- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I won’t go into details, but I’ve had reasons lately to think about my daughter’s pre-mission interview with our stake president. He wanted details about any chastity or other issues, regardless of whether they’d been resolved with a bishop.For a young person perseverating on the guilt, insisting that he/she trust someone outside of themselves could be the route through the situation. On the other hand, shouldn’t we empower kids to tell
anyonewho inappropriately asks about settled matters that we won’t be discussing them? Do you say you’re not discussing them, or do you say there’s nothing to discuss? Telegraphing to kids in whatever ways we do that, “You’re an open book to your bishop and stake president. There is nothing private, nothing past if they say it’s not” is really unhealthy. (I’m also remembering how intrusive interviewing was my brother’s first stop on the way out of the church.) I’m less and less willing to view church authorities as the gatekeepers between me and the Atonement, forgiveness, absolution, etc. And I say that with a lot of love for most of my bishops, and respect for all of them.
There are several people in my sphere right now dealing with some version of this issue, and I’d appreciate your thoughts.
Ann wrote:He wanted details about any chastity or other issues,
regardless of whether they’d been resolved with a bishop.Nope.
Doctrine and Covenants 58:42 wrote:Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.
If the lord is down with forgetting about it, there’s no need for a church leader to try to dredge it up out of the past.
Ann wrote:Do you say you’re not discussing them, or do you say there’s nothing to discuss?
If you say “I’m not discussing that” it might feed into people’s curiosity and make them push that much harder. I say there’s nothing to discuss because according to the lord and the atonement there truly is nothing to discuss… and that’s my orthodox answer.
Now my unorthodox answer.
Ann wrote:I’m less and less willing to view church authorities as the gatekeepers between me and the Atonement, forgiveness, absolution, etc. And I say that with a lot of love for most of my bishops, and respect for all of them.
I once viewed church authorities as gatekeepers, judges in the house of Israel. Over the years I’ve witnessed some leaders that led with love, it changed my whole perspective. They didn’t use punishments to purge out sin, they used love to crowd it out. They were truly amazing and the church would burst at the seams with more people like that in positions of authority.
Now I view church authorities as a resource. If I need a shoulder to lean on to help me overcome a challenge I reach out to them, otherwise it’s between me and the lord. I don’t need someone to validate (or invalidate) what the lord has already told me. It was a confidence that was hard won. I don’t think people can start their journey at that stage.
I think divulging resolved issues is inappropriate, maybe even counterproductive to the individual but in trying to come up with a motive for asking:
The handbook of instruction talks about certain transgressions that make a person ineligible to serve a mission. There are also certain sins where there is a recommendation to have a minimum of a one year period since the most recent transgression. I’m sure that line of questioning is aimed at squaring with those policies. E.g. a sin that occurred 10 months ago, was resolved with a bishop, but there’s a one year minimum sin-free period prescribed for full time missionary service. Either that or a sin that excludes one from service that was resolved with a bishop that wasn’t taking potential missionary service into account when resolving a particular issue.
I would train my kinds to know what the leaders are allowed, and not allowed to do. So, if a SP wanted the details of a sexual transgression that had already been cleared with a priesthood leader, I would have coached my child to say “my understanding is that i don’t need to go into the details of something that has already been cleared with a previous priesthood leader, as in this case”. If the SP pushes, the child would respond…”then I will have to take this up with my parents and see what they think. But I have nothing at this time to share that hasn’t already been cleared with a priesthood leader.”
And if that means not passing the interview, then so be it.
I don’t have kids but I agree with the above. Teach them that once they have already shared it with their bishop that they don’t need to reiterate with the SP. Also agree with the what was quoted from D&C 58:42. I’ve heard of people using that in regards to people wanting a sealing cancellation and being asked for a list of all their previous sins which seems ridiculous to me.
In my younger days, after I came back to the church in my early/mid twenties I had a great bishop who I completely loved and respected. I asked about going on a mission, I explained to him my past and he said he’d ask the SP without revealing who I was and see what the answer was. This was after the raising of the bar and he came back and told me I was excused. A year or so later when I was getting interviewed to get endowed the SP asked why I hadn’t served a mission. Told him I’d already spoken with the bishop, who then relayed info to him, and that I was excused from serving one. He was one of those, every male
mustserve a mission type people. He said, “well I’ll see about that” and I had to recount my past with him also. I think he took it to someone higher to see what they’d say. Of course I never heard from him again. He also hated my long hair and told me if I was going to be endowed then I needed to look like a mormon. This wasn’t the actual temple recommend interview but a different one. I honestly thought when I went back in the for TRI that he was going to turn me down because I hadn’t cut my hair.
