Counselor youth interviews & LOC

[omegaseamaster75]

12 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

mdfxdb-

Though you have been "reading" HB1 (and pasting parts of it online), you have not been "understanding" HB1. There is a big difference. This lack of understanding and training on it leads some people to confusion & frustration, both of which, I would suggest you are suffering from now. Ever wonder why HB1 is not given out to every member? Well, you are a perfect example of one reason why. After reading it, suddenly someone is now an instant Bishop. Suddenly we get to set limitations on what Bishops shouldn't say in interviews. Suddenly we get to set limits to what the Holy Ghost is allowed to say during interviews too. Suddenly we get to declare Bishops untrained. 

As you are murmuring against your Bishop or Bishops in general, is the spirit stepping in to give you a calm, clear peaceful reassurance that you are on the right track? I would suggest, based on your comments thus far, that this is not the case.

 

In general I agree if you don't have a calling that requires HB1 you probably do not have a sounding board to bounce your ideas or interpretations off of.  HB1 is very vague in many parts. The words "may", "should", "recommended", are often used and are very ambiguous. On purpose I think as they are trying to cover all of the bases for a worldwide church. It should be read carefully, and thoughtfully. Trying to keep in mind what our leaders expect from us.

I do not think that the OP is trying to subvert the authority of the bishop or that there is any murmuring going on. He was pretty frank about asking for clarification about youth interviews.

12 hours ago, NeedleinA said:

 

Could it be that you are wrong on your position? Could it be that you missed the section about discussing pornography in interviews with youth? Could it be that you missed the section related to discussing "For the Strengthen of Youth" during Youth Interviews, in the which masturbation is mentioned?

Masturbation is not mentioned specifically in "for the strength of youth" It is alluded to but the word "masturbation" is not used. Not in the most current publication at least.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Masturbation is not mentioned specifically in "for the strength of youth" It is alluded to but the word "masturbation" is not used. Not in the most current publication at least.

Close enough.

Quote

Do not do anything else that arouses sexual feelings. Do not arouse those emotions in your own body.

Sometimes general wording is used, not to avoid talking about a topic, but to prevent someone from using linguistic legerdemain to justify using loopholes.  It also prevents someone from getting worried about unintentional acts.  A gal once told me that she ended up seeing a doctor because she was afraid of... "bathroom paperwork" breaking the LOC.

This lesson could be applied here when reading HB1.  Remember that one big difference between the Law of the Gospel and the Law of Moses was to eschew Pharisaism (sp?).

Edited March 4, 2016 by Guest

[omegaseamaster75]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Sometimes general wording is used, not to avoid talking about a topic, but to prevent someone from using linguistic legerdemain to justify using loopholes.  It also prevents someone from getting worried about unintentional acts.  A gal once told me that she ended up seeing a doctor because she was afraid of... "bathroom paperwork" breaking the LOC.

 

not to derail, but what are we teaching our youth when this is a legitimate question?

[Guest]

@omegaseamaster75

I think that is a pretty good question.  I've found that this varies from ward-to-ward... Unless you're talking about the paperwork.  On that score, I think (quite honestly) that most people would laugh.  I did when she told me.  She laughed with me because in hindsight it did seem ridiculous.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Guest

[NeedleinA]

1 hour ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

I do not think that the OP is trying to subvert the authority of the bishop or that there is any murmuring going on. He was pretty frank about asking for clarification about youth interviews.

We simply have differences in opinion when it comes to this. I think, the posts originally started as inquiries, and then transitioned to complaining (murmuring). Simply adding a (?) to the end of a complaint, doesn't make it any less of a complaint.  

On 3/2/2016 at 4:10 PM, 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...

Since mdfxdb is not in a position to actually affect policy changes, these type of comments strike me as simply murmuring at this point. 

We can agree to disagree. 

[mdfxdb]

15 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

We simply have differences in opinion when it comes to this. I think, the posts originally started as inquiries, and then transitioned to complaining (murmuring). Simply adding a (?) to the end of a complaint, doesn't make it any less of a complaint.  

Since mdfxdb is not in a position to actually affect policy changes, these type of comments strike me as simply murmuring at this point. 

We can agree to disagree. 

So inquiry is murmuring?  We can agree to disagree.  I reread what you quoted me on.  Yes, you may construe my tone anyway you like, but that does not negate that no one answered my questions.  I will hold off on officially murmuring until my questions are answered.  At which point I may or may not declare unrighteous dominion, and abuse of priesthood authority for those who suppose they have some authority.....

