New Church policy regarding Bishop and Stake President interviews

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Is a bishop a volunteer psychologist? 

At least two of mine have certainly acted like it.  And a tax advisor, and a (particularly bad) lawyer.

 

[truthseaker]

7 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

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.

Thanks, you must understand that is a very fine line to walk, and a bishop is not trained to see the signs of someone who needs professional help, not everyone who needs counselling comes out and asks for it.

[NightSG]

16 minutes ago, priesthoodpower said:

Having a third person in these interviews makes sense, its what we did as missionaries.   

And all those times I thought I was just there to smack the missionaries when they (probably unintentionally) insulted an investigator's current religion.

Then the jerks were in too much of a hurry to get home to give me a healing blessing for my sore hand. 

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

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

No, it's simply pointing out that a bishop isn't trained to distinguish between, for example, anxiety wholly due to guilt over sin and anxiety due to a physical issue.  

[lostinwater]

"Just because a mouse is in the cookie jar, that doesn't make it a cookie"

- Quoted in the 1975 movie, "The Hiding Place"  

 

The idea applies to just about, well, everything.

And if you haven't seen that movie already - and read the book, you're missing out.

[The Folk Prophet]

14 minutes ago, truthseaker said:

Thanks, you must understand that is a very fine line to walk, and a bishop is not trained to see the signs of someone who needs professional help, not everyone who needs counselling comes out and asks for it.

But that is not relevant to whether a bishop should give spiritual counsel or not. A bishop may not be able to tell when someone needs professional help. But that is not his role or why people are encouraged to go to their bishops for "counsel". If no one in a person's life sees or recognizes the signs then no one is going to suggest they seek professional help. That includes the bishop. But it's not relevant to whether it's ethical or not for someone to seek spiritual counsel from a spiritual leader, any more than it's relevant to whether it's ethical or not for someone to seek motherly counsel from a mother. I go to my mother for counsel all the time. She is not trained. She has life experience only. If I was in need of seriously professional help she would not recognize it any better than anyone else. What you seem to be suggesting is because she might miss that she has no right giving me any sort of counsel at all. That only those who are professionally trained have any right to ever recommend a course of action within the ethical sphere. Putting aside the views some have on the legitimacy of that field, that view is still invalid.

Now would it be a useful thing if bishops were trained to recognize these signs? Sure. I don't think anyone would say otherwise. But the idea that bishop's spiritual counselling is unethical because they aren't professionally trained does not hold water.

[truthseaker]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Now would it be a useful thing if bishops were trained to recognize these signs? Sure. I don't think anyone would say otherwise. But the idea that bishop's spiritual counselling is unethical because they aren't professionally trained does not hold water.

I said it was unethical for a bishop to counsel couples about their marriage, which I stand by.  I said it was unethical for a Bishop to counsel members about problems in their lives, which I stand by.  Its fine for a bishop to tell a church member to pray about their problems, but anything above that, in my opinion is unethical.

[Jane_Doe]

5 minutes ago, truthseaker said:

I said it was unethical for a bishop to counsel couples about their marriage, which I stand by.  I said it was unethical for a Bishop to counsel members about problems in their lives, which I stand by.  Its fine for a bishop to tell a church member to pray about their problems, but anything above that, in my opinion is unethical.

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?" 

[zil]

I cannot for the life of me comprehend why any adult would seek / take "professional" (as in "licensing required" / "you normally pay someone to do this") advice from a bishop - unless the bishop is also a licensed professional in the field in question, but even then, unless you happen to know that he is good+ in his field (as opposed to below average, for example), why would you do more than make note of it?  If you're going to get your house re-roofed, you get bids, you check references, etc.  Why would you not do the same with professional advice from any licensed professional rather than starting from an assumption that this particular licensed professional is good at what he does?  I just do not comprehend how an adult would not know that this is how you vet licensed professionals.

If I need to figure out how to invest for my retirement, I'm not gonna go talk to my bishop about it.  If I need my soul fixed, I'm gonna start with my bishop - because he has keys, and if he's living worthy of those keys, he has access to power and wisdom beyond his own.  And in case he's not living worthy (which I likely wouldn't know, otherwise I wouldn't likely go see him), or not able to access / convey that wisdom for some reason, I have the option of carefully considering what he tells me to see if it rings true or sets off alarm bells and then make my own decision.

