established misconduct at age 60, with no link to his ecclesiastical callings from decades ago, does not constitute meaningful or useful evidence for two-deep interviews.

Also, what are your thoughts about youth who may want to have a one-on-one interview with a bishop?  

Also, what are your thoughts as to the potential ramifications on the priest/penitent privilege (which can be negated by the presence of a third party to the communication)?

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited November 26, 2019 by smac97

[Thinking]

On 11/16/2019 at 10:40 AM, Calm said:

And yet it is estimated that for every abuse reported , 2 are not reported. 

My son I know little of his childhood away from home because he would say "nothing", literally, when I asked him about his day. Good kid so I didn’t pushed. He was quiet about his feelings and experiences from toddler age.

My daughter told us everything it seemed.  And yet I didn’t learn that her 4th grade group at school was tormenting another classmate for at least 6 months to the point the girl was transferring schools the next year  I found out from the girl’s mother.  My daughter was so relieved when I asked her about it.  She was very ashamed of saying nothing at school or to me to let it happen, but was afraid of the queen bee who was the only malicious soul in the group and had them terrified of her and following her lead.

If kids couldn’t keep their mouths shut for nothing, abusers would have one or two victims most likely before getting caught. And yet there are some who have hundreds of victims.

I have learned from my educator training that abusers are skilled at knowing which kids will keep quiet and they groom them. It's a process.

[Tacenda]

1 minute ago, smac97 said:

The Church's current policy already allows for two-deep interviews.  So I guess I don't understand what it is you are "trying to show."

Texas sharpshooter fallacy.  Are you familiar with it?

What does this mean?

Also, I have previously posted a voluminous list of female teachers who have been prosecuted for sexual misconduct with minor students.  

Where are the marches and protests characterizing all female teachers of as sexual perverts, as threats to children, as sexually and emotionally abusing children and causing them "pain", as "shaming" youth to death and driving them to suicide?  'Cuz that's what some folks have been doing vis-à-vis bishops.

This article indicates he was recently arrested "on suspicion of child pornography."

That Mr. Brockner has been arrested for as-yet-to-be-established misconduct at age 60 does not constitute evidence for two-deep interviews.

Also, what are your thoughts about youth who may want to have a one-on-one interview with a bishop?  

Also, what are your thoughts as to the potential ramifications on the priest/penitent privilege (which can be negated by the presence of a third party to the communication)?

Thanks,

-Smac

Going to say this once. Two deep for youth that are very young that are the twice a year interview for TR or ?. And I believe that it's fine for the older youth to choose to repent and seek out a one on one. 

Also, if a child needs to express abuse in the home, there are plenty of avenues they can go through. Sorry, I brought it up now. 

[smac97]

43 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Going to say this once. Two deep for youth that are very young that are the twice a year interview for TR or ?.

What does the question mark mean?

And again, the Church's current policy already allows for two-deep interviews.  So are you calling for mandatory two-deep interviews?  If so, what are your thoughts about a child who may want to have a one-on-one interview with a bishop?

43 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And I believe that it's fine for the older youth to choose to repent and seek out a one on one. 

But not a child?  Why not?

43 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Also, if a child needs to express abuse in the home, there are plenty of avenues they can go through.

Agreed.  Strange, though, that you are calling for one of those avenues to be shut down for all children everywhere in the Church because reasons.

43 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

Sorry, I brought it up now. 

What are your thoughts as to the potential ramifications of your proposal on the priest/penitent privilege (which can be negated by the presence of a third party to the communication)?  

Thanks,

-Smac

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, Thinking said:

I have learned from my educator training that abusers are skilled at knowing which kids will keep quiet and they groom them. It's a process.

 

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Going to say this once. Two deep for youth that are very young that are the twice a year interview for TR or ?. And I believe that it's fine for the older youth to choose to repent and seek out a one on one. 

Younger children can't repent?

 

[Danzo]

2 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Also, if a child needs to express abuse in the home, there are plenty of avenues they can go through. Sorry, I brought it up now. 

It seems pretty cruel for you to dictate that children and youth can't approach a bishop for confidential help.

I know people who would still be suffering today if your rules applied.

 

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Danzo said:

It seems pretty cruel for you to dictate that children and youth can't approach a bishop for confidential help.

I know people who would still be suffering today if your rules applied.

 

What? I didn't say they can't approach the bishop for help, did I?

[Meadowchik]

30 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

What? I didn't say they can't approach the bishop for help, did I?

Good point. Restricting worthiness interview questions and mandating two-deep for minors does not prevent a minor from approaching a bishop (or any other trusted adult) for help at church.

[Danzo]

45 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

What? I didn't say they can't approach the bishop for help, did I?

So you are saying you think a young teenager should be able to meet with a bishop confidentially by themselves?

I am sorry if I misunderstood you.