Interviews with leaders

[Grunt]

5 hours ago, Tyme said:

- just because somebody is a Priesthood leader doesn't mean they won't abuse your kid.

Or a teacher.  Or a policeman.  Or a babysitter. Or a grandfather.  Or an uncle.  The number of people that could abuse your child is endless.  

Me?  My Bishop is the least of my concerns.  

[The Folk Prophet]

46 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Or a teacher.  Or a policeman.  Or a babysitter. Or a grandfather.  Or an uncle.  The number of people that could abuse your child is endless.  

Me?  My Bishop is the least of my concerns.  

I'd like this post, but I really want @clbent04 to get his stats messed up.

[Anddenex]

7 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Agreed. But to @Vort's point: we send our children off to school and all other sorts of places where they may well experience the "inappropriate".

Ever heard of the sex education courses at public education classes. Case rested.  But these same people who bemoan a bishop asking questions often make sure their children attend these classes. I think the irony is exuding.

[boxer]

11 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

Reduce one on one contact.

False. Unfortunately, too many people do not understand how sexual abusers operate and thus they come up with all sorts of meaningless modes of protection that make them feel better but in the end do absolutely nothing to curb actual abuse.

The best way to reduce sexual assault of minors-have strong families.  Abusers are very, very smart and are exceptionally socially aware.  An abuser never picks the kid from that has good parental ties that are secure in their relationship with their parents.  I never, ever, ever worry about sexual abuse of my kids.  This is simple easy and effective, I've taught my kids to be strong, if they are in a situation they are uncomfortable with they are to leave. If they are in an uncomfortable situation they come talk to me about it-they know that if anything bad happens I will defend them. 

And more importantly, predators know that! Predators are very, very good at picking up on body language from kids and adults. They pick out the ones who are weak and who have weak relationships with parents and attack them.  A predator wouldn't dare mess with my kids because my body language and my demeanor with my children shows a strong relationship and any predator knows that a child with a strong relationship to parents means they are dead meat if they mess with it.

I'd kill someone who messed with my kids. 

And there are always warning signs, people will feel "creepy, unnerving" etc. around predators.  And no, I would not sustain someone into a leadership position such as a Bishop, if I felt they were a "creepy" person.  I'd say no, find someone else-if they asked me why I'd say the person gives me the creeps. People say, "who would have know" . . .that's false, there are always warning signs-always.  You may not notice them, but they are there.

I have yet to see one example of where 2-deep leadership has actually stopped abuse from happening.  It's nice and pleasant to think that's all we need to do to stop it . . .the problem is much, much deeper than just 2-deep leadership.

Edited November 28, 2018 by boxer

[anatess2]

12 hours ago, boxer said:

I have yet to see one example of where 2-deep leadership has actually stopped abuse from happening.  It's nice and pleasant to think that's all we need to do to stop it . . .the problem is much, much deeper than just 2-deep leadership.

2-deep leadership is not for the safety of the children.  2-deep leadership is for the safety of the leaders and protection for the organization.  The BSA instills 2-deep leadership to reduce lawsuits.

[Guest]

On 11/27/2018 at 4:32 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

I'd like this post, but I really want @clbent04 to get his stats messed up.

I've been avoiding liking anyone on the lists to achieve the same end.

I've also been liking several other people's posts at random to do the same thing.  I've even been liking Tyme's posts.

[Grunt]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I've been avoiding liking anyone on the lists to achieve the same end.

I've also been liking several other people's posts at random to do the same thing.  I've even been liking Tyme's posts.

Same. I'm also posting less.

[NeuroTypical]

Folks worried that their children might be abused by their bishop can rest assured that statistically speaking, the person most likely to abuse their children, is them.  By far.  After parents, then parent's love interest, everyone else is basically fighting for second to last. 

Edited November 30, 2018 by NeuroTypical

[SilentOne]

57 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Same. I'm also posting less.

I don't think anybody picked me. If I were to get the top number of likes over the course of the contest, would that affect the results or are you only scoring based on those picked, @clbent04? I may or may not take the answer into account when deciding whether to post on a given topic.

Edited November 30, 2018 by SilentOne

[clbent04]

7 minutes ago, SilentOne said:

I don't think anybody picked me. If I were to get the top number of likes over the course of the contest, would that affect the results or are you only scoring based on those picked, @clbent04? I may or may not take the answer into account when deciding whether to post on a given topic.

Lol. You guys are so sentimental with your likes being tracked. You know there's this thing on this website that has existed for quite some time that spotlights whoever gets the most likes in a day. I'm tracking everyone on the list, but only those who are picked have any bearing on the results of the contest. 

[clbent04]

6 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I've been avoiding liking anyone on the lists to achieve the same end.

I've also been liking several other people's posts at random to do the same thing.  I've even been liking Tyme's posts.

Carb, you're saying you only pretended to like my stuff?!  Just tell me one of those likes was genuine, please!!

[SilentOne]

14 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

You know there's this thing on this website that has existed for quite some time that spotlights whoever gets the most likes in a day.

We're aware.

 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, clbent04 said:

Carb, you're saying you only pretended to like my stuff?!  Just tell me one of those likes was genuine, please!!

I honestly don't know.  I've hardly been paying attention to the posts recently.  I'll go see if I really liked one of them.

EDIT: I've looked at your past few posts (all that come up on your history).  I might have liked one of them if I were feeling generous.  I think you're off your rocker on your theory on the Holy Ghost.

