Sam Young, the prototypical model, the enemy of the church?

[mrmarklin]

15 minutes ago, Vort said:

What legal liability do you perceive?

Any one on one interaction between an adult and a child is very problematic. The Scouts have taken steps to prevent this due to lawsuits.  The Church has also had its problems. The Catholic Church has booths called confessionals just to eliminate problems.  Everything is out in the open, but still can be private  

 

Some adults abuse their position and some children are too wise in worldly ways. Accusations can be very corrosive and actions even more so. 

 

The Church would be wise to insulate itself from any shadow of doubt in these cases. 

[Midwest LDS]

The whole thing makes me sad. I can't begin to tell you how helpful my one on one sessions with my Bishop were when I was young. Honestly, if they had insisted I have another adult with me when I was a teen, I never would have confessed anything to him, I wouldn't have gone on a mission, and in all probability I would not be active today. I'm not saying the church shouldn't do anything, I support the policy changes that have been put in place to protect children, but I can't help but wonder how many other young men and women are like I was, who will now shun visiting the bishop out of embarrassment or fear, and whose souls we may lose. Truly this is a dark time we live in.

[Just_A_Guy]

4 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Honestly curious as to your opinion - especially given you work with this kind of thing on a day to day basis and are far closer to it than me.

i am not against letting ecclesiastical leaders help someone keep the law of chastity, but my experience has been that anything other than a "yes, i keep the law of chastity" sends everyone into a incredibly explicit rabbit hole.  And it's often a rabbit hole that nobody wants to go down, but everyone feels like they have to go down.

Or sometimes the bishop just skips right to the explicit topics (certainly not saying every bishop does this, but i don't think it's all that rare).

i haven't just read horror stories about what happens - like the most ridiculously explicit stuff - but i know some of the people in these horror stories.  

i don't know that i have a good answer that works for everyone, but speaking from your experience, how should bishops handle someone who says "No, i haven't kept the law of chastity."  How should that conversation go from there?

It’s hard for me to propose theoretical ground rules above and beyond what the Church has said, because there are so many variables—types of problems, temperaments of the persons involved, etc.  I know that therapists do discuss it with children, in one-on-one settings; and that sometimes they get pretty graphic.  (I read a psychosexual evaluation today where a teenaged boy was specifically asked about bestiality, resulting in a confession to activities he’d never disclosed before.). I can’t speak as to what  specific therapeutic protocols are applicable, and under what specific circumstances.  In forensic interviews with sex abuse victims, those discussions are also one-on-one and are recorded.  Of necessity those get pretty graphic, though interviewers are trained to let the child tell their own story—it’s OK for questions to *reflect* what a child has already disclosed; but the interviewer shouldn’t be introducing new vocabulary, concepts or hypothetical actions or events.  

It seems to me (having never been a bishop, and being very unlikely ever to become one) that while a bishop *probably* won’t need a lot of graphic detail; he does legitimately need to know what the activity was, whether other parties were involved and the parties’ identities, who the primary initiator was, the degree to which the individual was a willing participant, the individual’s feelings about the rightness of the action before, during, and after the event, whether the individual was a victim or perpetrator in any sense that needs to be legally reported, whether the individual is likely to repeat the conduct, the proximity to the individual of any ongoing sources of temptation, whether there are any “triggers” to the activity that make relapse more likely, and where the individual thinks they stand with God and whether they understand the ways in which their conduct may have stunted their spiritual journeys.  

The simple fact is that if we want LDS teens to keep participating in temple work, and want LDS boys to be receiving the priesthood; then doctrinally a) there has to be a way to screen for worthiness the candidates who want to participate in those priesthood ordinances; b) the Presiding High Priest of the Church has every right to designate who should be doing that screening process on a local level; and c) that screening process has to account for, inter alia, the candidate’s compliance with the law of chastity.   We can always try tweaking the system; but the efforts of Young and his ilk to (pardon the pun) emasculate it wholesale, point to some much more nefarious agenda.  

I mean, good gravy—I don’t remember if it was Young or one of his major Facebook supporters; but there have been suggestions from his camp that the LoC doesn’t apply to teenagers at all!  And so far as I know there’s been nary a word from Young defending the LoC, acknowledging the scriptural role of a bishop as a common judge in Israel, or conceding the Church’s responsibility to administer its ordinances only to a specific subset of covenant-keeping individuals.  He tolerates profligates and doctrinal ignoramuses and liars and outright anti-Mormons within his own network of allies, indulging their bleatings of pablum and bunkum and encouraging their sophomoric intellectual masturbation whilst reserving his “doctrinal corrections” and his “constructive criticisms” and his “calls to repentance” and his overall bile for the Church leadership and those who stand with it.  

There’s a fine line between a church functioning as a spiritual hospital admitting all sick people, versus a church functioning as an asylum being run by theological lunatics; and Young is trying to drag all of us over that line.

Edited September 13, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[lostinwater]

35 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It’s hard for me to propose theoretical ground rules above and beyond what the Church has said, because there are so many variables—types of problems, temperaments of the persons involved, etc.  I know that therapists do discuss it with children, in one-on-one settings; and that sometimes they get pretty graphic.  (I read a psychosexual evaluation today where a teenaged boy was specifically asked about bestiality, resulting in a confession to activities he’d never disclosed before.). I can’t speak as to what  specific therapeutic protocols are applicable, and under what specific circumstances.  In forensic interviews with sex abuse victims, those discussions are also one-on-one and are recorded.  Of necessity those get pretty graphic, though interviewers are trained to let the child tell their own story—it’s OK for questions to *reflect* what a child has already disclosed; but the interviewer shouldn’t be introducing new vocabulary, concepts or hypothetical actions or events.  

