New Church policy regarding Bishop and Stake President interviews


pam
 Share

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

When an individual goes through church counseling services and the church pays the Bishop receives updates on the counselling and the individuals progress.  I would never agree to have the church pay for counseling if i needed it just because of the privacy invasion that is implicit in it.

This is the kind of unethical repercussions of bishops making referrals that I'm concerned about.

I don't know what the policy is in your country, but in Australia if you get a referral from your doctor every Australian is entitled to 10 free sessions with a medical health professional per year.  With these clients I always give them an extra 2 sessions at my cost so they can come and see me once a month.

Edited by truthseaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, truthseaker said:

I don't know what the policy is in your country, but in Australia if you get a referral from your doctor every Australian is entitled to 10 free sessions with a medical health professional per year.  With these clients I always give them an extra 2 sessions at my cost so they can come and see me once a month.

In the USA, mental health is seldom covered by insurance.  Even when it is covered, you're usually looking at 100-150USD fee for every 45 minute session (that's 130-200 Australia dollars).  For many people this is prohibitively expensive, especially for longer projects.  (Yes, the US health system is completely messed up).

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The high cost is one reason people do use other resources or go without care.  I don't know if why Omega says is true about them being asked to allow to know whether or not you're coming (if the Bishop is paying for your services).  If so, I don't have a problem with it--- assuming the information is limited to "yes they are showing up" and nothing beyond that.   The money being used is a limited pot, and has many other important ways it could be used to help people.

Obviously if a bishop refers someone and is not involved in the payment, then you're not burning anyone but yourself if you no-call-no-show or otherwise waste your time/money but not showing up (physically and mentally).  

Edited by Jane_Doe
Edited to be more complete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NightSG said:

Besides, do you want volunteer firefighters showing up at your house, and just yelling encouragement as you burn to death because they haven't attended hours of training on how to put out the fire?  What about the volunteers of the US military?  Should we just do away with their training?

Is a bishop a volunteer psychologist? I don't think so. People need to be trained in what they are expected to do. Bishops are not expected to offer psychological counseling, except insofar as it's a moral issue. Your examples are specious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

When an individual goes through church counseling services and the church pays the Bishop receives updates on the counselling and the individuals progress.  I would never agree to have the church pay for counseling if i needed it just because of the privacy invasion that is implicit in it.

Omega, I’m not convinced this is accurate—at least, not to the extent that client information is released to third parties without client consent.  Do you have a source?  I know that with law practice—a third party can be paying the fee, but that doesn’t give them access to the information absent a signed release.

45 minutes ago, truthseaker said:

I'm saying they should not abuse that authority, and offering counselling when you are not qualified to do so is just that, abusing your spiritual authority over another.

This sounds nice in the abstract, except that other posts suggest you take a very expansive definition of “counseling”.  

I have loads of respect for competent mental health professionals; but the fact is that in giving advice about life-decisions and trying to heal emotional wounds, mental health professionals are doing the kind of work that was historically within the domain of the clergy and/or the family.  When I see a subset (not all) of professionals saying “my clients have to quit listening to their bishops, quit listening to their parents, quit listening to their closest friends and listen exclusively to ME”—I sort of wonder.  What  roads is that paid therapist planning to lead their client down, that the therapist thinks would elicit an objection from the people who love the client the most?  

Wise mental health professionals realize that healing isn’t a one-man show.  They identify social supports and try to take a team approach.  It’s interesting to me how many therapists decry the power LDS clergy hold over the lives of their congregants, but then demand the right to exercise that exact same power over their clients, and with far less oversight.  Again—no disrespect to the profession; but an awful lot of practitioners are walking train wrecks who went into the field because they “want to help someone the way my therapist helped me” even as they remain stuck in the theroes of substance abuse, are midway through their fourth or fifth failing marriage, whose idea of a healthy personal life involves either copious amounts of alcohol or a copious number of cats.  If we’re going to compare LDS bishops with mental health professionals to determine either a) which group generally has a more sincere love for their clients as individuals, b) which group has a better track record of actually translating their own advice into a stable, healthy and productive lifestyle, or c) which group is statistically less likely to exploit their clients for sex, money, or the sheer joy of a sadistic power trip—I’ll take the LDS bishops, every time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, NightSG said:

Not necessarily; some psychological issues can be entirely physical in origin, and some physical issues can pretty accurately mimic psychological issues.

So this is your way of explaining how you think there is a clear separation between spiritual and psychological issues?

On a completely unrelated topic, I think someone recently commented on those with poor critical thinking skills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, truthseaker said:

I'm saying they should not abuse that authority, and offering counselling when you are not qualified to do so is just that,

So only licensed psychologists are qualified to offer counseling to others? Guess I'd better quit talking to my children.

And some people wonder why so many discount psychology...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
9 minutes ago, Vort said:

And some people wonder why so many discount psychology...

In your circle maybe. What you apparently fail to comprehend is that outside of your circle psychology is fairly mainstream. 

9 minutes ago, Vort said:

So only licensed psychologists are qualified to offer counseling to others? 

