New Church policy regarding Bishop and Stake President interviews


pam
 Share

Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, NightSG said:

You think that the root of human relationships is listening to your advice?

Why, yes. Congratulations on understanding my meaning so well! Good luck in working on the root of your human relationships.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

I think you guys are completely talking past each other, using different meanings for "counsel".  Yes, we counsel (as in to give advice and guide) our children- I don't think anyone is going to argue with that!  Versus I think @truthseaker is using the word "counsel" as defined as "practice clinical phycology".   The proper and Christ-like thing for everyone here to do is to listen and ask for clarification on what another person means.  Let us strive to listen and love each other, rather than to closer our ears and attack people. 

The thing is, @Jane_Doe, that @truthseaker has been kind of cagey about what she does mean.  The original post raising red flags stated:  

Quote

But a bishop is in a position of spiritual authority over these people, it is unethical to offer advice on their personal lives (marriage or otherwise) from a counselling perspective, its very different than talking to a friend about your problems.

I tried to draw Truthseaker out by noting her apparently-expansive definition of "counseling"; but thus far haven't seen a lot of clarification other than some suggestions that it entails some measure of "authority".  I think it's fair to push back and ask her whether she really condemns all advisory authority other than that arrogated and bestowed by her own particular trade guild.  Does she condemn life advice given through parental or familial authority?  Experiential authority?  Non-mental-health-related professional authority? Does she really want us to believe that a woman having marital problems should trust the advice of a thrice-divorced PsyD, whereas the intrinsic authority wielded by the woman's own mother and/or the woman's bishop (both of whom may have been successfully married for fifty years or more) obligate both parties to keep their mouths shut? Does she want us to believe that a teenaged rape victim under therapeutic care should discuss her choice of universities, not with alumni of those universities; but with her therapist?  

4 hours ago, truthseaker said:

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

[1] 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”

[2] 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.  

[3] 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.  

[4] 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.

 

On [1], [2], and [3] - again, @truthseaker, we really need you to flesh out what exactly you mean by this.  

[4]:  I am well aware that this is what therapists say therapy is about.  it is a noble idea, yes; and I trust many conscientous practicioners observe it as best they can.

But, let us also be realistic about its limits.  

First:  Your raison d'etre is to help your clients into a healthful state.  Who defines "healthful"?  Why, you do, of course.  If a client told you that they intend to harm themselves, or commit an act of sexual aggression against another party, or join a doomsday cult--you're not going to sit idly by and let that happen.  If a client told you that they were gay but wanted to experiment with techniques to help them stay celibate or even find fulfillment in a heterosexual relationship--in many jurisdictions you'd be both "ethically" and legally banned from helping that client to implement the decision he has made.  Many mental health professionals work in substance abuse rehabilitation clinics, whose residents are there only by court order and of themselves would continue using; but the professionals don't seem to have any ethical qualms about steering addicts to a sober lifestyle that the addicts don't truly want.  

Whether they fully understand it or not, mental health practitioners certainly have a set of values and standards they hope their clients will achieve, just as a Mormon bishop does.  The only difference is that the Mormon bishop doesn't consider himself required to hide the ball about where he hopes his "clients'" journeys will lead them. The bishop (at least, a wise one) lays out a vision in which the congregant is living a stable life based on the principles taught by the Church; the congregant chooses to accept that vision; and then the congregant work toward that goal with the bishop providing any support that he can by way of serving as a partner in accountability and a coach in approaching and applying moral and doctrinal issues. 

Second:  I spent two years as a lawyer working with parents whose children had been removed from their care, and probably 80% of those clients were in therapeutic treatment as part of their service plans to get their kids back.  If I had a dime for every time I'd heard the phrase "My therapist said I should . . .", I'd be typing this post from a yacht in the Caribbean.  Maybe there are differences in practice between Australia and the US; but at least here--you guys wield enormous clout in the lives of your patients, and in my experience you aren't nearly as careful with doling out the life-advice as you like to think you are.  And it frankly scares the beejeebies out of me when you don't seem willing to acknowledge that.   

