Interviews with leaders

[Tyme]

I don't understand why the church won't make it policy that anybody under 18 must be accompanied by parents for interviews. The only thing I can think of is that maybe the kid won't be as honest if their parents are around. My daughter was just baptized Saturday. I found out she was interviewed alone by her branch president. It freaked me out that something inappropriate might be asked. I don't care how much my ex or in-laws trust the branch president. You just never know what could happen. There are plenty of horror stories about these interviews.

Do you think a parent should attend interviews for any child under 18? Why or why not?

[JohnsonJones]

Personally speaking...yes.

For the same reason that the BSA (when it was Boy Scouts) instituted the two deep leadership program. 

It protects both the child AND the adults.  It protects the child as we see from abuse far more than one on one situations, but it ALSO protects the adult from false accusations by having at least another witness there.

The church has gone with this idea to the point of saying that there should be two deep leadership in all children and youth activities.  However, with interviews it is still the interviewee's prerogative.  I think that some of this is that an individual may feel it easier to relate things such as sins to a non-parent then a parent and will be more likely to divulge such things if in private than if a parent is present.

That said, I personally would feel more comfortable if there were at least two adults required to be present, and having it be a parent would not be something I would object to.  If we believe that the Kingdom of the Lord is established with the basic unit being the family, then the parents should be the first ones turned to in these cases anyways (an opinion of mine, not necessarily shared by other members).  I know that some Bishops feel similarly and when confronted with teenagers that have sinned suggest heavily that they also talk to their parents about it, but this is not necessarily a universal thing or something even a majority of Bishops do.

[Tyme]

2 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

Personally speaking...yes.

For the same reason that the BSA (when it was Boy Scouts) instituted the two deep leadership program. 

It protects both the child AND the adults.  It protects the child as we see from abuse far more than one on one situations, but it ALSO protects the adult from false accusations by having at least another witness there.

The church has gone with this idea to the point of saying that there should be two deep leadership in all children and youth activities.  However, with interviews it is still the interviewee's prerogative.  I think that some of this is that an individual may feel it easier to relate things such as sins to a non-parent then a parent and will be more likely to divulge such things if in private than if a parent is present.

That said, I personally would feel more comfortable if there were at least two adults required to be present, and having it be a parent would not be something I would object to.  If we believe that the Kingdom of the Lord is established with the basic unit being the family, then the parents should be the first ones turned to in these cases anyways (an opinion of mine, not necessarily shared by other members).  I know that some Bishops feel similarly and when confronted with teenagers that have sinned suggest heavily that they also talk to their parents about it, but this is not necessarily a universal thing or something even a majority of Bishops do.

That's a good idea. Have at least two people present during the interviews. That way a child could still share stuff that he/she wouldn't feel comfortable sharing around parents.

[Tyme]

I just hate having to worry about the fact that my daughters are going to be interviewed alone repeatedly. It's really one of my main concerns for my daughters. I've heard too many horror stories.

[JohnsonJones]

Just now, Tyme said:

I just hate having to worry about the fact that my daughters are going to be interviewed alone repeatedly. It's really one of my main concerns for my daughters. I've heard too many horror stories.

They can ask to have a parent present.  They may be unaware that this is currently an option.

[Tyme]

3 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

They can ask to have a parent present.  They may be unaware that this is currently an option.

She's only 8 that means she's at the will of her mom and leaders.

[Midwest LDS]

10 minutes ago, Tyme said:

She's only 8 that means she's at the will of her mom and leaders.

If you are concerned you can request to be present. Parents have always been allowed to attend their children's interviews, and that has been reiterated recently. Maybe if you explain how important this is to you, your ex-wife will attend the meeting? Oh and FYI, on a seperate note because you should be able to attend the meeting if you want to, I never would have fixed things that were seriously wrong when I was a teenager if my parents had been required to sit in my interviews with me. I believe parents should be allowed to attend meetings and they are, but I also believe kids, especially teens, should be able to request private meetings with their bishops as well.