Looking back I wish I’d known I didn’t need to recount my past to him. That somebody had told me I didn’t need to. I probably just should have stood up for myself but maybe if I’d had somebody tell me beforehand if I would have felt more able to do so. At that point in my life I did see church leaders as infallible men who were called of God. Those and other interactions with that SP made me realize that even if called of God they are still just men. Nothing more. They will still push their own personal opinions and agendas. They aren’t necessarily caring or loving or Christ-like. Just men.
Nibbler could be right though. Maybe all SP’s ask for those prepping for a mission. I don’t know enough to say one way or another.
Like I mentioned in another post just yesterday, this is about setting boundaries. I too feel like there are many things I will not go into when talking with my bishop. I have brought up some issues and they never helped one bit on the big issues (not sins) in my life. That is part of what made me start questioning a bit. nibbler wrote:I say there’s nothing to discuss because according to the lord and the atonement there truly is nothing to discuss… and that’s my orthodox answer.
This is my answer, but in a very straightforward “no.”
When my sons were preparing to go on missions I tried to find a list of questions to help them prepare for the interview. There is no such list. There is a statement in handbook 1 that says something like “conduct a thorough interview.” From the leadership roulette standpoint that gives a lot of license to those who take it. One son had started the interview process at BYU and was asked far more probing questions than he was asked back home. Essentially our own bishop and SP asked the TR questions.
I think the whole idea of local leaders being gatekeepers actually comes from Catholic and Protestant roots. Not that all other Christians believe the idea either, but some do (like confession in Catholicism). I don’t think that is our doctrine, and I don’t think it’s taught by the GAs. I believe our salvation is our own to work out and is totally between us and God.
In my mind, that question isn’t asking about anything other than child molestions and rape. It sounds like a leaders’ attempt to find out if the person has a history of being a perpetrator. Too often, there is history that needs to be discussed and it isn’t. How can a leader ask about those issues without diligent members thinking that the leader cares about inconsequential things?
In my mind, the issue goes deep and beyond the initial interviews. After the interviews, will my kids feel confident and at peace in the mission field or in the temple?
I worry about having internal peace for anyone other than those who have never made any big mistakes.
And it comes because of these interviews and what is said to the kids who are usually pretty hard on themselves already, and immature to handle what they are learning in life.
Where are the teachings of the atonement? Are they properly emphasized?
I want my kids humble, but ok with themselves if they are trying.
The shortest answer is best. “No”. If there was an issue it’s over. Done. Let it go.
If there wasn’t then No means No.
Right now my Momma Bear is up in arms about how men interact sexually with women i.e., rape, chastity interviews, etc. She knows her own right and wrong. She answers to herself and God.
One tip, keep her face neutral. We as a people are body language prone, if she raises an eye brow he may take that as a hidden sign.
I know what I’m comfortable with myself. The hitch is how to advise someone else, particularly a girl, who is at a huge gender, height, weight, experience, authority disadvantage in these interviews. The ones who are scrupulously honest and literal will have a very hard timing refusing instructions to open it all up again. If they really are, as AP suggested, looking for very particular offenses, then why not
say soinstead of a fishing expedition that harrows up guilt they are trying to move past? What teaching or event in the life of Christ can we point to as support for this whole procedure?
I hope this doesn’t sound strange. Is there an upside to this interview process? It gives our children the chance to review or practice what they should or should not say to adult authority figures.
If they feel uncomfortable they can say:
Quote:I am not going to answer your question until I talk to my parents.
None of us should feel compelled to answer any direct questions if they make us feel uncomfortable or it seems beyond theauthority of the person asking the question.
My daughter was sexually abused when she was 13 yrs old. At the time, she was in the custody of my exwife.
After this event, she lived with us & we received custody. Our Bishop knew the circumstances. It was not his responsibility
to ask her the details of this trauma or anything outside of the generic worthiness questions. And he didn’t.
Most Bishops are not trained to handle situations like this either.
nibbler wrote:If the lord is down with forgetting about it, there’s no need for a church leader to try to dredge it up out of the past.
Ann wrote:Do you say you’re not discussing them, or do you say there’s nothing to discuss?
If you say “I’m not discussing that” it might feed into people’s curiosity and make them push that much harder. I say there’s nothing to discuss because according to the lord and the atonement there truly is nothing to discuss… and that’s my orthodox answer.
I think this is the best answer I’ve seen.
Good job, nibbler.