It seems to me (having never been a bishop, and being very unlikely ever to become one) that while a bishop *probably* won’t need a lot of graphic detail; he does legitimately need to know what the activity was, whether other parties were involved and the parties’ identities, who the primary initiator was, the degree to which the individual was a willing participant, the individual’s feelings about the rightness of the action before, during, and after the event, whether the individual was a victim or perpetrator in any sense that needs to be legally reported, whether the individual is likely to repeat the conduct, the proximity to the individual of any ongoing sources of temptation, whether there are any “triggers” to the activity that make relapse more likely, and where the individual thinks they stand with God and whether they understand the ways in which their conduct may have stunted their spiritual journeys.  

The simple fact is that if we want LDS teens to keep participating in temple work, and want LDS boys to be receiving the priesthood; then doctrinally a) there has to be a way to screen for worthiness the candidates who want to participate in those priesthood ordinances; b) the Presiding High Priest of the Church has every right to designate who should be doing that screening process on a local level; and c) that screening process has to account for, inter alia, the candidate’s compliance with the law of chastity.   We can always try tweaking the system; but the efforts of Young and his ilk to (pardon the pun) emasculate it wholesale, point to some much more nefarious agenda.  

 I mean, good gravy—I don’t remember if it was Young or one of his major Facebook supporters; but there have been suggestions from his camp that the LoC doesn’t apply to teenagers at all!  And so far as I know there’s been nary a word from Young defending the LoC, acknowledging the scriptural role of a bishop as a common judge in Israel, or conceding the Church’s responsibility to administer its ordinances only to a specific subset of covenant-keeping individuals.  He tolerates profligates and doctrinal ignoramuses and liars and outright anti-Mormons within his own network of allies, indulging their bleatings of pablum and bunkum and encouraging their sophomoric intellectual masturbation whilst reserving his “doctrinal corrections” and his “constructive criticisms” and his “calls to repentance” and his overall bile for the Church leadership and those who stand with it.  

 There’s a fine line between a church functioning as a spiritual hospital admitting all sick people, versus a church functioning as an asylum being run by theological lunatics; and Young is trying to drag all of us over that line.

Thanks.  

i don't know exactly where the line is.  You've got everything from a child with a pre-existing relationship with the bishop whose interview helps them release and work through some very deep thing the child would never think of disclosing to their parents to a super sensitive person whose interaction with their ecclesiastical leader slides into a horrifically traumatic blunt force extraction whose content resembles a job interview for a prostitute (except in this case, it's a child or young adult rather than a prostitute).

i tend to think Sam is advocating for the latter side of that spectrum (which i can tell you is not all that rare).  Though i agree that a policy crafted entirely by Sam is not going to address everyone with the opposite experience.  

Similar to you, i don't know how successful one will be in attempting to encode common sense into policies.  But maybe the best thing is to shed a little bit of light on the experiences of those on the bad end of this spectrum.  And however much one disagrees with Sam's methods, or the extreme nature of some of his supporters, he *is* doing that.  i can't imagine your average bishop isn't realizing he needs to exercise more caution in things like this.  And at least from where i sit, i think that's a good thing.  Not just for some of those who have been subjected to some pretty horrible experiences, but also for TCOJCOLDS.  A massive scandal would be tremendously damaging to TCOJCOLDS's reputation.  

And your last paragraph - are you referring to Brother Sam, or Brother Brigham?  i might actually agree with you on that one....  

 

[zil]

What @Midwest LDS said has to weigh heavily in the scales. When one is confessing sin, one does not want an audience.  But I don't think one needs an audience.  Have one if you want, but it could be replaced by two things:

1) A panic device.  The kid holds the trigger, their selected adult holds the receiver, they test it before the kid enters the bishops office, and then the kid knows that if there's a problem, he pushes the button (or whatever) - and the door stays unlocked, and the selected adult verifies that fact.

2) Parents need to teach their children not to believe any threat (from the bishop anyway, or any adult who is no longer alone in the child's presence), no matter how scary, no matter how credible, no matter how much it seems like the child won't be believed if they tell, or how impossible it seems for someone to stop the threat.  If a child is threatened, the minute they are out of the presence of the threatener, or also in the presence of a trusted adult, they should state that they were threatened and how - but that has to be trained into them.

Evil needs darkness - teach children that the best weapon is light.

Of course, it would be kinda sad to need #1, and potentially send the wrong message (to people inclined to assume wrong messages), but it would functionally solve the problem.

 

Meanwhile, I personally think the Church's handling of this seems reasonable.  I expect any on-going problem is individual bishops, not the policy itself.  But if more were needed in regards to "protecting poor innocent ears from words like masturbation"¹, then the solution seems obvious to me: interview the parents.  Ask the parents exactly what they have taught the child, so that you know what the child's understanding is.  The content of For the Strength of Youth could be used, or some other prepared material.  And if the parents haven't taught their child that petting and masturbation, for example, are sins, then send the parents away with an assignment and an appointment to report back, and then interview the child, so that you know s/he understands what you mean when you ask if they obey the Law of Chastity.

