Counselor youth interviews & LOC


mdfxdb
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, mordorbund said:

Your concerns sound pretty specific. If I had such questions, I would call the executive secretary and schedule some time with my bishop to discuss these concerns.

 

Just to be clearer, assume I'm a bishop and I come on this forum and say

Quote

No, I don't cross any boundaries. I find some of the recommend question icky and avoid asking them altogether. When I meet with the youth I say, "I'm supposed to meet with you once a year so, mission accomplished." And then I dismiss them.

I don't think that will alleviate your concern because I won't be interviewing anyone you know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Your concerns sound pretty specific. If I had such questions, I would call the executive secretary and schedule some time with my bishop to discuss these concerns.

 

I have spoken with the bishop about this.  He is of the opinion that he should be specific with the youth, and ask about pornography, and masturbation.  In order to make sure they are not rationalizing/hiding sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, mdfxdb said:

I have spoken with the bishop about this.  He is of the opinion that he should be specific with the youth, and ask about pornography, and masturbation.  In order to make sure they are not rationalizing/hiding sin.

If the bishop has already told you this, I don't understand what you are asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
30 minutes ago, mdfxdb said:

I have spoken with the bishop about this.  He is of the opinion that he should be specific with the youth, and ask about pornography, and masturbation.  In order to make sure they are not rationalizing/hiding sin.

That seems reasonable to me. If you are uncomfortable with it then perhaps sitting down with your Bishop and talking would be helpful. I'm not suggesting he will change his mind,  but perhaps he can help you understand his reasoning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the consensus is that that line of questioning to youth is OK?  Behind a closed door?  Alone?  It seems to me that as a potential/actual authority figure over young people, this might be putting too much pressure on the youth to either lie, or completely avoid the interview process.  Would we want our daughters to be questioned about pornography/masturbation at age 12?  how about at age 15?  When is a good time for another adult who is not their parent or guardian to address those issues?  It may be entirely possible that the first time your 12 year old hears about masturbation would be during that interview...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, mdfxdb said:

So, the consensus is that that line of questioning to youth is OK?  Behind a closed door?  Alone?  It seems to me that as a potential/actual authority figure over young people, this might be putting too much pressure on the youth to either lie, or completely avoid the interview process.  Would we want our daughters to be questioned about pornography/masturbation at age 12?  how about at age 15?  When is a good time for another adult who is not their parent or guardian to address those issues?  It may be entirely possible that the first time your 12 year old hears about masturbation would be during that interview...

If you want to sit it, you always can.  

Porngraphy and mastrubation are realities at that age thous (even 12).  Even if the person involved themselves, they'll hear about it at school, know people involved, be exposed, etc.  It is reality, and we can't infant-ize them be ignoring it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, mdfxdb said:

So, the consensus is that that line of questioning to youth is OK?  Behind a closed door?  Alone?  It seems to me that as a potential/actual authority figure over young people, this might be putting too much pressure on the youth to either lie, or completely avoid the interview process.  Would we want our daughters to be questioned about pornography/masturbation at age 12?  how about at age 15?  When is a good time for another adult who is not their parent or guardian to address those issues?  It may be entirely possible that the first time your 12 year old hears about masturbation would be during that interview...

I think the consensus is that it's not sufficiently "wrong" for us to get all up in arms about things.

And, I think Mr. Shorty's observation was very astute.  Unless you object to sex ed for middle schoolers, then your problem isn't that these kids are discussing sex generally; or even that they're discussing sex with adults.  Your problem is that they're discussing sex in a manner that demands accountability, to a third party whom you personally view as especially untrustworthy.  

That, of course, is your call; and I suppose the situation might vary from ward to ward.  But as for me--my current LDS bishop is a school principal by profession.  I trust both his sexual ethics and his ability to relate to children in an age-appropriate way.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Jane_Doe - Is mdfxdb really advocating or indicating that he "has his head in the sand" on the issue, or is it simply that he, as the parent, wants to be one controlling if, when, where, how these issues are addressed? For all we know, he has already had a good discussion about these issues, and simply does not want the bishop to have the same discussion. One of the favorite anecdotes bandied about on the internet is the "what if the first they learn of masturbation was in a bishop's interview" scenario. I don't really know how common it is, but it does happen.