[Grunt]

I was glad my Bishop met with my boys.  I trust him and I trust them.  

[Guest MormonGator]

It's concerning to me as well. I've heard too many horror stories about pastors from all churches doing horrific things to children. While it's true, the odds are slim, to me it's just not worth the risk. 

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Tyme said:

I don't understand why the church won't make it policy that anybody under 18 must be accompanied by parents for interviews. The only thing I can think of is that maybe the kid won't be as honest if their parents are around. My daughter was just baptized Saturday. I found out she was interviewed alone by her branch president. It freaked me out that something inappropriate might be asked. I don't care how much my ex or in-laws trust the branch president. You just never know what could happen. There are plenty of horror stories about these interviews.

Do you think a parent should attend interviews for any child under 18? Why or why not?

If you can't trust your Branch President to babysit/interview/etc an 8 year old, or even a 17 year old, he has no business being your Branch President.  You shouldn't have raised your hand to sustain him in that calling.

In any case, I don't think there's anything stopping a parent from being in the room with their children on interviews.  I've never wanted to but I've always had the impression I can if I want to.

[MarginOfError]

In our ward, we've instituted the policy that any interview with a child not in the youth program must be conducted with the parent present.

All other members are asked "Would you like a parent, teacher, or another adult to accompany you to this interview?"  Regardless of the answer, the door between the bishop's office and the clerk's office is left slightly ajar.

The issue I have with "all minors have an adult present" is that sometimes minors need to have the ability to speak with their ecclesiastical leader privately and in confidence.  Especially in situations where the minor approaches the leader. There may be things the youth can tell a bishop ("I was out with my friends and we stole a motorcycle. I don't know what to do now.") that he is not obligated to report to law enforcement that other members may be required to report.

The improvements I would request at this point would be

1) a window in the door to the bishop's office (with a privacy screen arranged so that you can see the bishop, but not the interviewee)
2) a formal set of guidelines and philosophies about what interviewees can expect to be asked, including examples of questions that are out of line.

That is, I think we rely too much on our leaders just not committing any form of ecclesiastical abuse. I think it would be prudent to educate the general membership about when a leader has gone too far.

[Guest]

We're all saying protect the child.  That's fine.  But what about the bishop?

I can clearly see a time coming when a parent and child collude to falsely accuse the bishop of wrongdoing.  Then it's two people's word against one.

So, ok, have the bishop assign a second person beside him.  This creates two problems

• It now becomes an adversarial relationship which never should be in this situation.
• Now four people are supposed to keep confidence of very personal matters.  If word leaks out, whom do you blame?  Yes, there will be blame going around.

[MarginOfError]

I'll also point out that we talk about this as if it's some kind of problem that has never been solved. Which is false. Most churches have had this figured out for decades.

Yeah, we know all about the sexual abuse cases that hit the news. But we know the solution to that one. Reduce one on one contact.  (Hence, a window in the door to the bishop's office).  Quite simply, we have to be disciplined enough never to permit one-on-one contact. Even though we may trust the leaders now, it's that one leader 15 years from now who takes advantage of that trust that is the problem.  If we, as a community, keep the discipline to never permit one-on-one contact, the potential abuser who tries to get youth alone stands out pretty quickly.

But sexual abuse wasn't really even the issue at hand when originally presented in this thread.  Inappropriate lines of questioning were. We've all heard horror stories about priesthood leaders. But I don't hear a lot of these horror stories from other faiths.  Could it be that ministers in other faiths are given better training?  Perhaps @prisonchaplain could elaborate. But whatever expectations we have of priesthood leaders for how to conduct appropriate interviews should be public knowledge.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Reduce one on one contact.  (Hence, a window in the door to the bishop's office). 

...

But sexual abuse wasn't really even the issue at hand when originally presented in this thread.  Inappropriate lines of questioning were.

So, how does the window in the door method prevent inappropriate lines of questioning?

5 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

But I don't hear a lot of these horror stories from other faiths. 

Catholic priests, anyone?

