4 Takes on Youth Interviews from an LDS Lawyer

[Third Hour]

Opinion Full disclosure here: I’m a lawyer, and I have threatened to sue a bishop over his communications with a young lady. I also, for the record, have threatened to knock one out. And I still feel pretty good about both of those decisions.   That said, I do not believe that we have such a crisis of moral authority among or bishops and stake presidents that they should not be able to ask a young man or woman, “Do you live the law of chastity?” Youth interviews are something that the Church does that is different from other churches and may be difficult to understand by people not raised in spiritual environments where accountability and worthiness are not just talked about, but talked about face-to-face. And while some may protest the practice entirely, I think that the Church is doing its best to address legitimate concerns while maintaining a key aspect of our faith: The worthiness interview. Some quick thoughts for which I am likely to suffer the pains of internet...

View the full article

[Guest]

My sentiments exactly.  And I'm not even a lawyer.

[Just_A_Guy]

I like this very much.  (And no, I didn’t write it.  Wish I had, though.)

[Jane_Doe]

Wonderfully said!

[goor_de]

2 hours ago, MormonHub said:

Opinion Full disclosure here: I’m a lawyer, and I have threatened to sue a bishop over his communications with a young lady. I also, for the record, have threatened to knock one out. And I still feel pretty good about both of those decisions.   That said, I do not believe that we have such a crisis of moral authority among or bishops and stake presidents that they should not be able to ask a young man or woman, “Do you live the law of chastity?” Youth interviews are something that the Church does that is different from other churches and may be difficult to understand by people not raised in spiritual environments where accountability and worthiness are not just talked about, but talked about face-to-face. And while some may protest the practice entirely, I think that the Church is doing its best to address legitimate concerns while maintaining a key aspect of our faith: The worthiness interview. Some quick thoughts for which I am likely to suffer the pains of internet...

View the full article

I ask where the problem is.
the bishop should be called by the holy spirit
He should know the candidate

[Grunt]

One of the best things we can do is build a parental relationship with our children that enables them to come to us with fears like this.  

[BonYon54]

Obviously, there have been problems.  One is too much.  We as parents need to be more involved with talking about things of a sensitive nature with our children, and explain what are acceptable questions (like the law of chastity question) and what are not.  And I also would have advised them  to what extent to respond to inquiries after confessing a sin or weakness.  They need to know what is appropriate and what is not, both behavorially and verbally, when alone with any adult.  I never considered what my children might be exposed to in a one-on-one interview when they were growing up.  Shame on me.  I believe all bishops are called of God, but we are ALL human, and things do happen we might not expect.   

Angry rhetoric and a bullhorn aside, I am glad the man alluded to in the article was my daughters' bishop, and my sons' bishop. I feel better knowing he was there for them in a time when I was oblivious to this being a touchy situation. I grieve for him and his family.  I may not agree with everything said, or how he did it, but I am glad this issue has been brought into the light. 

The Church recently put forth an article that called for bishops to be willing to accept another adult in the room during one-on-one interviews, if requested by the parent or youth (although I don't recall how much emphasis was given to apprising the youth [or parents] of these rights). 

I hope the Church continues to instruct bishops on this issue, and continues to teach them how to protect themselves and the youth from further consequences.

 

Edited September 29, 2018 by BonYon54
more to say

[The Folk Prophet]

Give me a break.

No bishop would forcible drag a kid into their office for an interview.

Ridiculous.

If the bishop said the parent cannot attend, the parent simply says no and the kid doesn't get the recommend or whatever. Then the parent can talk to the Stake Pres. or some such. NO bishop would physically force a child into their office while the parent watched and waited to call 9-1-1. Garbage, garbage, garbage.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Give me a break.

No bishop would forcible drag a kid into their office for an interview.

Ridiculous.

If the bishop said the parent cannot attend, the parent simply says no and the kid doesn't get the recommend or whatever. Then the parent can talk to the Stake Pres. or some such. NO bishop would physically force a child into their office while the parent watched and waited to call 9-1-1. Garbage, garbage, garbage.

While true, I believe you misread his intent.

He was responding to a man''s question that was itself unreasonable.  He was really telling this father that it would be unreasonable to believe a bishop would actually do that.  But a lawyer doesn't tell someone that.  He answers the question given to him from a legalistic perspective.  And he did just that.

I believe it also drove the point home to the readers of the article as well.

Edited September 29, 2018 by Guest

[Vort]

A lawyer freely and publicly admits to assault? I can't believe that's a wise course of action.

[Just_A_Guy]

28 minutes ago, Vort said:

A lawyer freely and publicly admits to assault? I can't believe that's a wise course of action.