@JaG - Another aspect I brought up, in addition to the question of trust is the question of stewardship. Where does my stewardship as a parent begin and end, and where does the bishop's stewardship begin and end. I am reminded of this discussion from some time ago:

In that discussion, one of the key elements was that this YW's mother did not view masturbation as a sin. We are never told whether her Bishop viewed it as sin, but clearly there is a good possibility that there would be a conflict between what this YW was taught be her mother and what her Bishop would say in an interview. The Church is currently under some criticism for choosing to protect the children of homosexual parents from these kinds of conflicts by limiting their membership in the Church, but there are clearly other areas like this where a Bishop's counsel could significantly deviate from a parent's counsel. What are the lines of stewardship here and what do they mean when we "have not come to a unity of faith" on an issue like this?

@mdfxdb -- If you are looking for someone to disagree with the consensus, I think I will agree with you (mostly) instead of the consensus here. I would hope that a Bishop would respect your stewardship as the parent and not have these specific discussions with your children when you have clearly asked him not to. But, I'm only one yahoo on the internet with no real credentials, so take it for what little it is worth.

I have also heard anecdotes of parents who asked for these discussions to not take place, and it later comes up that it was a way to help cover up the parents' abuses, too. What shall we do with that possibility. Good luck with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, LiterateParakeet said:

That seems reasonable to me. If you are uncomfortable with it then perhaps sitting down with your Bishop and talking would be helpful. I'm not suggesting he will change his mind,  but perhaps he can help you understand his reasoning.

This does not seem reasonable at all. Is it the bishop or his counselor's job to ferret out sin? By age 12 you should have had in depth sex talks with your kids and if you have not shame on you.

For myself the idea of a 50ish year old male in a room with the door closed with my 12yo daughter asking her about the LOC and other sexual sins surpasses the scope of the calling. The imbalance of authority and power is unacceptable and inappropriate in that setting.

 

Edited by omegaseamaster75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
7 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

This does not seem reasonable at all. Is it the bishop or his counselor's job to ferret out sin? By age 12 you should have had in depth sex talks with your kids and if you have not shame on you.

For myself the idea of a 50ish year old male in a room with the door closed with my 12yo daughter asking her about the LOC and other sexual l sins surpasses the scope of the calling. The imbalance of authority and power in unacceptable and inappropriate in that setting.

 

If it bothers you so much then don't allow your daughter to have interviews with the Bishop. You are the parents, you make that call.

You seem to be mostly concerned about girls, but I  don't think girls are the ones asked about pornography . . . I have no problem with our Bishop asking my boys about pornography....precisely because I have talked to them about it. They shouldn't feel awkward if the Bishop says, "Are you viewing pornography?" Unless they are. And if they are that needs to be talked about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
2 hours ago, mdfxdb said:

So, the consensus is that that line of questioning to youth is OK?  Behind a closed door?  Alone?  It seems to me that as a potential/actual authority figure over young people, this might be putting too much pressure on the youth to either lie, or completely avoid the interview process.  Would we want our daughters to be questioned about pornography/masturbation at age 12?  how about at age 15?  When is a good time for another adult who is not their parent or guardian to address those issues?  It may be entirely possible that the first time your 12 year old hears about masturbation would be during that interview...

You make it sound like the interview "Behind a closed door? Alone?" is perverted somehow. This strikes me as a little ironic...I know several women who were molested/raped by fathers, stepfathers, grandfathers....but I don't know anyone who was molested/raped by her Bishop or Branch Pres.  For some of us, a Bishop is FAR safer than a parent.  

As Omegaseamaster said, if the parents haven't talked to their children about these issues with their kids before they are twelve, shame on the parents.  Kids will, as Jane said, hear about these things from other sources.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

In that discussion, one of the key elements was that this YW's mother did not view masturbation as a sin. We are never told whether her Bishop viewed it as sin, but clearly there is a good possibility that there would be a conflict between what this YW was taught be her mother and what her Bishop would say in an interview. The Church is currently under some criticism for choosing to protect the children of homosexual parents from these kinds of conflicts by limiting their membership in the Church, but there are clearly other areas like this where a Bishop's counsel could significantly deviate from a parent's counsel. What are the lines of stewardship here and what do they mean when we "have not come to a unity of faith" on an issue like this?