And finally, I think we should probably take a moment to recognize that when professionals say certain things are "unethical", they aren't talking about "ethics" in a philosophical or moral  or "right-or-wrong" sense.  They're talking about strict codes that have been developed by the governing bodies of their professions.  Those codes are shaped by a variety of influences.  Morality is one of them, but so is practicality, and so is public relations.  And if we're really honest with ourselves:  so is preservation of the cartel.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Clarification here: do you find it unethical for a bishop to say something like "it seems like you're having some mental health issues.  How would you feel about visiting a mental health professional?" 

I find it wrong 

Edited by Blossom76
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Blossom76 said:

I have been very upfront and consistent about everything I have said.  I don't think LDS Bishops should be offering any form of counselling advice on marriage or any other matter.  Telling a member to 'pray about your problems' is fine, anything above that is way above the Bishops experience and qualifications.  He doesn't know what he is doing, he could really screw people up.

You are not going to draw me into a heated argument over it.  I went to university for 4 years to get my degree.  Mental health is very important to me.  You obviously disagree with my point of view, that's your right to do so. I'm not going to engage in a pointless narrative.  I've said my point of view, a few times, I think this is where it needs to be left.

Blossom, before we continue:  are you @truthseaker?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Blossom76 said:

Absolutely, I do find that unethical, I don't believe a conversation with a Bishop (who is just a volunteer with a calling) should be going anywhere that direction.  He is not qualified to comment on the subject and especially due to the perceived position of spiritual authority he holds should not be engaging in any conversation of that nature.

@Blossom76, no offense intended to you, but if this is the case, then thanks be to God that you don't make the rules for how he runs his kingdom on the earth.

It appears that @truthseaker is your sock puppet. Sock puppets are not allowed. You risk a high probability of being permanently banned from this forum for such actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

We've heard a lot about bad things which can happen 1-on-1 the last few weeks.  And certainly they can- I personally know that all too well.  But I also know all too well the many good things that can happen 1-on-1 too, so many of the good times which outnumber the bad.  The new church policy... it is a prudent and needed move, I'm not going to argue with that.  But there's also something which is lost here too, and part of me-- the part that remember Julie and so many other special moments that helped me through troubled times... part of me also mourns today.

Amen! I just had one of my Laurel's over to my apt because she wanted to make a cake for our activity tomorrow. Her family just moved into a new place and she was nervous about their oven burning the cake, so I volunteered my oven. It was a good experience. 

This new mandate to go two adults deep on everything involving women and minors will take a GREAT deal for me to get used to. Mostly because I just got my YW adjusted to splitting up for 3rd hour, which we can no longer do unless we count the 18 year old Laurels as adults for this purpose. On the plus side, I'll probably get asked to sit in on more Primary lessons and our branch won't have to find a Gospel Doctrine teacher because there won't be anyone left in class. My heart goes out to those in districts so light on leadership that they rely on full time missionaries for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Vort said:

@Blossom76, no offense intended to you, but if this is the case, then thanks be to God that you don't make the rules for how he runs his kingdom on the earth.

It appears that @truthseaker is your sock puppet. Sock puppets are not allowed. You risk a high probability of being permanently banned from this forum for such actions.

Perhaps I missed some juicy details, but what exactly led you and JAG to suspect this?  Is it that they are both females from Australia who are undecided about their religious affiliation and who share similar opinions in this thread?  Or something else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, person0 said:

Perhaps I missed some juicy details, but what exactly led you and JAG to suspect this?  Is it that they are both females from Australia who are undecided about their religious affiliation and who share similar opinions in this thread?  Or something else?

It’s that Blossom jumped right into an ongoing conversation between myself and Truthseaker; and another between Jane_Doe and Truthseaker; and replied as though she were Truthseaker.  Blossom has now edited her posts, but their original content was quoted and is preserved in mine and Vort’s replies to her.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It’s that Blossom jumped right into an ongoing conversation between myself and Truthseaker; and another between Jane_Doe and Truthseaker; and replied as though she were Truthseaker.  Blossom has now edited her posts, but their original content was quoted and is preserved in mine and Vort’s replies to her.

