- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Did anyone see this? [Admin Note}: StayLDS.com, as a site, does NOT support any petitions or organized movements to demand change within the LDS Church. It is fine if people here do so individually, but we don’t do so as a site. Interesting. I wonder if there could not be some sort of compromise – like the door being left open for youth interviews or having the session recorded “for quality assurance” or perhaps have a woman interview the female children. It would not surprise me if some sort of change happened, probably after the pressure dies down to not be too obviously linked. I don’t like the idea of the meeting being recorded. Blackmail of the interviewee comes to mind. They could put a glass window in the door to the BP’s office, though even that has its challenges:
1) People could walk by and see who is in there and their general countenances.
2) It does nothing to help in scenarios where the BP is interviewing people when building is otherwise empty.
What do worthiness interviews of youth accomplish? Could they be dropped altogether?
I am not so gung ho on stopping all of these. BUT
I do want there to be MUCH more explicit guidelines and have those guidelines communicated to parents and the youth. So they know when a bishop is stepping over the line and they can either push back in the interview or report it to their parents.
To give an example, I know all the bishops in my stake a few years ago were asking YM, “When was the last time you looked at porn” and “when was the last time you masturbated” and even worse.
On top of that I think there needs to be quite a bit more training how to be less “judges in Israel” and more pastoral – as in less a judge and more of someone to assist people with their issues. Also some examples of when they need to transition someone to professional help. And last but not least, not jumping to conclusions. It sickens me how many women say they were “violated” and when they go in to the bishop and hope to get help, they are accused of causing the issue, “what were you wearing” a whole “YOU were responsible for what happened.” I could go on, but training bishops better is a big deal for me. The vast majority are good people, but I have seen too many that take what they “feel” and assume that is the Lord confirming and they are just way off and cause damage.
LookingHard wrote:
It sickens me how many women say they were “violated” and when they go in to the bishop and hope to get help, they are accused of causing the issue, “what were you wearing” a whole “YOU were responsible for what happened.” I could go on, but training bishops better is a big deal for me
This gets back to the BYU sexual assault issue. Suppose a YW went to her bishop to talk about being date raped. They were out late and drank alcohol (possibly a Rohypnol unawares) and can only partly remember the actual sexual encounter. I imagine that the bishop would likely jump on the being out late and drinking alcohol. Some may even believe that the memory loss is just an excuse to avoid taking responsibility.
I honestly cannot think of any sort of sexual assault issue where the bishop would be the correct person to turn to.
I am divided about this. One one hand, I know that it floored me when my daughter went to our Bishop for advice, and it conflicted with my own. And she took our bishop’s advice. It wasn’t a big conflict, but it surprised me. Maybe that was simply the indpendence of coming of age of my daughter. But that is a minor side.
The thing for me is that kids will tell other adults things they won’t tell their parents. Having parents there will kill that line of communication. So, having a caring Bishop to share issues with alone, when they know their parents will be really mad at them if they knew, might provide an avenue for good advice that helps the youth. But then, there are the problems with too much invasiveness, and the other more extreme but presumably rare instances of abuse.
In our society, kids see counselors alone a lot, and no one seems to question in. I am favoring letting the Bishops interview youth, but really training them in the do’s and don’ts.
nibbler wrote:
I don’t like the idea of the meeting being recorded. Blackmail of the interviewee comes to mind.
That’s exactly the first thought I had. Our conversations would go VERY different, that’s for sure.
SilentDawning wrote:
The thing for me is that kids will tell other adults things they won’t tell their parents.
And this was the second thought I had.
On the one hand, I don’t think it’s appropriate for a male clergy to inquire a youth female regarding topics of an explicit nature (“Have you previously engaged in masturbation.”, for example). If you were to flip the gender roles, I would feel equally uncomfortable having a female clergy ask a male youth the same question. But a male bishop asking a male youth the same question, I feel is more acceptable.
It’d be a big change, but I’d propose a new layer added under the Bishop; A male and female youth counselor. Or even better, just make one of the Bishop’s counselors a brother, and another a sister, and remove the “priesthood” requirement. Last I checked, the counselors could still conduct youth interviews on the Bishop’s behalf. And I think everyone would be more open to discussing the more “sensitive” matters with someone belonging to their own gender.
Also, give them all professional training, and a small stipend for their time.
dande48 wrote:
It’d be a big change, but I’d propose a new layer added under the Bishop; A male and female youth counselor. Or even better, just make one of the Bishop’s counselors a brother, and another a sister, and remove the “priesthood” requirement. Last I checked, the counselors could still conduct youth interviews on the Bishop’s behalf. And I think everyone would be more open to discussing the more “sensitive” matters with someone belonging to their own gender.Also, give them all professional training, and a small stipend for their time.
I like it. A good step.
And BTW, I think the handbook says, “Bishops once a year” (I have always seen this be at the youth’s birthday), and one of the counselors once a year (usually around the birthday + 6 months). The times I was a counselor we were told by the bishops I served under to stick to the questions and if anything came up, stop and direct them to the bishop. He also asked us to let him know if we were just getting odd vibes from the youth (no eye contact, odd body language).