And if the adults are squeamish about this, then they need to get over it for the sake of being responsible parents - cuz anyone who has made a child can certainly talk about sex, and their children deserve proper training from their parents¹ - especially in the world as it is now.  (And I still contend that any child who's done it can talk about it - whatever it may be.)

¹ Seriously people, children are exposed to porn, sexual talk from peers, etc. at disgustingly young ages anymore, so if you let your child out of your presence without having had age-appropriate discussions about sexual behaviors and what is / is not OK, you are a negligent parent.  (And what you think is "age-appropriate" may well be too late, so do some research or something.)  The notion that they haven't already heard of these things by age 12 seems preposterous - and if they haven't, it could easily happen any next second, so prepare them for it.

[Midwest LDS]

1 hour ago, zil said:

What @Midwest LDS said has to weigh heavily in the scales. When one is confessing sin, one does not want an audience.  But I don't think one needs an audience.  Have one if you want, but it could be replaced by two things:

1) A panic device.  The kid holds the trigger, their selected adult holds the receiver, they test it before the kid enters the bishops office, and then the kid knows that if there's a problem, he pushes the button (or whatever) - and the door stays unlocked, and the selected adult verifies that fact.

2) Parents need to teach their children not to believe any threat (from the bishop anyway, or any adult who is no longer alone in the child's presence), no matter how scary, no matter how credible, no matter how much it seems like the child won't be believed if they tell, or how impossible it seems for someone to stop the threat.  If a child is threatened, the minute they are out of the presence of the threatener, or also in the presence of a trusted adult, they should state that they were threatened and how - but that has to be trained into them.

Evil needs darkness - teach children that the best weapon is light.

Of course, it would be kinda sad to need #1, and potentially send the wrong message (to people inclined to assume wrong messages), but it would functionally solve the problem.

 

Meanwhile, I personally think the Church's handling of this seems reasonable.  I expect any on-going problem is individual bishops, not the policy itself.  But if more were needed in regards to "protecting poor innocent ears from words like masturbation"¹, then the solution seems obvious to me: interview the parents.  Ask the parents exactly what they have taught the child, so that you know what the child's understanding is.  The content of For the Strength of Youth could be used, or some other prepared material.  And if the parents haven't taught their child that petting and masturbation, for example, are sins, then send the parents away with an assignment and an appointment to report back, and then interview the child, so that you know s/he understands what you mean when you ask if they obey the Law of Chastity.

And if the adults are squeamish about this, then they need to get over it for the sake of being responsible parents - cuz anyone who has made a child can certainly talk about sex, and their children deserve proper training from their parents¹ - especially in the world as it is now.  (And I still contend that any child who's done it can talk about it - whatever it may be.)

¹ Seriously people, children are exposed to porn, sexual talk from peers, etc. at disgustingly young ages anymore, so if you let your child out of your presence without having had age-appropriate discussions about sexual behaviors and what is / is not OK, you are a negligent parent.  (And what you think is "age-appropriate" may well be too late, so do some research or something.)  The notion that they haven't already heard of these things by age 12 seems preposterous - and if they haven't, it could easily happen any next second, so prepare them for it.

Agreed about the church, and I like your solutions epecially number 2. I believe that open and honest communication with our children, especially emphasizing that they can always talk to us about anything, is the best way to protect them in any situation church or otherwise. Sin thrives in darkness and light is still the best way to banish it as you pointed out.

[JohnsonJones]

14 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

Any one on one interaction between an adult and a child is very problematic. The Scouts have taken steps to prevent this due to lawsuits.  The Church has also had its problems. The Catholic Church has booths called confessionals just to eliminate problems.  Everything is out in the open, but still can be private  

 

Some adults abuse their position and some children are too wise in worldly ways. Accusations can be very corrosive and actions even more so. 

 

The Church would be wise to insulate itself from any shadow of doubt in these cases. 

 

14 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

The whole thing makes me sad. I can't begin to tell you how helpful my one on one sessions with my Bishop were when I was young. Honestly, if they had insisted I have another adult with me when I was a teen, I never would have confessed anything to him, I wouldn't have gone on a mission, and in all probability I would not be active today. I'm not saying the church shouldn't do anything, I support the policy changes that have been put in place to protect children, but I can't help but wonder how many other young men and women are like I was, who will now shun visiting the bishop out of embarrassment or fear, and whose souls we may lose. Truly this is a dark time we live in.

While this may be true, the basic unit of the church is NOT THE WARD, it is the family.  For ecclesiastical circumstances within the family, your parents are in charge.  As long as your Father is righteous and keeping his covenants, HE IS THE JUDGE over his children.  The Bishop is the Judge over the Ward.

In my opinion, being a righteous Priesthood Holder and a Father is the second most important and valuable calling in the church (the most important being a Mother).  This is why parents are to typically be included in things dealing with heavy matters.  A youth CAN repent (just like an adult can repent without their Bishop) without their parents, because the LORD is the Final judge and who makes all the real decisions on salvation, exaltation, and eternity.  However, Parents are their legal and spiritual leaders in the home and for their individual family unit.  There are things that need to be confessed to a Bishop, but at the same time, the importance of parents should not be forgotten. 