No, but when it comes to deep seeded issues like depression, OCD, anxiety, issues with abuse, etc it's best to talk to someone who has experience with mental health counseling. 

Edited by MormonGator
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

In your circle maybe. What you apparently fail to comprehend is that outside of your circle psychology is fairly mainstream. 

Perhaps. "My circle" includes many non-Americans, most of whom look with humor (and some derision) on the American propensity (as they see portrayed on television) to "go see a psychologist". In most of the world and throughout pretty much all of human history, people who counseled you in times of stress were called "friends" and "family", and maybe "clergy".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

No, but when it comes to deep seeded issues like depression, OCD, anxiety, issues with abuse, etc it's best to talk to someone who has experience with mental health counseling

Pretty sure this is not what truthseaker said.

EDIT: For the record, here is truthseaker's own words, along with the post she was responding to for context. I don't see how this can be interpreted in any way other than that bishops should not counsel their congregation members, and that only psychologists are licensed to do so.

1 hour ago, truthseaker said:
10 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Surely you don’t mean to suggest that holding spiritual authority entails an ethical obligation to never actually use that authority?

I work in child protection.  While I would agree that you don’t want lay spiritual leaders going around diagnosing and treating disorders out of the DSM-V, trying to limit them from giving general life-advice or from helping parishioners to work through the consequences of a particular choice throigh the lens of a particular spiritual worldview, goes WAY too far.  Especially given that in my experience more than a few “qualified therapists” really have no idea what in Sam Hades they’re doing; whereas what I’m hearing from you—carried to its logical conclusion—would suggest that a parent of a sex abuse victim has no business, say, helping their child select a university.  

I’m disinclined to isolate people from meaningful sources of support just because some PsyD or LCSW with a god-complex doesn’t want the competition.

I'm saying they should not abuse that authority, and offering counselling when you are not qualified to do so is just that, abusing your spiritual authority over another.

 

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
6 minutes ago, Vort said:

Pretty sure this is not what truthseaker said.

Are you viewing it as a challenge to the bishops authority? It's not. 

It's a both-and situation. If you have a broken leg that needs medial attention, you get the priesthood blessing of course-and you go to the hospital for treatment. If you are dealing with depression, OCD, alcoholism, post traumatic stress-you get a priesthood blessing-and you go to the proper, credentialed practitioners for assistance. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Omega, I’m not convinced this is accurate—at least, not to the extent that client information is released to third parties without client consent.  Do you have a source?  I know that with law practice—a third party can be paying the fee, but that doesn’t give them access to the information absent a signed release.

This sounds nice in the abstract, except that other posts suggest you take a very expansive definition of “counseling”.  

I have loads of respect for competent mental health professionals; but the fact is that in giving advice about life-decisions and trying to heal emotional wounds, mental health professionals are doing the kind of work that was historically within the domain of the clergy and/or the family.  When I see a subset (not all) of professionals saying “my clients have to quit listening to their bishops, quit listening to their parents, quit listening to their closest friends and listen exclusively to ME”—I sort of wonder.  What  roads is that paid therapist planning to lead their client down, that the therapist thinks would elicit an objection from the people who love the client the most?  

Wise mental health professionals realize that healing isn’t a one-man show.  They identify social supports and try to take a team approach.  It’s interesting to me how many therapists decry the power LDS clergy hold over the lives of their congregants, but then demand the right to exercise that exact same power over their clients, and with far less oversight.  Again—no disrespect to the profession; but an awful lot of practitioners are walking train wrecks who went into the field because they “want to help someone the way my therapist helped me” even as they remain stuck in the theroes of substance abuse, are midway through their fourth or fifth failing marriage, whose idea of a healthy personal life involves either copious amounts of alcohol or a copious number of cats.  If we’re going to compare LDS bishops with mental health professionals to determine either a) which group generally has a more sincere love for their clients as individuals, b) which group has a better track record of actually translating their own advice into a stable, healthy and productive lifestyle, or c) which group is statistically less likely to exploit their clients for sex, money, or the sheer joy of a sadistic power trip—I’ll take the LDS bishops, every time.

This sounds nice in the abstract, except that other posts suggest you take a very expansive definition of “counseling”.  

I stand by everything I have said.  I don't suggest any underlying agenda in anything I have said.

“my clients have to quit listening to their bishops, quit listening to their parents, quit listening to their closest friends and listen exclusively to ME”

I have never met a qualified therapist who has that attitude, to do so would be highly unethical.

Wise mental health professionals realize that healing isn’t a one-man show.  

My clients support structure is of great value to their recovery.  A bishop is not however a mental health professional and should never act or behave as such.

It’s interesting to me how many therapists decry the power LDS clergy hold over the lives of their congregants, but then demand the right to exercise that exact same power over their clients, and with far less oversight.  

This is not what therapy is about at all.  Therapy is about giving the client the power to make their own decisions and choose what is best for them.  I nor any therapist I know 'exercises hold power' over their clients.  I have however, counselled many clients who are taking their power back from a religious organisation which has had a very negative detrimental effect on their lives and mental and emotional well being.