PS: There are an awful lot of absolutes being thrown about regarding what a bishop is and is not "trained" to do, and from here, it looks like they're being thrown from a blind spot, not from a place of absolute knowledge.

PPS: Nothing above should be taken to mean I think one shouldn't counsel_m with their bishop about life's challenges.  Nor should it be taken to mean I think the apparent Australian ideal for therapy will work in the mess known as reality, let alone in the USA.

PPPS: Apparently for the purposes of this thread we need to distinguish between the use of the word "counsel" in the Mormon universe (counsel_m) and the use of the word "counsel" (apparently) in the Australian therapist universe (counsel_t) (t for "professional therapy").

PPPPS: Marriage is a covenant with God.  It is a spiritual endeavor (in Mormondom, anyway).  Of course the bishop can and should provide counseling_m in this regard.  And of course he may recommend that the couple seek therapy (counsel_t) as well.

Edited March 28, 2018 by zil
change "professional" to "therapy"

[Jane_Doe]

5 minutes ago, truthseaker said:

I said it was unethical for a bishop to counsel couples about their marriage, which I stand by.  I said it was unethical for a Bishop to counsel members about problems in their lives, which I stand by.  Its fine for a bishop to tell a church member to pray about their problems, but anything above that, in my opinion is unethical.

Seeking 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?" 

[priesthoodpower]

1 hour 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.  I nor any therapist I know 'exercises hold power' over their clients.

 

Therapy is a BUSINESS! The less you help them the more they keep coming back  $$$. My wife is a Marriage and family counsel therapist and she got sick of being a shoulder to cry on and not really helping solve peoples problems by using the method of repeatng the problem back to them. 
She is exploring other forms of new age therapy that have better results. Atleast the Bishop is free. lol

1 hour 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 agree with you here. My wife left the LDS church 7yrs ago and would fit that description. However she does admit that being raised in the LDS church was the best thing that happened for her and her brothers in a single parent household. She supports our 3 kids being raised LDS. As an adult she feels religion is no longer useful to her.

1 hour ago, truthseaker said:

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

Medicine is medicine, Science is science, Psychology is psuedo-science

Edited March 28, 2018 by priesthoodpower

[The Folk Prophet]

6 minutes ago, truthseaker said:

I said it was unethical for a bishop to counsel couples about their marriage, which I stand by.  I said it was unethical for a Bishop to counsel members about problems in their lives, which I stand by.  Its fine for a bishop to tell a church member to pray about their problems, but anything above that, in my opinion is unethical.

 No one here will agree with that. Marriage is our highest ordinance and of extreme religious importance. And "problems"? A bit vague there. 

[priesthoodpower]

43 minutes ago, NightSG said:

At least two of mine have certainly acted like it.  And a tax advisor, and a (particularly bad) lawyer.

 

Dont forget Financial advisor ..cough! cough! MLM recruitor.

Edited March 28, 2018 by priesthoodpower

[NightSG]

1 minute ago, priesthoodpower said:

Dont forget Financial advisor

I was counting that under particularly bad lawyer given the nature of the advice.

[Vort]

18 minutes ago, truthseaker said:

I said it was unethical for a bishop to counsel couples about their marriage, which I stand by.

I'd say this pretty much proves my point, and points up truthseaker's credibility (or lack thereof).

[Jane_Doe]

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

I'd say this pretty much proves my point, and points up truthseaker's credibility (or lack thereof).

Vort!  WAY over the line man!  

This thread is to talk about the new policy regarding interviews, NOT to attack individual users or "prove a point". 

[Vort]

41 minutes ago, NightSG said:

No, it's simply pointing out that a bishop isn't trained to distinguish between, for example, anxiety wholly due to guilt over sin and anxiety due to a physical issue.  

But that had nothing to do with our topic of conversation. Here was my statement and your response:

3 hours ago, NightSG said:

6 hours ago, Vort said:

I don't think there is a clear separation between a spiritual issue and a psychological issue.

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

To recast your response: "There is not necessarily a lack of clear separation between spiritual and psychological issues (i.e. the two are often clearly separable). For example, some psychological issues are physical, and some physical issues are psychological."

Perhaps you can help me out here and recast your point in some way that does not read as internally self-contradictory. It might then be useful to explain how this observation applies to whether a bishop ought to be able to give spiritual advice to his ward members, including advice on marriage, family relationships, and personal responsibilities.