You are correct that there may be many who shun visiting their bishop, ESPECIALLY IF PARENTS ARE INVOLVED....however, it also shows that up to 20% of boys and up to 50% of girls are sexually abused. 

Here comes the kicker...a LOT of that is from parents.  Thus, the question is how the child can tell the Bishop if this is going on if the parent is right there (the church allows another adult, it does NOT have to be a parent).  On the otherhand, a LOT of this is ALSO from those in positions of POWER over the child and sometimes done out of ignorance (such as a bishop talking about sexually explicit things to a youth or child IS actually considered Child Abuse in some places...thus some of these interviews WOULD BE CONSIDERED CHILD ABUSE).  The church has also addressed this, at least in our area.  We are NOT to ask children and youth more than what we are told.  If the youth needs to have further questions on their own initiative, we are to be guided by the spirit. 

Thus if we asked if they keep the law of Chastity, and the child says they do not, the next question would NOT to go into explicit questions, but to ask how they broke the law of chastity.  It is on the Youth to explain what they mean.  Being guided by the Spirit is excessively important in these situations, and you NEED to avoid breaking the Law yourself.  If it turns into something beyond your capacity, either call the church hotline (and they will tell you to either call the authorities if needed in some cases, or where good counseling can be for the child or if you need to find a mental health counselor to help the child), or if the situation warrants, call the authorities.  If it something that does not need that, find a way for the youth to repent.

The other side of the coin that I touched upon is that those in positions of power ALSO are primary causes behind those high numbers in Child Abuse.  This is where problems have arisen in other organization (and even in the LDS church with Bishop and other private interviews) in regards to child abuse in those organizations.  Having two adults present along with others (meaning other youth) is a good way to have other witnesses and individuals to protect against this type of abuse.

The reason why I feel the church should have two adults in the room at a minimum when ever with a youth (and this includes interviews) is actually selfish.  I want it for MY OWN PROTECTION.  The reason is the same that Boy Scouts have had it (theirs is two ways, protection for the boys from predators, and protection for adults who are innocent) and what other religions and organizations are discovering now.  There is too much potential for abuse, or for accusations when there is only one adult and one child present.

I appreciate that the church allows adults to go into the rooms in interviews.  They have good policies in regards to questions now which touch upon keeping one's covenants and the commandments, while at the same time not getting into areas we should not go into.  Unfortunately, the onus is all on the youth.  They get to decide whether to have a parent or another adult in the room.  I'd actually like it if the adults ALSO could choose to have someone else present as that is not just a protection for the youth against predators, but also for the adults present against accusations (and yes, I feel that there are those that also will flay around false accusations at times as well, thus having other witnesses is a good thing).

Edited September 13, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Anddenex]

8 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

While this may be true, the basic unit of the church is NOT THE WARD, it is the family.  For ecclesiastical circumstances within the family, your parents are in charge.  As long as your Father is righteous and keeping his covenants, HE IS THE JUDGE over his children.  The Bishop is the Judge over the Ward.

In my opinion, being a righteous Priesthood Holder and a Father is the second most important and valuable calling in the church (the most important being a Mother).  This is why parents are to typically be included in things dealing with heavy matters.  A youth CAN repent (just like an adult can repent without their Bishop) without their parents, because the LORD is the Final judge and who makes all the real decisions on salvation, exaltation, and eternity.  However, Parents are their legal and spiritual leaders in the home and for their individual family unit.

Although I understand what you are specifying, the aspect (which you already know) needs to be clarified with these types of statements.

As a father I am indeed a judge over my children, but I am not a "judge in Israel" that has been given specific keys from presiding officers in order to help children, youth, and adults to overcome sin. As a father I can take my child (son or daughter) by the hand and walk with them through the repentance process. They can confess all their sins to me; however, I do not have any keys bestowed upon me to allow them to enter the temple worthily if they have been breaking the law of chastity to a sufficient enough degree that requires priesthood keys.

So indeed, youth and adults are able to repent without parents or bishops, but if there transgression/sin is serious enough the repentance process will not be complete if we haven't seen a person with presiding keys that make them judges in Israel.

Personally, I expect my bishop to ask difficult questions. This whole scenario of asking difficult questions as being "child abuse" is really unfortunate -- especially if we consider ourselves enlightened people. Child abuse is child abuse, and if child abuse can be considered talking about sexual topics, and asking questions related to sexual sin, well, then even teachers, professors, etc... are child abusers (health class in middle school is child abuse). A license doesn't make something none child abuse. If it is child abuse it is child abuse no matter your degree. Are there inappropriate conversations, yes, but to define an inappropriate conversation as child abuse isn't good either.

Parents should be the first introduction to chastity. We have been teaching chastity the moment our children turn eight. If they ask questions before the age of eight we answer them.

[wenglund]

Seldom and brief bishop interviews are a pleasant walk in the park compared to the sexualized onslaught children and youth are frequently subjected to in public education (not just sex (courses) and popular culture.

The former is intent on growing the soul, while the later seems bent on promoting perversion.

Yet, where is the focus of the self-righteous?