:thumbup: This whole “Even if it has been cleared with Priesthood Authority” line of questioning must be new, and I have never had it asked of me in 50 years of interview questions. Also, I never used it as a Bishop, never heard my SP talk about asking that type of question, and can’t think of ANY doctrinal justification for a question like that. The only reason I can come up with is the SP is a voyeur. Sheldon wrote:This whole “Even if it has been cleared with Priesthood Authority” line of questioning must be new, and I have never had it asked of me in 50 years of interview questions. Also, I never used it as a Bishop, never heard my SP talk about asking that type of question, and can’t think of ANY doctrinal justification for a question like that. The only reason I can come up with is the SP is a voyeur.
Knowing this person as I do, I chalk it up to a desire forcontroland a tendency to micro-manage. I’ll cite a few places from the handbook of instruction that I believe to be the inspiration for this line of questioning. Note that this is for determining whether people are worthy to serve a mission, this is not your average TR interview. I wouldn’t expect most people to be exposed to this line of questioning because most don’t serve missions and those that do typically only serve one mission in their youth. Theoretically it should be a very rare occurrence. I can’t remember anything about the interviews I went to in order to qualify for missionary service. Also worth noting, I believe the policies I’m about to quote were a result of “raising the bar” which likely occurred near the October 2007 time frame when Elder Perry gave his talk. Even if I could remember my interview, it was pre 2007 and undoubtedly less stringent.
This is not a complete quoting, only selections. I’ll include a “…” where I skip over places that I don’t find relevant to the point I want to make.
4.5.2 Worthiness wrote:
…Repentance of Serious TransgressionsA person who has been guilty of adultery, fornication, heavy petting, homosexual activity, other sexual perversions, serious violation of civil law, or other serious transgressions must repent before he or she may be recommended for missionary service. A prospective missionary must also overcome any addictions before being considered for missionary service.
Mere confession and refraining from a sin for a period of time do not on their own constitute repentance. There must also be evidence of a broken heart, a contrite spirit, and a lasting change of behavior (see Mosiah 5:2). The bishop and stake president are to confirm that the member is free of transgression for a sufficient time to manifest genuine repentance and to prepare spiritually for the temple and for a sacred mission call. This period could be as long as three years for multiple serious transgressions and should not be less than one year from the most recent serious transgression. …
Extended Pattern of Serious TransgressionsA person who has been promiscuous with several partners or with one partner over an extended period of time in a relationship outside of marriage will not be considered for missionary service. Stake presidents and bishops help these individuals repent and provide them with other meaningful ways to serve the Lord.
If priesthood leaders believe that unusual circumstances or situations warrant an exception, the stake president may submit a recommendation for the First Presidency to consider. He submits the recommendation through the Missionary Department and includes specific details of the situation and a letter from the candidate describing the nature of his or her repentance. Bishops and stake presidents should not recommend exceptions that are unwarranted or that they do not endorse without reservation. …
Homosexual ActivityA candidate who has participated in homosexual activity during or after the last three teenage years will not normally be considered for missionary service, especially if the person has participated in such activities with several partners of with one partner over an extended period of time.
[outlines the appeal process]
…
Belated ConfessionsBishops and stake presidents teach prospective missionaries that to qualify for the needed guidance of the Spirit, they must resolve transgressions before entering the mission field. These leaders explain to missionary candidates that unless there are unusual circumstances, missionaries who are found to have entered the mission field without resolving serious transgressions with the bishop will be release early and returned home.
With those policies I can understand why a BP or SP might ask about sins that have already been resolved with PH leaders. Particularly “A person who has been promiscuous with several partners or with one partner over an extended period of time in a relationship outside of marriage will not be considered for missionary service.” A person could have resolved those sins with a bishop, the issue never involved the SP, a new bishop is called, and now this person wants to serve a mission. It seems like the policy would have a leader ask a question about resolved sins so they could determine whether the candidate passed this particular qualification.
There’s also the part about timing. Say someone repented of a serious transgression that occurred 8 months ago. The policy states that qualification “should not be less than one year from the most recent serious transgression.” A leader that is insistent that the book be followed to the letter may ask about resolved sins to ensure the candidate wait out the entire year, even for previously resolved sin.
I included the last part about belated confessions to reiterate:
Heber13 wrote:In my mind, the issue goes deep and beyond the initial interviews.
After the interviews, will my kids feel confident and at peace in the mission field or in the temple?
I worry about having internal peace for anyone other than those who have never made any big mistakes.
And it comes because of these interviews and what is said to the kids who are usually pretty hard on themselves already, and immature to handle what they are learning in life.
Where are the teachings of the atonement? Are they properly emphasized?
I want my kids humble, but ok with themselves if they are trying.
The mission is tough an carrying the slightest doubt over personal worthiness into a mission can be like putting guilt under a microscope and amplifying it. Maybe the previously resolved question is aimed at ensuring an old habit has died hard to help the missionary be at peace while serving.
I do hope the atonement is heavily cited during these types of discussions with our youth.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.