[Vort]

14 minutes ago, mdfxdb said:

So inquiry is murmuring?

Honest inquiry is not murmuring. Your inquiry did not sound very honest to many of us, though.

[Vort]

18 minutes ago, mdfxdb said:

no one answered my questions.

This is simply untrue. Immediately after you asked your initial questions, you received responses:

On 3/2/2016 at 8:32 AM, mdfxdb said:

I was wondering what is the content of these interviews?  How invasive are the questions?  Handbook 1 specifically states that part of the discussion should be about following the law of chastity, and not viewing pornography.  The problem is that the guidelines seem overly vague, and I want to know exactly what types of questions get asked.  At what age do they start quizzing on the law of chastity?  What types of questions are asked?  Does anyone have any insight/been in this position?

On 3/2/2016 at 8:51 AM, Jane_Doe said:

At what age do they start quizzing on the law of chastity?

--- Usually around 12 (starting teenage years)

 

What types of questions are asked?

----In my experience the questioning is (and I quote) "Do you keep the Law of Chasity?" "Yes" or "No".  If there needs be more conversation on the matter, then there's more conversation.  If there's not more need, then there's not. 

 

How invasive are the questions?

--- Not.  Even if there is an issue, you usually don't need to rehash what exactly happened to address the problem.

 

 Does anyone have any insight/been in this position?

--- Have I been interviewed many times (grow up in the church).  I never had any issues or embarrassment.  I think the most detailed discussion was once my interviewer wanted to chat about what the Law of Chasity means, so we had a mini-Sunday School lesson talking about the subject, not invasive at all.

 

On 3/2/2016 at 9:10 AM, Eowyn said:

My experience was the same as Jane Doe's. As a YW leader, I know that our youth are interviewed once or twice a year to get their limited use recommends for temple baptisms. 

 

On 3/2/2016 at 9:14 AM, LiterateParakeet said:

Same here...I mean same as Jane and Eowyn.

 

[zil]

6 hours ago, zil said:

There is.  It'll have to wait until I get home (someone remind me if it's that important).  It's on LDS.org (so you could just go search for it yourself, if you really wanted).  It's actually a bunch of stuff, for use by members and leaders (there was a boatload coming at LOC issues from every possible angle).  I know about it because my brother needed to print a bunch of it for a training they were doing in his ward and he wanted me to merge or otherwise tweak some of the PDFs to make it easier for him (and I have full Acrobat and he doesn't).

Just because you don't know of a manual labeled "Training for Bishops on Discussing LOC Details Like Masturbation and Pornography with Youth" doesn't mean there aren't training materials.  (Whether any given bishop avails himself of all the available training is a whole 'nother' question.)

https://overcomingpornography.org/?lang=eng is the Church's website about overcoming pornography.  It includes training for individuals, spouses, parents, church leaders, and others on dealing with pornography (and by relation similar LOC issues).  Now someone is going to claim that this isn't training, or that it isn't training on how to interview youth, or how to talk to them about problems.  I disagree.  Training along the lines of "when they say X, you should say Y" is clearly never going to exist, and needn't.  When one understands the doctrines, the problems, and how to teach youth about the doctrines and dangers, one knows how to talk to the youth about LOC issues.

Here's another link: https://providentliving.lds.org/leader/ministering-resources?lang=eng some of it is only accessible if your calling allows it, but from the root page, it's pretty clear there's guidance to be had.

Some of the other links from here: https://www.lds.org/topics/serve-and-teach/lead-in-the-church?lang=eng also have relevant bits, like this page: https://www.lds.org/service/leadership/minister-to-others?lang=eng#2011-07-009-ministering-to-children-worldwide-leadership-training

All that was found starting from lds.org, with only a few minutes spent looking at the menus and clicking around.

What any given individual does, I can't say, and there's no point in this forum debating whether Bishop [name here] has had enough training or knows what he's doing or ought to be trusted.  The point here is that there's training available for anyone who feels they (or those under their stewardship) need it.

[NeedleinA]

38 minutes ago, zil said:

Training along the lines of "when they say X, you should say Y" is clearly never going to exist, and needn't.  When one understands the doctrines, the problems, and how to teach youth about the doctrines and dangers, one knows how to talk to the youth about LOC issues.