This gives added meaning to the parable of motes and beams.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

[unixknight]

15 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

The Catholic Church has booths called confessionals just to eliminate problems.  Everything is out in the open, but still can be private  

Just by way of clarification, that's not entirely accurate. (Former Catholic here)

The confessional is meant as a mechanism to allow the confessor to speak to the priest through a screen in order to protect anonymity.  It's a lot easier to talk about your private screwups when there's a wall and screen separating you.  

It's not about eliminating such problems as appearances.  Confessionals have been in use for centuries.

Optionally, a confessor can talk face to face with the priest in a private room.  It's all the same, but there's no screen.  When I was a boy I went to confession in both ways.

[anatess2]

9 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Just by way of clarification, that's not entirely accurate. (Former Catholic here)

The confessional is meant as a mechanism to allow the confessor to speak to the priest through a screen in order to protect anonymity.  It's a lot easier to talk about your private screwups when there's a wall and screen separating you.  

It's not about eliminating such problems as appearances.  Confessionals have been in use for centuries.

Optionally, a confessor can talk face to face with the priest in a private room.  It's all the same, but there's no screen.  When I was a boy I went to confession in both ways.

P.S.  The road to reconciliation does not end at the confessional.  The Priest guides the penitent through the entire journey, not just at confession.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

"At the dawn of the Restoration, many at least professed to follow the Savior’s teachings. Many countries considered themselves Christian nations. But even then there was prophecy of a more difficult time for our day.

Heber C. Kimball was one of the original Twelve Apostles of this dispensation and First Counselor to President Brigham Young. He warned: “The time is coming when … it will be difficult to tell the face of a Saint from the face of an enemy to the people of God. Then … look out for the great sieve, for there will be a great sifting time, and many will fall.” He concluded that there is “a TEST coming.”

- "Valiant in the Testimony of Jesus," Elder Quentin L. Cook, General Conference, October 2016

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, anatess2 said:

P.S.  The road to reconciliation does not end at the confessional.  The Priest guides the penitent through the entire journey, not just at confession.

I must have been a pretty good kid then, because the most severe penance I ever got was to say 5 Hail Marys and 5 Our Fathers.  

[anatess2]

6 minutes ago, unixknight said:

I must have been a pretty good kid then, because the most severe penance I ever got was to say 5 Hail Marys and 5 Our Fathers.  

You must have been terrible!  The pretty good kids usually just get the Prayer of the Penitent! 

 

Edited September 13, 2018 by anatess2

[unixknight]

Just now, anatess2 said:

You must have been terrible!  Kids usually just get the Prayer of the Penitent! 

 

I don't think I ever heard of that prayer.  Maybe I was just always awful then 

[anatess2]

Just now, unixknight said:

I don't think I ever heard of that prayer.  Maybe I was just always awful then 

This made me fall off my chair.  Ahhh... I had fun being Catholic.

I'm sure you know that prayer... I still remember it today!  Hmmm... wait... I actually don't remember all of it.  Wow.  I just realized I've been an LDS so long.  But it goes something like - My God, I am sorry for all my sins. In choosing to do wrong I have failed to do good and sinned against You who I love... something-something... with Your help I will sin no more.  God have mercy.  Amen.  Wow, I can't believe I don't remember that prayer!

[unixknight]

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This made me fall off my chair.  Ahhh... I had fun being Catholic.

I'm sure you know that prayer... I still remember it today!  Hmmm... wait... I actually don't remember all of it.  Wow.  I just realized I've been an LDS so long.  But it goes something like - My God, I am sorry for all my sins. In choosing to do wrong I have failed to do good and sinned against You who I love... something-something... with Your help I will sin no more.  God have mercy.  Amen.  Wow, I can't believe I don't remember that prayer!

Nope, never learned that one.  Maybe it just wasn't used in my area...

[lostinwater]

56 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Seldom and brief bishop interviews are a pleasant walk in the park compared to the sexualized onslaught children and youth are frequently subjected to in public education (not just sex (courses) and popular culture.

The former is intent on growing the soul, while the later seems bent on promoting perversion.

Yet, where is the focus of the self-righteous?

This gives added meaning to the parable of motes and beams.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Wade - you don't really believe that the intent is promoting perversion, do you?  

i mean, i'm not a fan of one on one bishops interviews (based on the experiences of people i know), but i don't think people who are wake up every day intending to cause the damage i have observed because of them.  

And everyone knows that Sam Young has four daughters, more than one of which were actively probed with explicit questions (way beyond the simple "do you keep the law of chastity" one)  without Sam's knowledge, right?  That he didn't just pluck a cause out of a hat and decide to forego working professional for a few months, starve himself 3 weeks, and lose all his church friends as part of an adult temper tantrum?  

[anatess2]

38 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Wade - you don't really believe that the intent is promoting perversion, do you?  

I'm not Wade but I think you misunderstood his statement.  He did not say Sam Young is promoting perversion.  He said that out of all the people who has one-on-one access to kids - including schools and the entertainment industry - Sam Young is choosing to take up the banner against bishops whose intent is spiritual upliftment instead of all these other sources whose intent is to promote perversion.

In any case, I'm not convinced Sam Young did not pluck this cause out of a hat.  Might not be an adult temper tantrum but it still looks to me like self aggrandizement.

Edited September 13, 2018 by anatess2

[wenglund]

44 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Wade - you don't really believe that the intent is promoting perversion, do you?  