There's not as much ambiguity here as some would like to suggest.  While there does seem to be some latitude as to just how serious a sin masturbation is; the Church is unequivocal that it is, in fact, a sin.  If you disagree with that, then by all means--you shouldn't have your kid meet with a bishop who's going to teach the kid the Mormon perspective on sin; and you may want to re-evaluate whether you really want your kid being raised as a Mormon at all.

47 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

This does not seem reasonable at all. Is it the bishop or his counselor's job to ferret out sin?

Umm . . . yes?

Quote

By age 12 you should have had in depth sex talks with your kids and if you have not shame on you.

For myself the idea of a 50ish year old male in a room with the door closed with my 12yo daughter asking her about the LOC and other sexual sins surpasses the scope of the calling. The imbalance of authority and power is unacceptable and inappropriate in that setting.

Then again, there is an "imbalance of authority and power" when a forty-something father discusses similar issues with his daughter (or a mother with her son).  And of course schoolteachers, medical professionals, peer groups, and mass media who broach the topic of human sexuality create other "power imbalances" to which you haven't objected in this thread.  So all this makes me wonder whether your concern is that there's a power imbalance per se; or if it's really that you think the person/institution wielding the power in this particular case is particularly untrustworthy; or whether you simply object because this particular power imbalance tends to promote a view on human sexuality that you deem regressive.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

This does not seem reasonable at all. Is it the bishop or his counselor's job to ferret out sin? By age 12 you should have had in depth sex talks with your kids and if you have not shame on you.

For myself the idea of a 50ish year old male in a room with the door closed with my 12yo daughter asking her about the LOC and other sexual sins surpasses the scope of the calling. The imbalance of authority and power is unacceptable and inappropriate in that setting.

Then clearly, God has no business talking to anyone. Imbalance of power and authority, you know. For that matter, by your "logic" parents ought never to talk to their own children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does the opinion of random strangers on a discussion forum trump the mantle and calling of a bishop? If you think he's out of line or acting with ominous intent, we are not the people to come to. Tat's what the stake president is there for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

an "imbalance of authority and power" when a forty-something father discusses similar issues with his daughter (or a mother with her son).  And of course schoolteachers, medical professionals, peer groups, and mass media who broach the topic of human sexuality create other "power imbalances" to which you haven't objected in this thread.  So all this makes me wonder whether your concern is that there's a power imbalance per se; or if it's really that you think the person/institution wielding the power in this particular case is particularly untrustworthy; or whether you simply object because this particular power imbalance tends to promote a view on human sexuality that you deem regressive.

The context is different when you discuss school teachers and medical professionals. They certainly would not be behind closed doors with a minor alone, also they are trained professionals. You cannot do anything about peer groups or the media so that does not even warrant comment.

21 minutes ago, Eowyn said:

Does the opinion of random strangers on a discussion forum trump the mantle and calling of a bishop? If you think he's out of line or acting with ominous intent, we are not the people to come to. Tat's what the stake president is there for.

I do not think that anyone has alluded to a church leader stepping beyond the limits of his mantel or duty as the leader of the ward. I do not read that into the comments in this thread. 

I think that mdfxdb want clarification as to what and what is not acceptable to ask a minor behind closed doors without their parent present. I have expressed my opinion about it and when my daughter is of the appropriate age I will address those issues with her.

Lastly the BSA would never tolerate anything less than 2up leadership when speaking to a minor behind closed doors. There is a reason for these rules and I think that they are good ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
10 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Lastly the BSA would never tolerate anything less than 2up leadership when speaking to a minor behind closed doors. There is a reason for these rules and I think that they are good ones.

BSA has a long, dark history of sexual abuse.  They need a 2 deep leadership policy.  Maybe Catholics need a 2 deep leadership policy for the same reason.  But I've not heard any stories about Mormon Bishops/Branch Presidents or Stake Presidents involved in sexual abuse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

BSA has a long, dark history of sexual abuse.  They need a 2 deep leadership policy.  Maybe Catholics need a 2 deep leadership policy for the same reason.  But I've not heard any stories about Mormon Bishops/Branch Presidents or Stake Presidents involved in sexual abuse. 