Agreed Zil

Here is the Church speaking about the Handbook: 

"Because it is a policy and procedural manual, the Handbook is not written in language that is necessarily contextual or explanatory. Church leaders are encouraged to use the Handbook in conjunction with the guidance of the Holy Ghost. ... No handbook can answer every question or address every circumstance."
 

[omegaseamaster75]

18 minutes ago, zil said:

https://overcomingpornography.org/?lang=eng is the Church's website about overcoming pornography.  It includes training for individuals, spouses, parents, church leaders, and others on dealing with pornography (and by relation similar LOC issues).  Now someone is going to claim that this isn't training, or that it isn't training on how to interview youth, or how to talk to them about problems.  I disagree.  Training along the lines of "when they say X, you should say Y" is clearly never going to exist, and needn't.  When one understands the doctrines, the problems, and how to teach youth about the doctrines and dangers, one knows how to talk to the youth about LOC issues.

Here's another link: https://providentliving.lds.org/leader/ministering-resources?lang=eng some of it is only accessible if your calling allows it, but from the root page, it's pretty clear there's guidance to be had.

Some of the other links from here: https://www.lds.org/topics/serve-and-teach/lead-in-the-church?lang=eng also have relevant bits, like this page: https://www.lds.org/service/leadership/minister-to-others?lang=eng#2011-07-009-ministering-to-children-worldwide-leadership-training

All that was found starting from lds.org, with only a few minutes spent looking at the menus and clicking around.

What any given individual does, I can't say, and there's no point in this forum debating whether Bishop [name here] has had enough training or knows what he's doing or ought to be trusted.  The point here is that there's training available for anyone who feels they (or those under their stewardship) need it.

I would call it training but only loosely so, the second link  https://providentliving.lds.org/leader/ministering-resources?lang=eng goes to the ministering resources page. I clicked on the first link: Ministering Resources: Abuse (Help for the Victim). One page with 4 bullet points. Second link: Ministering Resources: Abuse (Help for the Offender), one page same 4 bullet points Different items addressed but pretty cookie cutter.

Call it training if you want but it's pretty light. I do not discount the effort and information provided on these pages but an expert it will not make. People go to school for many years and acquire a lot of experience dealing with sensitive issues that individuals have. The act of a SP laying the hands on someone's head and making them a Bishop does not qualify them to deal with many of these sensitive issues. When dealing with the abused and abusers I'd leave it to the experts, same with pornography and other issues. 

 

[Just_A_Guy]

25 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

People go to school for many years and acquire a lot of experience dealing with sensitive issues that individuals have.

What training?  What experience?

I stipulate educators are trained to educate.  I do not stipulate that they are trained to educate juveniles about sex, and you have not shown otherwise.

I stipulate that medical doctors are trained to treat medical conditions.  I do not stipulate that they are trained to inform juveniles about sex--or sensitively inquire as to their sexual history--and you have not shown otherwise.

You really think it takes years and years of experience to learn to ask "Do you know what porn is?  It's kind of everywhere, isn't it?  Have you had occasion to run into it?  Well, you know it's wrong--how can I help you to keep it out of your life?  Here, let me show you some cool scriptures I've found."

Thus far, you seem to be demanding demanding that we let other people's degrees, do our thinking for us.

Edited March 4, 2016 by Just_A_Guy

[MrShorty]

@zil Thanks for sharing. These are good examples of the Church's training. I think they also provide another example of the problem. I have noticed for some time (and your links confirm again) that the Church's approach to porn is heavily laden with the "porn and sex as addiction" model. This model is heavily debated and contested in many circles, and a parent may be skeptical or outright disagree with the porn/sex addiction model. Some of these parents may choose to ask the Bishop not to discuss porn with their children because they do not want the porn/sex addiction model taught to their children. Should parents be allowed to make this request of the Bishop? Should the Bishop respect these parents' wishes in this regard?

In my own mind, I keep coming back to the idea of stewardship here. Both the Bishop and the parents have stewardship over the child. When differences of opinion exist between parents and Bishops, whose stewardship takes precedent? IMO, the Bishop should defer to the parents, even if he disagrees. The only exceptions would be cases of abuse and neglect (where proper authorities should be contacted) and apostasy. Even in the case of apostasy, as illustrated by the policy towards children of homosexual or polygamous parents, the Bishop still respects the parents' ideology, but may, at his discretion and judgement, refuse to sign temple recommends or approve priesthood advancements.