Yes, though I was speaking about the public education system and popular culture in general, and not Young in particular, and I had in mind the activists and leaders, rather than the unwitting and oft uninformed followers.

Furthermore, my point wasn't to dismiss concerns about one-on-one interviews, but rather to put it into perspective and priority, particularly in terms of public outcry and rallying.

Young, as I see him, is merely one of many of the self-righteous who are misdirected in their focus.

To me, it is analogous to whipping up public drama over a slow leaking facet  when the flood tide is pouring over the banks and a tsunami is about to crash over head, if it hasn't already.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 13, 2018 by wenglund

[Rob Osborn]

I often wonder if Lucifer himself started his own road into perdition because of the self glory of being noticed and supported in his cause. Reading Sams blog I noticed that he fell in love with social media and having a voice where people noticed him. Its the same for all them folks, John Dehlin especially. There is a certain pride there that empowers them and they will stop at nothing to have supporters behind them and the mental attitude of acknowledgement in their cause.

[JohnsonJones]

4 hours ago, Anddenex said:

Although I understand what you are specifying, the aspect (which you already know) needs to be clarified with these types of statements.

As a father I am indeed a judge over my children, but I am not a "judge in Israel" that has been given specific keys from presiding officers in order to help children, youth, and adults to overcome sin. As a father I can take my child (son or daughter) by the hand and walk with them through the repentance process. They can confess all their sins to me; however, I do not have any keys bestowed upon me to allow them to enter the temple worthily if they have been breaking the law of chastity to a sufficient enough degree that requires priesthood keys.

So indeed, youth and adults are able to repent without parents or bishops, but if there transgression/sin is serious enough the repentance process will not be complete if we haven't seen a person with presiding keys that make them judges in Israel.

Personally, I expect my bishop to ask difficult questions. This whole scenario of asking difficult questions as being "child abuse" is really unfortunate -- especially if we consider ourselves enlightened people. Child abuse is child abuse, and if child abuse can be considered talking about sexual topics, and asking questions related to sexual sin, well, then even teachers, professors, etc... are child abusers (health class in middle school is child abuse). A license doesn't make something none child abuse. If it is child abuse it is child abuse no matter your degree. Are there inappropriate conversations, yes, but to define an inappropriate conversation as child abuse isn't good either.

Parents should be the first introduction to chastity. We have been teaching chastity the moment our children turn eight. If they ask questions before the age of eight we answer them.

This is true.

Educators in school must be trained to talk about it in a certain way.  Even then, there are those that are arrested for approaching or doing it the wrong way.  It is a touchy subject.  Some laws vary from state to state (for example, some of the things that could be discussed explicitly in school in California would be banned in Texas).  Some of it depends on parental approval (so, in some states you could talk about what it is and how it is performed generally to conceive a child...but if you do it without parental approval, you've committed a crime) or how the parents perceive what you've done and the child's/youth's accusation.

This is why it's normally best done with someone who has been trained in how to do this so one doesn't make a mistake.  Most Bishop do NOT get into this deeply (or I would hope not).  It are those that DO delve into far more explicit detail than is needed where the crimes have been committed (and I have unfortunately seen this done, not against me personally, but against someone I knew).  It is why it is BEST to stick to what the LDS church has told us to do (at least in my area).  When I reflect on those who have committed crimes it is universally those who chose to do things other than what the LDS church is telling us to do now.

[Midwest LDS]

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

While this may be true, the basic unit of the church is NOT THE WARD, it is the family.  For ecclesiastical circumstances within the family, your parents are in charge.  As long as your Father is righteous and keeping his covenants, HE IS THE JUDGE over his children.  The Bishop is the Judge over the Ward.

In my opinion, being a righteous Priesthood Holder and a Father is the second most important and valuable calling in the church (the most important being a Mother).  This is why parents are to typically be included in things dealing with heavy matters.  A youth CAN repent (just like an adult can repent without their Bishop) without their parents, because the LORD is the Final judge and who makes all the real decisions on salvation, exaltation, and eternity.  However, Parents are their legal and spiritual leaders in the home and for their individual family unit.  There are things that need to be confessed to a Bishop, but at the same time, the importance of parents should not be forgotten. 

You are correct that there may be many who shun visiting their bishop, ESPECIALLY IF PARENTS ARE INVOLVED....however, it also shows that up to 20% of boys and up to 50% of girls are sexually abused. 

Here comes the kicker...a LOT of that is from parents.  Thus, the question is how the child can tell the Bishop if this is going on if the parent is right there (the church allows another adult, it does NOT have to be a parent).  On the otherhand, a LOT of this is ALSO from those in positions of POWER over the child and sometimes done out of ignorance (such as a bishop talking about sexually explicit things to a youth or child IS actually considered Child Abuse in some places...thus some of these interviews WOULD BE CONSIDERED CHILD ABUSE).  The church has also addressed this, at least in our area.  We are NOT to ask children and youth more than what we are told.  If the youth needs to have further questions on their own initiative, we are to be guided by the spirit. 

Thus if we asked if they keep the law of Chastity, and the child says they do not, the next question would NOT to go into explicit questions, but to ask how they broke the law of chastity.  It is on the Youth to explain what they mean.  Being guided by the Spirit is excessively important in these situations, and you NEED to avoid breaking the Law yourself.  If it turns into something beyond your capacity, either call the church hotline (and they will tell you to either call the authorities if needed in some cases, or where good counseling can be for the child or if you need to find a mental health counselor to help the child), or if the situation warrants, call the authorities.  If it something that does not need that, find a way for the youth to repent.