I too am mixed. Even as an adult, I panic when I get a phone call that says, “Bishop so and so would like to talk to you.” I know it’s a calling everytime, but I get nervous. What if, it’s not. And I have had those. I had a presidency member start an ugly gossip about how I didn’t sustain the Priesthood. As a kid – holy crap, talking to a church leader who has a list of questions. That alone is scary. I was nearly a model youth, but I am sure my demeanor in an interview could be construed as guilt. When actually it was just angst and discomfort. As a youth, I didn’t want to go through puberty. I also didn’t ever want to talk about. Not even with peers. Baring my soul or even being asked by some old man about anything related to that made me ill.
I understand we want them to be able to repent or stay on the strait and narrow, etc. But really, there has to be a better way.
I am for having girls speak to women.
I am also a firm believer that repentance doesn’t require a mediator. A guiding hand or listening ear? Maybe.
I think a single youth shouldn’t be alone with an adult of the opposite sex in a church setting. Period.
In my mind I keep coming back to this: nibbler wrote:
What do worthiness interviews of youth accomplish? Could they be dropped altogether?
Or, what do worthiness interviews in general accomplish? Adults and youth alike.
I didn’t grow up with this being a part of my culture or childhood. I defaulted to assuming I was a good with god and I think introducing a pass/fail interview with an ecclesiastical leader would have planted the question “Am I worthy?” or “Does god love me?” where no such question would have existed before.
I get wanting to help guide youth as they grow. What I don’t get is why this needs to take the form of involuntary interviews with leaders. And what I mean by involuntary is that they’re not of the “come to us if you need help” variety, they’re more of an obligation, where not fulfilling the obligation reduces your involvement with the community. Time to see the bishop, time for judgment. Most of the time it feels like there’s more potential to be punished than any benefit you’d get in the form of receiving help and guidance.
So what does the interview accomplish? To ensure that children have “correct” beliefs and acceptable behavior?
Other churches don’t do this and a little birdie told me that good, bad, and in between kids come out of those traditions just like they come out of ours.
nibbler wrote:
Or, what do worthiness interviews in general accomplish? Adults and youth alike.
I have briefly considered that too. I believe the obvious answer is the temple. Who should be allowed to attend? Who should not be permitted to attend? Remove temple worship and bishop’s interviews seem to lose purpose.
nibbler wrote:
Or, what do worthiness interviews in general accomplish? Adults and youth alike.
Simple – boundary maintenance and a feeling of accountability to priesthood leaders.nibbler wrote:
So what does the interview accomplish? To ensure that children have “correct” beliefs and acceptable behavior?
To quote someone someone slightly out of context,
Oscar Wilde wrote:“It is the confession, not the priest, that gives us absolution.”
I think that’s true. When we do something wrong, we too often feel ashamed (on some level) and cover it up. And it can fester. Not only that, but it can lead to a cycle of secret addiction (such as in the case of porn). Telling someone you can trust, to help you “work your way through it”, and “nip it in the bud”, resolve it before it gets out of hand, is so much more healthy than keeping it all a secret. It’s important to figure out, “What do I do now?”, and “Where do I go from here?”, instead of sweeping it under the rug.
But to tell someone, who feels bad enough, and has had the courage to go through an LDS Bishop’s confession, “You are not worthy”, is a huge step in the wrong direction. We should be focused on repetance, recovery, and affirmative action, rather than sticking people in boxes of “worthy” and “unworthy”.
I added an Admin Note to the original post, just to make sure everyone who reads the initial post understands that StayLDS.com, as a site, does NOT support any petitions or organized movements to demand change within the LDS Church. It is fine if people here do so individually, but we don’t do so as a site. Quote:It’d be a big change, but I’d propose a new layer added under the Bishop; A male and female youth counselor. Or even better, just make one of the Bishop’s counselors a brother, and another a sister, and remove the “priesthood” requirement. Last I checked, the counselors could still conduct youth interviews on the Bishop’s behalf. And I think everyone would be more open to discussing the more “sensitive” matters with someone belonging to their own gender.
Also, give them all professional training, and a small stipend for their time.
I have long felt the bishop’s job is too expansive for a volunteer. I would like to see the Bishop be more of an adminstrator — to see callings filled, the ward running, oversee finances. I would like to see a separate Stake welfare specialist organization reporting to someone in the Stake overall. Relieve the bishop of the burden of that, although there is strong communication from the Stake Specialist when there is a need the Ward can fill (like getting donations for furniture, for example). Also, you find the welfare needs tend to be the largest in wards where it’s a much bigger sacrifice for the members to clear off those deficits due to low income (in certain cases). Looking at it as a big stake budget, would help. I have no problem with “equalization” of wealth provided all people doing the giving donate voluntarily as a free will offering. It’s when it’s mandated that it bothers me…
And I would like to see personal and family counseling occur through a separate person. Someone trained marriage and personal counseling, who can also impart a spiritual angle. LDS social services, every time I called them, they were too booked up to see me when I was on the verge of depression due to church stuff years ago. The church doesn’t invest enough in that area….
I still think the Bishop could do the worthiness interviews. I do think it’s unwise to have parents there. I think it’s wise to have limits on what the Bishop can ask, to hold meetings when others are present outside the office (like a parent).
The handbook says the Bishop cannot delegate personal counseling, last time I read it…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.