Yes, I just noticed that after reading the posts on this page and page 5 and seeing how the conversation went.  Initially I did not see it because she edited her posts.  Otherwise I might have noticed it much more easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Blossom76 / @truthseaker, sincere question for you: How do you think that your four-year degree of which you're so proud gives you the moral authority to counsel people, when you appear to lack the integrity to do something as simple as abide by a web site's rules (that you agreed to) not to make sock puppets? Do you believe that integrity has nothing to do with the moral authority to counsel, and the four-year degree is all that matters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, person0 said:

Perhaps I missed some juicy details, but what exactly led you and JAG to suspect this?  Is it that they are both females from Australia who are undecided about their religious affiliation and who share similar opinions in this thread?  Or something else?

@Blossom76 openly responded as @truthseaker. She has now tried to cover her tracks by editing her original replies.

Such actions would be deplorable if they weren't so laughably juvenile -- and by a woman with a Four-Year Degree, yet! Why, she's a psychologist, you know! Qualified to counsel all those people whose personal dishonesty and duplicity in their relationships has left them emotionally crippled! Much moreso than some bishop with, you know, a successful marriage, maturity, and integrity. Thank heavens for four-year psychology degrees!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Vort said:

Such actions would be deplorable if they weren't so laughably juvenile

Deplorable - deceptive - manipulative - etc.
It puts everything she (assuming she is actually a she now) has ever said here on the HUB into the category of more than 'suspect'.
Willingness to lie once, is a willingness to lie to us twice. Willingness to deceive us twice, is a willingness to do it to us a third time.

@Blossom76's whole story since her inception here just became invalid and tossed out in my mind: the semi supportive husband, the 'sincerely' studying the gospel, the 'innocently' coming across so much anti-material in her journey, her pretend coming to terms about the 'church isn't true'....

...everything gets tossed out for me as unreliable and deceitful thanks to the sock puppet stunt being outed.

What makes the situation worse are all the innocent forum members who offered him/her sincere support the whole time seeing that it was in vain. Extending a true hand to him/her only to see his/her true colors come out now. Fake accounts = fake stories/fake motives/fake intentions for being here.

@Blossom76 integrity fizzle  - Good job :clap:

Edited by NeedleinA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours 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.

 

When I was a ward clerk I often paid the bills associated with mental care, more often than not when a bill came in it was accompanied by a letter.  More than just yes this person showed up. The bishop would pull the letters before I got the bill but sometimes he didn't.  When I recognized what it was I would stop reading and hand it back to the bishop.  I suspect that there is some sort of release that the individuals sign since the church is paying for their services.

I would ask a former bishop if you want real proof mine is limited to my experiences only. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, omegaseamaster75 said:

When I was a ward clerk I often paid the bills associated with mental care, more often than not when a bill came in it was accompanied by a letter.  More than just yes this person showed up. The bishop would pull the letters before I got the bill but sometimes he didn't.  When I recognized what it was I would stop reading and hand it back to the bishop.  I suspect that there is some sort of release that the individuals sign since the church is paying for their services.

I would ask a former bishop if you want real proof mine is limited to my experiences only. 

It was likely with the consent of the person being treated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

It was likely with the consent of the person being treated.

Indeed... here is a personal example.  To put it simply Special needs cases seem to run in my family.  We all had some concerns about my oldest son being able to serve a mission. We were told that through the LDS family services department the Church offered a "Free" (to us I am sure the Church paid for it) pre-mission evaluation.  We chose to use this service knowing full well that after the evaluation the therapist would send a recommendation to the Stake President and Bishop, about our son's ability to serve so that they could make the call.

It happened and I am sure at some point the Ward (or Stake) received both the bill and the recommendation.