The other side of the coin that I touched upon is that those in positions of power ALSO are primary causes behind those high numbers in Child Abuse.  This is where problems have arisen in other organization (and even in the LDS church with Bishop and other private interviews) in regards to child abuse in those organizations.  Having two adults present along with others (meaning other youth) is a good way to have other witnesses and individuals to protect against this type of abuse.

The reason why I feel the church should have two adults in the room at a minimum when ever with a youth (and this includes interviews) is actually selfish.  I want it for MY OWN PROTECTION.  The reason is the same that Boy Scouts have had it (theirs is two ways, protection for the boys from predators, and protection for adults who are innocent) and what other religions and organizations are discovering now.  There is too much potential for abuse, or for accusations when there is only one adult and one child present.

I appreciate that the church allows adults to go into the rooms in interviews.  They have good policies in regards to questions now which touch upon keeping one's covenants and the commandments, while at the same time not getting into areas we should not go into.  Unfortunately, the onus is all on the youth.  They get to decide whether to have a parent or another adult in the room.  I'd actually like it if the adults ALSO could choose to have someone else present as that is not just a protection for the youth against predators, but also for the adults present against accusations (and yes, I feel that there are those that also will flay around false accusations at times as well, thus having other witnesses is a good thing).

I agree with some of what you are saying. We, as parents, definitely need to be more involved with, and aware of, the things going on in our children's lives. But I completely disagree with the notion that they can "just repent on their own." In the case of serious sin, that is just not true. The Lord gives us the pattern of repentance in Doctrine and Covenants 58:43

"By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them."

We have been told through modern revelation that in the case of serious sin we have to talk to our bishop, our common judge in Israel, in order to fully confess our sin. Frankly, I don't like the idea of essentially telling teens to wait until you are an adult before you have to worry about going to the bishop, because habits become entrenched. How much harder would it be to overcome an addiction to pornography and masturbation after hiding it and trying to fix it on your own for years before getting spirutual help? And that's just one of many examples. As I stated before, I don't disagree with the church's policy change. Unfortunately, due to the hellish world we live in, extra eyes may be required in many places we never thought we needed them before. But talking frankly about the sins we have committed is NOT child abuse. Frankness and openess are how we banish sin from our lives, and the minute we start telling our kids and ourselves to be vague, and hide the depths of our sin, we are preventing them from truly repenting and receiving the spirtual help we MUST have to change. 

Also, as an aside, I think we underestimate how many people feel more comfortable having less people, not more, involved in our repentance. I accept that there are some who want more people involved to feel comfortable, and I'm glad that is an option for them. I would never have, in a million years, talked to my bishop if my mom and dad were required to be in the room with me. I was embarrassed, ashamed, and filled with guilt over my actions and I was physically incapable of telling more people about my sins, even though I have good parents who now I know would have been supportive. I am sure there are many youth who are similar to the way I was and, while I accept this is just the world we live in now, it makes my heart break to think of how many people will now choose to suffer in their sins rather than being freed from them by not talking to the proper authorities. I hope I'm wrong, but it's something I'm worried about.

 

[JohnsonJones]

11 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

I agree with some of what you are saying. We, as parents, definitely need to be more involved with, and aware of, the things going on in our children's lives. But I completely disagree with the notion that they can "just repent on their own." In the case of serious sin, that is just not true. The Lord gives us the pattern of repentance in Doctrine and Covenants 58:43

"By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them."

We have been told through modern revelation that in the case of serious sin we have to talk to our bishop, our common judge in Israel, in order to fully confess our sin. Frankly, I don't like the idea of essentially telling teens to wait until you are an adult before you have to worry about going to the bishop, because habits become entrenched. How much harder would it be to overcome an addiction to pornography and masturbation after hiding it and trying to fix it on your own for years before getting spirutual help? And that's just one of many examples. As I stated before, I don't disagree with the church's policy change. Unfortunately, due to the hellish world we live in, extra eyes may be required in many places we never thought we needed them before. But talking frankly about the sins we have committed is NOT child abuse. Frankness and openess are how we banish sin from our lives, and the minute we start telling our kids and ourselves to be vague, and hide the depths of our sin, we are preventing them from truly repenting and receiving the spirtual help we MUST have to change. 

Also, as an aside, I think we underestimate how many people feel more comfortable having less people, not more, involved in our repentance. I accept that there are some who want more people involved to feel comfortable, and I'm glad that is an option for them. I would never have, in a million years, talked to my bishop if my mom and dad were required to be in the room with me. I was embarrassed, ashamed, and filled with guilt over my actions and I was physically incapable of telling more people about my sins, even though I have good parents who now I know would have been supportive. I am sure there are many youth who are similar to the way I was and, while I accept this is just the world we live in now, it makes my heart break to think of how many people will now choose to suffer in their sins rather than being freed from them by not talking to the proper authorities. I hope I'm wrong, but it's something I'm worried about.

 

We have been given the notion of how to do it.  We are told that we need to talk to the Bishops for certain sins.