It’s only tortious assault if the victim has a reasonable fear of immediate harm.

Most lawyers, however, are a pretty pasty, out-of-shape bunch; and people don’t usually “fear” us in a physical sense.  

[Vort]

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It’s only tortious assault if the victim has a reasonable fear of immediate harm.

I would think that threatening to concuss someone would count...

[Just_A_Guy]

38 minutes ago, Vort said:

I would think that threatening to concuss someone would count...

It’s been ten years since law school; but IIRC the tort of “assault” means something more than a verbal threat happened—there had to be a physical action.  If I drew my fist back as if to take a swing at you, or aimed a gun at you—that’s more in-line with common law assault, IIRC.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

While true, I believe you misread his intent.

He was responding to a man''s question that was itself unreasonable.  He was really telling this father that it would be unreasonable to believe a bishop would actually do that.  But a lawyer doesn't tell someone that.  He answers the question given to him from a legalistic perspective.  And he did just that.

I believe it also drove the point home to the readers of the article as well.

Misread my foot.

[NeuroTypical]

Quote

The father asked me what he should do. I told him to tell the bishop that he was not allowed to interview his minor child unless he or his wife were present. He asked what to do if the bishop didn’t follow that advice. “Well, pulling an unwilling kid into a room and shutting the door is kidnapping, so call 9-1-1 and give a big friendly wave as he drives away in the back of a police cruiser.”

Been Exec Sec or clerk for going on five bishops in two states now.  Been in a lot of bishopric meetings when the discuss individual needs of individual youth.  Starting in, like, the late '90's.  Yeah, none of them would ever dream of interviewing youth 1:1 against the wishes of the parents.  

And the author knows this too.  And now, hopefully, the father had his unnecessary fear put to rest.

[zil]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Misread my foot.

[let’s roll]

Torts are civil claims.  Assault can be tort, but it can also be a crime.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Misread my foot.

You can read feet?  What are you a ... sole reader?  (see what I did there?  sole/soul... ahem).

[Just_A_Guy]

41 minutes ago, let’s roll said:

Torts are civil claims.  Assault can be tort, but it can also be a crime.

 

Right; but Denson’s current lawsuit sounds in tort.

[zil]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Right; but Denson’s current lawsuit sounds in tort.

I think you're in the wrong thread.  This thread has nothing to do with Denson - it's about threatening to knock your bishop silly.

[NeuroTypical]

9 hours ago, goor_de said:

I ask where the problem is.
the bishop should be called by the holy spirit
He should know the candidate

Accepting a calling does not make you perfect.  It does not mean you stop being a mortal fallen human.  You do not lose your agency when you are in the service of the Lord.  People in callings can still sin, no matter what the calling.

Edited September 30, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[Guest]

Just now, NeuroTypical said:

Accepting a calling does not make you perfect.  It does not mean you stop being a mortal fallen human.  People in callings can still sin, no matter what the calling.

Oh!  That's what he was talking about.  I couldn't make out what he was getting at.

[goor_de]

4 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

Accepting a calling does not make you perfect.  It does not mean you stop being a mortal fallen human.  You do not lose your agency when you are in the service of the Lord.  People in callings can still sin, no matter what the calling.

Can God not estimate at the vocation what character the probant has?

[Overwatch]

7 hours ago, goor_de said:

Can God not estimate at the vocation what character the probant has?

I think I know what you are getting at. Here is something I noticed too: Often if the bishop doesn't do something criminal a lot of members say "He is called of God and inspired, even if you have a million things on your plate you should take the call he is extending (just one example) As soon as a bishop commits a crime "He used his agency for evil and is just a natural man like everyone else and deserves his punishment" Here is my take, if the Bishop asks you to do something that makes YOU uncomfortable review it in your mind and pray. If it then doesn't sit well take it to your stake President. If it is something criminal report immediately to your stake President and police.

To answer the question, God knows all of us and our strengths and weaknesses. It us up to the leaders to prayerfully call members to callings. To be in tune with the spirit. Most of the times they get it right, sometimes they don't; they are mortal just like us. Sometimes people are worthy at the moment and the spirit gives the okay to call them, then they become unworthy after they receive the calling. It is up to them at that point to confess and go through the repentance process.

Edited September 30, 2018 by Overwatch

[goor_de]

14 minutes ago, Overwatch said:

 

 Sometimes people are worthy at the moment and the spirit gives the okay to call them, then they become unworthy after they receive the calling. It is up to them at that point to confess and go through the repentance process.

Let's play through this
It is not the duty of the stake president to watch over the communities.
why does not one get a clue by the Holy Spirit to prevent harm

Edited September 30, 2018 by goor_de