Per the decision of the Stake President (based on the recommendation he was quiet clear about that) my oldest is now serving as a YCSM  https://www.lds.org/callings/missionary/church-service-missionary/ycsm/?lang=eng

Nothing was hidden from us about this process even though we had no idea about it until it was brought to our attention.  While I can see the possibility of someone screwing  up I can not see the process for other services operating fundamentally differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@truthseaker, I guess just you and I have different understandings of the referral process.  My guess is that you have some sort of insurance that doesn't let decide to go to a counselor without a referral.  And you just assume it's that way for everybody, and assume it's the right way, and assume there's something wrong when it doesn't happen that way.

I would say in the real world, the majority of people finding counselors do not work like that.  People get to find a counselor and go to them.  They don't need a referral.  There's nothing unethical at all about a bishop, or a friend, or a random stranger on the street, saying "you should go see counselor X, they could help you."   I have referred random people to LDSSS on anonymous message boards.  

Quote

The bigger issue is with the bishop doing the counselling himself.

Agreed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

@truthseaker, I guess just you and I have different understandings of the referral process.  My guess is that you have some sort of insurance that doesn't let decide to go to a counselor without a referral.  And you just assume it's that way for everybody, and assume it's the right way, and assume there's something wrong when it doesn't happen that way.

I would say in the real world, the majority of people finding counselors do not work like that.  People get to find a counselor and go to them.  They don't need a referral.  There's nothing unethical at all about a bishop, or a friend, or a random stranger on the street, saying "you should go see counselor X, they could help you."   I have referred random people to LDSSS on anonymous message boards.  

Agreed.

NT has a good point: this might be a difference in health care system thing.  I don't know about the Aussie system, but I'll explain a US example--

As part of my job I teach college courses.  One of my students was obviously struggling emotionally with life -- she'd consistently come to class crying, just got out of an abusive relationship, had her ex threatening her, had unstable housing, spoke freely about how she felt worthless & there was no point to life, etc.   I'm no professional mental health person, but these all seemed like super red flags of problems.

So during one of our meetings I said, "hey, I know you've been going through a really rough time and got a lot on your plate and been feeling really overwhelmed.  Did you know that there's a professional counseling center on campus that's free for students like yourself to go check out?  You just walk up and make an appointment.   They do really good work and can help people better handle on things.   Here's their contact info."  

What I did there was referring my student to the professional counselor.  I didn't make any diagnosis myself at all, but rather referred her to the professionals to make that call.  Me making such a referral is not considered unethical -- in fact I could have gotten in MAJOR trouble at my job if I had not made such a referral, and even deemed partially responsible if something bad had happened to her.

 

Does it work that way in Australia?   What should an Aussie teacher have done in such a case?  

Edited by Jane_Doe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Australia (and everywhere else), there are differences between counselors, psychologists, and psychiatrists. 

This is a helpful site for the different terms used in Australia.  Especially:

Quote

'Counsellor' is a generic term used to describe various professionals who offer some type of talking therapy. A counsellor may be a psychologist, nurse, social worker, occupational therapist, or they may have a specific counselling qualification such as a Bachelor or Master of Counselling degree. Counsellors can work in a variety of settings, including private practices, community health centres, schools and universities and youth services.

A counsellor can talk through different problems you may be experiencing and look for possible solutions. However, it is important to note that not all counsellors have specific training in treating mental health conditions like depression and anxiety.

While there are many qualified counsellors who work across different settings, unfortunately, anyone can call themselves a 'counsellor', even if they don't have training or experience. For this reason, it's important to ask for information about the counsellor's qualifications and whether they are registered with a state board or a professional society. It is also important to note that only psychologists, social workers or occupational therapists are eligible to be registered with Medicare to provide services that attract a Medicare rebate.

 

https://innermelbpsychology.com.au/frequently-asked-questions-about-seeing-a-psychologist/ 

Do I need a referral to see a psychologist?
No, you do not need a referral. You can make an appointment with a psychologist without a referral from your GP or a psychiatrist. If you decide to do this you will need to pay the full amount for your sessions out of your own pocket.

 

https://www.yourhealthinmind.org/psychiatry-explained/how-to-get-an-appointment

You usually need a referral from your GP or another medical doctor to see a psychiatrist.

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