[NightSG]

15 minutes ago, zil said:

Nor should it be taken to mean I think the apparent Australian ideal for therapy will work in the mess known as reality, let alone in the USA.

Yeah, I don't think the chicken industry has the logistic capability to deliver that many live ones, and if I'm paying someone to dance around in a loincloth and chant, it's going to be purely on the basis of her looks, not her title.

 

[Vort]

Just now, Jane_Doe said:

Vort!  WAY over the line man!  

This thread is to talk about the new policy regarding interviews, NOT to attack individual users or "prove a point". 

Hardly. Truthseaker has openly attacked the very root of human relationships, proclaiming that no one -- not bishops, not parents, not spouses -- is authorized to counsel anyone else ever unless the person doing the counseling holds a degree in the pseudoscience of psychology. If this does not limit her credibility, nothing does.

As a parent, I will always counsel with my children. As a husband, I will always counsel with my wife. A psychologist ranting about her qualifications and everyone else's abysmal ignorance won't change that. Frankly, I'm surprised there aren't more people (like you) standing up to such nonsense and saying, "Wait a minute, that's wrong and bad."

[Jane_Doe]

1 minute ago, Vort said:

Hardly. Truthseaker has openly attacked the very root of human relationships, proclaiming that no one -- not bishops, not parents, not spouses -- is authorized to counsel anyone else ever unless the person doing the counseling holds a degree in the pseudoscience of psychology. If this does not limit her credibility, nothing does.

As a parent, I will always counsel with my children. As a husband, I will always counsel with my wife. A psychologist ranting about her qualifications and everyone else's abysmal ignorance won't change that. Frankly, I'm surprised there aren't more people (like you) standing up to such nonsense and saying, "Wait a minute, that's wrong and bad."

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. 

[Vort]

Just now, 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. 

Hey. Wait a minute. Am I mistaken, or did you not just say:

10 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Vort!  WAY over the line man!

 This is an LDS list. Those who participate here are LDS. We Latter-day Saints use the word "counsel" in its traditional meaning -- you know, the way the word has been used for the last, oh, seven or eight hundred years. When an Australian psychologist comes onto this list and then insists on imposing her own narrow meaning onto that word, I'd say that's HER fault, not mine. Perhaps your corrections and lectures should be directed at her.

[Jane_Doe]

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

Hey. Wait a minute. Am I mistaken, or did you not just say:

 This is an LDS list. Those who participate here are LDS. We Latter-day Saints use the word "counsel" in its traditional meaning -- you know, the way the word has been used for the last, oh, seven or eight hundred years. When an Australian psychologist comes onto this list and then insists on imposing her own narrow meaning onto that word, I'd say that's HER fault, not mine. Perhaps your corrections and lectures should be directed at her.

We ALL have a duty to listen and love each other.  

[Vort]

Just now, Jane_Doe said:

We ALL have a duty to listen and love each other.  

Hence your response?

[NightSG]

54 minutes ago, Vort said:

Hardly. Truthseaker has openly attacked the very root of human relationships,

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

[NightSG]

1 hour ago, priesthoodpower said:

Therapy is a BUSINESS! The less you help them the more they keep coming back  $$$. My wife is a Marriage and family counsel therapist and she got sick of being a shoulder to cry on and not really helping solve peoples problems by using the method of repeatng the problem back to them. 

Then maybe she should have gotten her training from someone with a proven success record rather than an ad in the back of Auto Trader.  I've spent some time working in the mental health industry, and nobody in our office counted their successes in repeat customers.  While I disagree with the way some things were handled there, I have a lot of respect for the attitude that everybody's job was to get clients to not need to come back.

Quote

She is exploring other forms of new age therapy that have better results. Atleast the Bishop is free. lol

You get what you pay for.

Quote

Medicine is medicine, Science is science, Psychology is psuedo-science

No more so than medicine as it's practiced way too often these days; trial and error to diagnose an illness by which meds work and which don't is far less scientific than many of the methods used in mental health treatment.

Can you imagine if mechanics worked like doctors?  "Well, this might fix your brakes.  Go drive around for a couple weeks, and if they're not better by then, that'll narrow it down a bit."

And frankly, most science is whatever it's paid the most to be.

Edited March 28, 2018 by NightSG