Edited November 27, 2018 by Guest

[MarginOfError]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, how does the window in the door method prevent inappropriate lines of questioning?

It doesn't.  Inappropriate lines of questions is a separate issue.  Which is why it is addressed in its own paragraph.

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Catholic priests, anyone?

Again, you're crossing different topics.  Yes, we have vast evidence of priestly abuse in the Catholic church.  I don't hear many horror stories about priests asking inappropriate questions in the confessional.

[NeuroTypical]

7 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

But I don't hear a lot of these horror stories from other faiths.  Could it be that ministers in other faiths are given better training?

No.  It's a combination of reasons.

First and foremost, you aren't hearing because you're not listening.  There's absolutely nothing unique about the CoJCoLDS regarding the very rare bad egg in leadership.

Second, big organizations get more critical press and make for better headlines.  (Again, think about the Catholic priest scandals).  Nobody cares that Christ Church in that strip mall in Podunk, Oklahoma had to close after their priest molested someone. 

Third, whenever you hear a story, find out when the alleged bad things happened.  If there's a lawsuit, odds are the events happened 20+ years in the past.  

Fourth, there is an active agenda from various elements to disgrace this church and force change.  Folks are still be mad at us for our support of Prop 8.  They're livid at our not-following cultural winds and accepting same sex marriage, gender spectrums, etc.  Our efforts to stand and advocate for religious liberty makes enemies, and many of our enemies' tactics are strategically pointed at forcing social change.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

It is disappointing that so many are being deceived into thinking there is something inappropriate in the interviews by Bishops and Branch Presidents. Why do so many assume that all priesthood leaders are potential deviants? If you suspect every man of evil you will reach a point where you will begin accusing everyone and you will lose the Spirit and be consumed by the world. I think President Uchtdorf said it best, 

 

[Tyme]

Just now, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

It is disappointing that so many are being deceived into thinking there is something inappropriate in the interviews by Bishops and Branch Presidents. Why do so many assume that all priesthood leaders are potential deviants? If you suspect every man of evil you will reach a point where you will begin accusing everyone and you will lose the Spirit and be consumed by the world. I think President Uchtdorf said it best, 

 

It's not that all or even most Priesthood leaders are deviants. There is that 1/100,000 chance that a Priesthood leader is an abuser. That is enough right there to necessitate changes. Like I was reminded by Antaness in another post to paraphrase, "just because somebody is a member of the church doesn't make them a good person." I'm going to add -- just because somebody is a Priesthood leader doesn't mean they won't abuse your kid.

[Emmanuel Goldstein]

2 minutes ago, Tyme said:

It's not that all or even most Priesthood leaders are deviants. There is that 1/100,000 chance that a Priesthood leader is an abuser. That is enough right there to necessitate changes. Like I was reminded by Antaness in another post to paraphrase, "just because somebody is a member of the church doesn't make them a good person." I'm going to add -- just because somebody is a Priesthood leader doesn't mean they won't abuse your kid.

If you want to suspect your leaders, then feel free to ask that you sit in on every interview. That way your child will never be able to open up and discuss private matters in order to repent. I will not be going down that path, thank you very much.

[MarginOfError]

3 minutes ago, Emmanuel Goldstein said:

It is disappointing that so many are being deceived into thinking there is something inappropriate in the interviews by Bishops and Branch Presidents. 

Well, sometimes there is.  For instance, I dated a girl once who had been denied a temple recommend because she "failed to live the law of chastity by using tampons."  Inappropriate and stupid stuff happens.

Quote

Why do so many assume that all priesthood leaders are potential deviants?

Strictly speaking, all priesthood leaders are potential deviants.  I don't believe that many of them are.  But a rare few of them do fit that description.

Quote

If you suspect every man of evil you will reach a point where you will begin accusing everyone and you will lose the Spirit and be consumed by the world.