On the other hand, a consideration for parents: is it wise to shelter your children from the Bishops opinions when his opinions are different from yours? One of my goals as a parent is to teach my children how to discern right from wrong, truth from error. At one point is forbidding the Bishop from discussing his opinions counterproductive to this goal? Are these opportunities to allow our children to flex their own discernment muscles? (BTW, I think the same argument could apply to some of the content of secular sex ed courses that we are frequently try to shelter our children from.)

[omegaseamaster75]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

What training?  What experience?

I stipulate educators are trained to educate.  I do not stipulate that they are trained to educate juveniles about sex, and you have not shown otherwise.

 

So when sex ed comes around they don't send a note home advising you as a parent that issues of sexuality are going to be discussed? Of course they do and guess what...they receive training on how to present those topics or they bring someone in that does have training

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

What training?  What experience?

I stipulate that medical doctors are trained to treat medical conditions.  I do not stipulate that they are trained to inform juveniles about sex--or sensitively inquire as to their sexual history--and you have not shown otherwise.

So you think that Dr's receive no training on how to deal with people's sensitive issues? seems odd that in 10+ years of education they would not once cover those types of issues? Of course they do...in a real classroom, taught by real teachers and other professionals.

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

What training?  What experience?

You really think it takes years and years of experience to learn to ask "Do you know what porn is?  It's kind of everywhere, isn't it?  Have you had occasion to run into it?  Well, you know it's wrong--how can I help you to keep it out of your life?  Here, let me show you some cool scriptures I've found."

Thus far, you seem to be demanding demanding that we let other people's degrees, do our thinking for us.

I don't think that it takes any experience to ask sensitive questions. If someone has a legitimate problem with porn I think that it goes beyond the scope of what an untrained bishop can provide with regards to fixing the problem. The sin aspect of viewing porn the Bishop is more than qualified to address. The psychological  issues...not so much unless of course it is his profession.

A degree is not a measuring stick, but it is a key indicator that they may know what they are talking about. 

Edited March 4, 2016 by omegaseamaster75

[zil]

16 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

The sin aspect of viewing porn the Bishop is more than qualified to address.

But that's the whole point of this thread - should  the bishop be asking such questions, and is he qualified to ask those questions.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, zil said:

But that's the whole point of this thread - should  the bishop be asking such questions, and is he qualified to ask those questions.

I was changing a light bulb at work the other day.  My boss was worried because of liability.  Anyone standing on a ladder is considered unsafe.  So it is supposed to only be done by a maintenance guy because "he works with ladders all the time." (uh-huh).

So someone looked up at me and said,"Yeah, Carb.  What do you think you're doing?  You're an engineer.  You're not qualified to change a light bulb."

Another quipped,"How many engineers does it take..."

Is the OP seriously asking if a bishop is "qualified" ask a youth about sinful behavior?  Let's at least make an effort to look at the rule rather than the exception.

 

Edited March 4, 2016 by Guest

[LeSellers]

16 minutes ago, zil said:

But that's the whole point of this thread - should  the bishop be asking such questions, and is he qualified to ask those questions.

It's a significant part of his calling.

God requires that he "ask those questions". I'm more'n a little concerned about wondering if God got it right.

Lehi

Edited March 4, 2016 by LeSellers

[zil]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I was changing a light bulb at work the other day.  My boss was worried because of liability.  Anyone standing on a ladder is considered unsafe.  So it is supposed to only be done by a maintenance guy because "he works with ladders all the time." (uh-huh).

So someone looked up at me and said,"Yeah, Carb.  What do you think you're doing?  You're an engineer.  You're not qualified to change a light bulb."

Another quipped,"How many engineers does it take..."

 

1) When I have to change the fluorescent bulbs some genius decided should be mounted at the top of the vaulted ceiling over my kitchen, I stand on that rung it says to never stand on.  (Shhhh, don't tell the ladder cops.)

2) How many programmers does it take to change a light bulb? (answer later, after everyone's had a chance to ruminate - not to be confused with marinating in rum...)

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, zil said:

1) When I have to change the fluorescent bulbs some genius decided should be mounted at the top of the vaulted ceiling over my kitchen, I stand on that rung it says to never stand on.  (Shhhh, don't tell the ladder cops.)