However, I am not going to give a blanket allowance that this applies all the time.  This is because Jesus is Lord and he can do whatever he wants.  As he so aptly demonstrated in the New Testament from time to time, he is the maker of the Law.  If he says someone is forgiven and allows them to heaven, who are we to say they are not?

Depending on who you read, some apostles and prophets have hypothesized (thus it is NOT doctrine by a LARGE margin) that when we are resurrected it will be our fathers acting in proxy for the Lord that will be given the opportunity to raise us up.  In that light, they will very much be acting as judge, jury, and executioner.

Why is this?  Because of all those who knew you on this earth, your Father is the one leader that should have known you best, and is the ONLY leader that will have been your Priesthood leader for the duration of your life (he is still your Father, even when dead).  Your Bishop is a temporal judge, meaning that he only holds his office for a short period and then it is given to another.  He is a judge in Israel meaning that he is over the chosen of the Lord's people.  However, he is not your life long judge.

It is best to be honest with your parents.  Most take the Ten commandments (and many others) to merely be temporal commandments (meaning for our mortal existence).  However, they are very much extensions of eternal law.  There is a law that says...Honor your Father and your Mother.  In ancient times, with holding secrets could be considered a death sentence, and in ancient societies (Israel included in some laws) a Father could order their own child's death.  It would be considered justice.  Honoring your parents meant a LOT more than what people think today. 

Luckily, I was blessed with mostly good kids.  We never had a problem with them or the Bishops in their interviews.  I was pretty aware of what my kids were doing though.  Some may have called me over zealous in that area at times.

PS: I am fine with the regulations they have now if people will just follow them.  I know the reasons for them and think that they should be adhered to.  I personally would like it if the Bishop or counselors could ask for parents to be in the room if they wish to as well, just because I LIKE the two deep leadership ideas they have in scouts as that also provides protection not just for the youth, but also for the adults.  It only takes on accusation to send a Bishops reputation to the gutter, whether they are innocent or guilty.  If you, suddenly joined the Me Too movement today, it is possible that you could trash your old Bishops reputation.  It would be a relief if he had at least one witness to say...no...that's not what went on in that room.

Edited September 13, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[JohnsonJones]

24 minutes ago, Midwest LDS said:

I am sure there are many youth who are similar to the way I was and, while I accept this is just the world we live in now, it makes my heart break to think of how many people will now choose to suffer in their sins rather than being freed from them by not talking to the proper authorities. I hope I'm wrong, but it's something I'm worried about.

 

On this specifically, judge not that ye be not judged.  We can only know for ourselves on where we may stand.  In regards to others, let he who atoned for us do the judging.  It is my PERSONAL belief that he is FAR more forgiving than many give him credit for. 

In that light, going to a Bishop is NOT to forgive one of their sins.  They CAN be forgiven of their sins without a Bishop.  This is a common misunderstanding.  The Bishop is a temporal judge.  It is his job to judge one's standing in Israel, or within the church.  There are some sins that need to have help to overcome, and this is where the Bishop stands.  However, the Bishop has NO ability to help forgive or to forgive any sins at all.  We are NOT the Catholic Church and do not believe that the Lord invests this power in Bishops, Priests or others.  The Bishop is there to facilitate repentance and to help someone overcome their sins.  No Bishop has any ability to waive or forgive a sin.  They CAN help people KNOW that they are forgiven of their sins, and to help those that are not repentant to try to obtain that humility to repent.  However, the ONLY one that forgives a sin is he who paid the price of those sins, namely our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. 

I feel that he is normally going to forgive us just about as quickly as we repent of most sins.  The problem remains that we do not forgive ourselves, or we cannot accept that forgiveness from him.  If one had to confess to a Bishop to be forgiven, then you'd have to confess every little sin that you ever committed to a Bishop.  Instead, we have the miracle of the atonement which allows it to be more personal and between an individual and the Lord.

This is NOT to negate the need of someone to go to their Bishop, and I am not saying that.  However, I am not going to state that someone who does not turn to their Bishop cannot ever be forgiven of serious sin if they follow the steps of repentance as given by the Lord in the Scriptures (which actually does NOT define that you have to confess to a Bishop, that's more of our current policies in the church) and the Lord forgives them.  I do not dictate to the Lord what he can or cannot do.

That said, if one has committed serious sin they SHOULD and NEED to confess to their Bishop.  Invariably they will find that path far easier and kinder than suffering through it on their own, and paying the price with their own way then if they had gone to their Bishop instead...IN MY OPINION.  If one thinks that they will escape a harsh path by keeping it to themselves, they are only kidding themselves most likely.  I would imagine that those who choose that path instead of going to their Bishop for serious sin, are instead choosing a path to repentance that will be far harder on them and tougher to overcome in the long run (and in some instances, when left to one's own devices...nigh impossible).

 

Addendum:  It should also be noted that there are SOME SINS that will most likely NOT be forgiven of in this life, and some that will NOT be forgiven in this life.  Normally sins of that caliber require excommunication and go directly to an authority FAR higher than a Bishop.  Such sins as these go to the First Presidency.  They make the final decisions on whether these sins were acceptable or what level they are taken or if that individual remains excommunicated.

In addition, serious sins that are beyond the Bishops scope to help normally go up to the Stake Level and are handled by those who have the greater keys and judgment than a Bishop has.

Edited September 13, 2018 by JohnsonJones