Your not hearing about it does not meant that it has not happened, I also have no experience with abuse by church leaders. I am sure a google search will turn up a host of terrible stories, but how do you ferret out the truth from those that have an axe to grind?

Also why not play it safe?

Edited by omegaseamaster75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And how would people feel about 2 adults "intimidating" and "interrogating" a teenager? I don't think you can ever make everyone happy.

 

We're not talking about merit badges here, though. We're talking about a bishop making sure that youth aren't entering the temple unworthily. The priesthood and proper line of authority. Judges in Israel. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's take the other angle here:

What are the advantages for a youth NOT having a parent around when talking about sexual sin?  I know for many youth (myself included), the LAST person on the planet I wanted to know about my mistakes was my mother.  Talking to a bishop, who's removed from the situation and there specifically to work with these issues was FAR more approachable that my mother.

 

What are the advantages of talking to only one adult?  Privacy, not feeling like "everyone knows", or ganged up upon.  Such mattered a lot to me during my teenage years (still does).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

In general I agree with your assessment about HB1, with the exception of D, specifically the "endless hours of training via PPI's, bishopric training, presidency meetings, etc."

As an individual who happens to be in possession of HB1 I can state that this training does not happen. Not in the sense that I believe that you are discussing. In fairness most leaders do not pay to much attention to the vague/grey areas they make assumptions and do not ask for clarification therefore no training is provided because none is asked for.

I suppose we both can only speak about our individual situations.

If you have not been through, currently not doing or asking for training/clarification in HB1, that is too bad for your area and I would consider it a disservice to all involved. This is not the case in our area. Most training in our area is a result of leaders proactively asking questions and searching for clarification. In addition, a very common answer in our meetings was, "What does it say in the HB?" We then read and discussed situations and scenarios in-depth. All of our meetings usually started out with HB training also. 

Why isn't this happening in your area?  I don't know, but it doesn't/shouldn't have to be that way.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

For myself the idea of a 50ish year old male in a room with the door closed with my 12yo daughter asking her about the LOC and other sexual sins surpasses the scope of the calling. 

What does 50ish have to do with anything? How about a 30ish year old Bishop, does that change anything?

What do you personally do when it is time to interview 12yr old Young Women? Do you do your interviews with 2 deep leadership? Do you leave the door open? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the HB leaves it vague because this is an area that cannot be specified in a rulebook.  Whether the bishop approaches it correctly and seeks the Spirit for the level of appropriateness with each youth is on his soul.

As decent parents, we all want to be protective of our children so it's natural to have such a protective nature.  But in the raising of the youth in the faith, we understand there is a structure that is put in place for a reason.  While we don't follow it blindly, we must at least have some faith in the system to refrain from automatically thinking the worst in every situation.  Find a balance point.  

Are there any rules to go by?  Yes, seek out the Spirit for each individual.  You can't really do anything more specific than that.  If it is vague in the HB, it is because the many discussions that go on to generate it could not come to any firm, clear, direct instruction to use all the time.  It is a matter of balancing on a razor's edge.  And the razor is in a different location for each bishop and each youth.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a great little 4 minute video by the Church: Pornography Addiction: Is There Hope? - His Grace

Presented by a Young Woman who started watching pornography at age 11. 

Mormon Channel has a series of great videos on talking to your children about sex, etc. One thing that has stuck out to me over the years is... if we are not willing to, shy about, embarrassed, postponing talking to them about sex, be assured the "world" has no such reservations, and will swoop in and teach them for us instead. If you wait too long now days, you will find out that the world has already been teaching them for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest LiterateParakeet
3 hours ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Your not hearing about it does not meant that it has not happened, I also have no experience with abuse by church leaders. I am sure a google search will turn up a host of terrible stories, but how do you ferret out the truth from those that have an axe to grind?

Also why not play it safe?

As a survivor of childhood abuse/rape, I border on over-protective of my children.  That said I have never felt uncomfortable with one of my kids being alone with the Bishop.  I would throw a fit if they were alone with a Scout leader.  The difference is, I believe that Bishops are called of God.  That doesn't mean they are perfect by any means, but because I have felt by the Spirit that they do represent the Savior when acting in their official capacity, I feel comfortable with them interviewing my children.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share