2) How many programmers does it take to change a light bulb? (answer later, after everyone's had a chance to ruminate - not to be confused with marinating in rum...)

Doesn't the programmer just ask everyone to leave the room, then come back into the room and try the switch again?

[omegaseamaster75]

14 minutes ago, zil said:

But that's the whole point of this thread - should  the bishop be asking such questions, and is he qualified to ask those questions.

Asking? he kind of has to doesn't he....I guess, is he qualified...sure as qualified as you or I.

If it was me, and I hope that it never is I would not probe for sin. I would ask straight up yes or no and if there was confession to make I would deal with that on a case by case basis. I would deal with the sin aspect of the transgression if it went outside of the scope of that I would invite experts in.

 

[Guest]

One reason the bishop needs to ask somewhat specifically is that others (parents, various church instructors) do not do enough to explain things themselves.

One young man was preparing for his mission in a ward I served as a missionary.  As such, he was encouraged to hang around us a lot.  And the parents invited us over for dinner more than their share.  

When he went in for his interview with the bishop, the bishop apparently did a good job.  The young man came back home and told his parents (while we were there) that he was kind of surprised at the bishop's reversed reactions. "Some of the things I thought were a big deal, he said to just stop it and forget about it.  Other things that I didn't think were that bad, he told me that it was pretty serious."

While he didn't go into detail, I was thinking that this kid didn't have a problem with the WoW.  And he was a basically decent kid.  So, the only things that could have been "pretty serious" would be LoC type things.  How did this "basically decent" Mormon youth with really awesome, faithful parents get raised to 18 years old and not realize that the LoC was pretty serious?

Yes, it IS the Bishop's responsibility to teach, preach, & exhort.

 

[zil]

8 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

Asking? he kind of has to doesn't he....I guess, is he qualified...sure as qualified as you or I.

If it was me, and I hope that it never is I would not probe for sin. I would ask straight up yes or no and if there was confession to make I would deal with that on a case by case basis. I would deal with the sin aspect of the transgression if it went outside of the scope of that I would invite experts in.

My point is, a bunch of people were focused on the topic of "should the bishop be asking youth specific LOC-related questions".  While that group are focused on that context, you step in with statements like "the bishop isn't trained" and "leave it to trained professionals", so the group focused on aforementioned context are thinking you're saying "the bishop isn't qualified to be asking youth specific LOC-related questions"; meanwhile, only later do we find out you've added abuse and pornography problems to the context.  And then after that, we find out you think it's OK for the bishop to be asking LOC-related questions.  Thus, confusion and disagreement (where without the confusion, there may not be disagreement).

Does that make any sense? (We were all focused on the bishop asking worthiness questions, you appear to have expanded the scope without the rest of us realizing it until your recent posts...)

[LeSellers]

22 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

If it was me, and I hope that it never is I would not probe for sin. I would ask straight up yes or no and if there was confession to make I would deal with that on a case by case basis. I would deal with the sin aspect of the transgression if it went outside of the scope of that I would invite experts in.

I've never been a bishop. I've never been in a bishopric. So, it's obvious that I don't know this from experience or osmosis, but what I understand is that "probing for sin" is just what a bishop is supposed to do, especially with youth (the bishop's primary responsibility). It seems that it's even more important today than it was in my youth because there are more opportunities to indulge in sins, particularly sexual sins.

While a bishop is limited in what he can do (his ward members don't have to be forthcoming, nor even honest with him), it is his calling to shepherd his flock, to keep them from falling off the cliff.

Lehi

Edited March 4, 2016 by LeSellers

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

While a bishop is limited in what he can do (his ward members don't have to be forthcoming, nor even honest with him), it is his calling to shepherd his flock, to keep them from falling off the cliff.

Lehi

I was thinking about the honesty of respondent.  In the end, if the bishop is responsible for teaching, preaching, and exhorting, then he's done his job by asking the questions.  If the respondent chooses to lie, then the sin is on his head, not the bishop's 

[LeSellers]

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I was thinking about the honesty of respondent.  In the end, if the bishop is responsible for teaching, preaching, and exhorting, then he's done his job by asking the questions.  If the respondent chooses to lie, then the sin is on his head, not the bishop's 

Those sins (both the original sin and lying to the Lord's representative) are on his head, certainly. But if the bishop doesn't ask probing questions, he has his own worries. Or so I see it.

Lehi