 

Edited by truthseaker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, truthseaker said:

This is not what therapy is about at all.  Therapy is about giving the client the power to make their own decisions and choose what is best for them.

What on earth do you think a bishop does?!

When the ignorance gets this thick, I think it's time for me to walk away and take a break.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Vort said:

What on earth do you think a bishop does?!

When the ignorance gets this thick, I think it's time for me to walk away and take a break.

I was responding to Just A Guy who said 

It’s interesting to me how many therapists decry the power LDS clergy hold over the lives of their congregants, but then demand the right to exercise that exact same power over their clients, and with far less oversight.  

This is not what therapy is about at all.  Therapy is about giving the client the power to make their own decisions and choose what is best for them.  I nor any therapist I know 'exercises hold power' over their clients.  I have however, counselled many clients who are taking their power back from a religious organisation which has had a very negative detrimental effect on their lives and mental and emotional well being.

The Bottom line is:

A bishop is not a medical health professional.  He has no real training in marriage counselling, trauma counselling, suicide counselling, depression counselling, crisis counselling, sexual abuse counselling, physical abuse counselling etc etc. He should therefore make NO recommendations whatsoever on how anyone should receive treatment.  Its unethical

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Vort said:

Pretty sure this is not what truthseaker said.

EDIT: For the record, here is truthseaker's own words, along with the post she was responding to for context. I don't see how this can be interpreted in any way other than that bishops should not counsel their congregation members, and that only psychologists are licensed to do so.

 

Exactly, bishops should not counsel their members, they are not qualified to do so.  A counsellor, a psychologist a psychiatrist is. Or at the very least in an emergency situation a doctor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, truthseaker said:

 I have however, counselled many clients who are taking their power back from a religious organisation which has had a very negative detrimental effect on their lives and mental and emotional well being.

I suspect some bishops have counselled many members who are taking their power back from a therapist which has had a very negative detrimental effect on their lives and mental and emotional well being.

I know....low blow. I couldn't resist. :D 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

I suspect some bishops have counselled many members who are taking their power back from a therapist which has had a very negative detrimental effect on their lives and mental and emotional well being.

I know....low blow. I couldn't resist. :D 

A joke is very well welcomed at this point in the current discussion! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, truthseaker said:

I was responding to Just A Guy who said 

It’s interesting to me how many therapists decry the power LDS clergy hold over the lives of their congregants, but then demand the right to exercise that exact same power over their clients, and with far less oversight.  

This is not what therapy is about at all.  Therapy is about giving the client the power to make their own decisions and choose what is best for them.  I nor any therapist I know 'exercises hold power' over their clients.  I have however, counselled many clients who are taking their power back from a religious organisation which has had a very negative detrimental effect on their lives and mental and emotional well being.

The Bottom line is:

A bishop is not a medical health professional.  He has no real training in marriage counselling, trauma counselling, suicide counselling, depression counselling, crisis counselling, sexual abuse counselling, physical abuse counselling etc etc. He should therefore make NO recommendations whatsoever on how anyone should receive treatment.  Its unethical

I don't believe you understand exactly what a bishop does and does not do. I don't think we're all even using the word "counsel" in the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't believe you understand exactly what a bishop does and does not do. I don't think we're all even using the word "counsel" in the same way.

I'd really like it if you would define it for me, the LDS view of what counselling means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Its about time we implement these "common sense" changes (as gator puts it). A very close friend of mine was a star athlete at BYU in the 90's, he was baptized/converted his junior year at BYU and married a mormon gal. His life as a teenager and before becoming mormon was filled with alcohol and sex. It was nice to see that he settled down to raise a family. 15 yrs into his marriage his company became very successful and he became bishop in a Utah ward, while serving as bishop he developed a relationship with one of the women in the ward and everything went down hill from there. My feeling was that satan used this fella's past experiences of promiscuity to tempt him. Having a third person in these interviews makes sense, its what we did as missionaries.   

2. The solution to all of life's problems was taught by our Master and Savior Jesus Christ - love, forgive, be humble, repent. The "untrained professional" aka the Bishop, repeats back to us the Masters words. Most of us cant follow or dont want to follow those simple suggestions and so off we go to the "trained" professional (therapist/psychiatry) to do things the worlds way, nothing wrong with the worldly way, its just not the celestial way of the Master.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
2 minutes ago, priesthoodpower said:

1. Its about time we implement these "common sense" changes (as gator puts it).

Always listen to @MormonGator my friend. He's right 99.9% of the time, and good looking and charming 100% of the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, truthseaker said:

I'd really like it if you would define it for me, the LDS view of what counselling means.

A bishop or stake president listens to those who ask for guidance and then directs them to seek their own spiritual solutions utilizing prayer and the scriptures. He may point them to scriptures or the like where he feels inspired to do so. If someone asks about suggestions for professional counselling, the bishop has a hotline number to call for that sort of information where those who are trained give the actual advice. None of this is antithetical to professional counselling. It is spiritual counselling, and you need to view it and see it in that light, not as a competition or alternative to professional counselling. A bishop is not qualified to give professional counselling. He is qualified to give spiritual counselling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

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