I don't suspect every man.  In fact, I suspect very few.  But the abusers are notoriously difficult to identify because they deliberately use our trust against us.  The point is to have a set of policies that discourage inappropriate behavior to begin with and then expose it rapidly when it does occur.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, MarginOfError said:

Well, sometimes there is.  For instance, I dated a girl once who had been denied a temple recommend because she "failed to live the law of chastity by using tampons."  Inappropriate and stupid stuff happens.

Did the bishop tell you this, or was it just the girl's story?

Because A) bull and B) crap.

[Vort]

3 hours ago, Tyme said:

Do you think a parent should attend interviews for any child under 18? Why or why not?

Not necessarily. We do not require parents to attend a child's public school, despite the fact that they're there for EIGHT FREAKING HOURS PER DAY—and despite knowing that "inappropriate and stupid stuff" happens there All. The. Time.

If people are willing to turn their children over to that meat grinder every day of every week of the school year because, you know, the teachers act in loco parentis, then I can think of no reasonable argument they might have against allowing a bishop to interview their child in private for ten minutes at a time.

Having said that, if the parent wants to be present, I can't think of a convincing reason for denying them. If they are e.g. molesting their child and think they can cow him/her into silence by being there, I don't think you can reasonably refuse them unless you have strong evidence of their molestation. And if you have that, you will be going to the police.

[Vort]

11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Did the bishop tell you this, or was it just the girl's story?

Because A) bull and B) crap.

I'm not willing to discount the story entirely. I remember my mom telling my sister that her mother (i.e. our grandma) had prohibited tampon use because "those are for married women." But I'm not likely to accept a story about a bishop denying a temple recommend due to tampon usage at face value. I suppose it's possible, but without a bunch more corroborating evidence, I'm much more likely to assume it's just another of those stupid stories floating around that get embellished more with every tale. Or perhaps a less-than-honest excuse from an embarrassed young woman who couldn't go with her youth group to the temple to do baptisms. Or some other situation that does not involve a bishop denying a temple recommend to a virtuous, worthy young woman because she uses tampons. I'm not saying no bishop is that stupid, but, come on, no bishop is that stupid.

[Jane_Doe]

3 hours ago, Tyme said:

I don't understand why the church won't make it policy that anybody under 18 must be accompanied by parents for interviews. The only thing I can think of is that maybe the kid won't be as honest if their parents are around. My daughter was just baptized Saturday. I found out she was interviewed alone by her branch president. It freaked me out that something inappropriate might be asked. I don't care how much my ex or in-laws trust the branch president. You just never know what could happen. There are plenty of horror stories about these interviews.

Do you think a parent should attend interviews for any child under 18? Why or why not?

 

3 hours ago, Tyme said:

I just hate having to worry about the fact that my daughters are going to be interviewed alone repeatedly. It's really one of my main concerns for my daughters. I've heard too many horror stories.

I'm going to be VERY blunt here,  speaking as somebody who was personally horribly sexually abused as a kid:

1 out of 3 girls are sexually abused somehow by the age of 18.  For boys it's 1 in 6.   This is just a statistical fact.  The most likely abuser is you: a parent.  After that it's siblings and extended relatives.  After that it's peers.  Clergy members are actually very low on the list.  So yes, there is a chance there will misconduct during a interview with a bishop and there are horror stories there.  There are many many many more horror stories involved with fathers, mothers, stepfathers, siblings, baby-sitters, 'boyfriends', etc.

So what to do?   Speaking as a survivor: educate you kids.  Teach appropriate boundaries, what to do when those boundaries are violated, and who to come to.  

That is a FAR more effective avenue of protection than trying to assure that they are never never in a situation where something bad can happen.  

Edited November 27, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Vort]

9 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

This is just a statistical fact.  The most likely abuser is you: a parent.

I hear this an awful lot. Please allow me to correct it:

There is statistically a 0.000000000000000000% chance that I sexually molest or otherwise abuse my children.

Just so that's out there.

EDIT: This is not a criticism of Jane_Doe. I understand what she's saying. But IMO, the common phraseology overly personalizes the matter. Abused children are most commonly victimized by a parent, but *I* have never and will never victimize my children in that way.

Edited November 27, 2018 by Vort