Edited November 30, 2018 by Guest

[prisonchaplain]

On 11/27/2018 at 8:03 AM, MarginOfError said:

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.

Bishops, like Catholic priests (and unlike Protestant clergy), are in positions of incredible spiritual power. They guide the faithful to repentance, restoration, reconciliation, and renewal. They also have the authority to discern and declare whether one is forgiven and worthy or not. Protestant ministers offer "soul care," but we generally would guide those who have sinned into directly asking God for forgiveness. So, there is less pressure and  need to delve into the specifics of sins--especially those of a sexual nature.

Most Protestant ministers who are trained, have had the equivalent of a minor in counseling. We learn to practice solution-based, short-term (4-6 sessions) ministry. When a female seeks counseling, male pastors will usually make sure a female staff person is nearby. Very often the office will have a one-way (if not two-way) window, so the staff person is always able to see what is happening. We also learn the dangers of transference, where one being counseled will come to believe they have fallen in love with the minister. In reality, they are enthralled with the perception of the minister being holy and wise. Should the minister fall into temptation, that parishioner will usually cry rape, because the pastor is no longer holy or wise.

Sex cannot be consensual in relationships where there is power imbalance. Bishops, from what I am told, receive manuals giving them church policy guidelines and some best practices. However, they mostly rely on the Holy Spirit to give them discernment. Those that come to the bishops know that they are not formally trained counselors. However, members share the belief that Heavenly Father, through church leadership, has called the bishops to fulfill this role, and has anointed them for the task.

Perhaps an outsider recommendation I could suggest would be that members--including parents--be made aware of what happens in these counseling sessions. Young people should probably be prepared, so none are blindsided by questions that might seem too specific, but are actually acceptable to seeking spiritual discernment. At the same time, it might be necessary to give parents and younger adults "red flags" that would help them realize when the questioning may have become inappropriate. I would also think bishops could easily be trained on some boundaries not to cross.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, prisonchaplain said:

Bishops, from what I am told, receive manuals giving them church policy guidelines and some best practices. However, they mostly rely on the Holy Spirit to give them discernment. Those that come to the bishops know that they are not formally trained counselors. However, members share the belief that Heavenly Father, through church leadership, has called the bishops to fulfill this role, and has anointed them for the task.

What most Saints are not aware of is that the Bishop's role is not that of counselor.  He is mostly an administrator.  I say "mostly" considering number of hours spent at the job. 

As far as spiritual counselor, the best bishops realize that they are not trained counselors.  Yes, they can receive inspiration to say some things at times.  But these bishops realize that 90% of the time, they are only there to be a listening ear.

If true counseling needs to be done, unless impressed by the Spirit to do otherwise, he's supposed to send them to LDS Social Services, where the trained counselors are.

I once had a bishop who asked some questions that prompted me to just unload all my frustrations and speak about all my complaints about my life at the time.  I think that would have been a great time for someone to simply listen and sympathize.  Instead, he thought he was gaining insight into my past and my motivations.  All his guesses were completely wrong.  I told him that.  And he tried to tell me I was wrong.  Wow.

I wish he had just listened.

Edited December 4, 2018 by Guest

[MarginOfError]

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

What most Saints are not aware of is that the Bishop's role is not that of counselor.  He is mostly an administrator.  I say "mostly" considering number of hours spent at the job. 

Although this seems to be true in a lot of cases, there has been a strong push to remove administrative duties from the bishop so that he can focus on teaching and counseling. I am constantly being encouraged (pushed, even) to take more administrative duties away from the bishop. And my bishop is constantly hounded by the stake president about how he's doing too many things that should be delegated to counselors, the elders quorum president, and others so that he can focus on teaching and counseling.

I agree that the Church doesn't want bishops taking on the burden of mental health and marital counseling, but it is my impression that the Church does want bishops counseling in the same sense that @prisonchaplain describes--"solution-based, short-term (4-6 sessions) ministry."

[Guest]

4 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

Although this seems to be true in a lot of cases, there has been a strong push to remove administrative duties from the bishop so that he can focus on teaching and counseling. I am constantly being encouraged (pushed, even) to take more administrative duties away from the bishop. And my bishop is constantly hounded by the stake president about how he's doing too many things that should be delegated to counselors, the elders quorum president, and others so that he can focus on teaching and counseling.

I agree that the Church doesn't want bishops taking on the burden of mental health and marital counseling, but it is my impression that the Church does want bishops counseling in the same sense that @prisonchaplain describes--"solution-based, short-term (4-6 sessions) ministry."

That's interesting. Thanks.

I don't really know how that can ever become less than 50%.  Only the bishop can do various types of interviews.  Only the bishop can to tithing settlement.  Only the bishop can deal with confession.  Only the bishop can approve priesthood advancement.  Only the bishop can make the final call on callings.

This list alone is going to be over 50% of the time a bishop spends on his calling.

I also see another function that bishops are supposed to do: Interpret the Handbook.  And that is certainly an administrative function.

(example of interpreting) We've talked about the rule about guns at church.  The usage of the word "discouraged" certainly has a broad meaning.  And I believe that for each ward, stake, etc. the conditions may be different.  So, the bishop makes the call on just how hard and fast this "discouragement" should be.

Edited December 5, 2018 by Guest

[prisonchaplain]

4 hours ago, MarginOfError said:

 

I agree that the Church doesn't want bishops taking on the burden of mental health and marital counseling, but it is my impression that the Church does want bishops counseling in the same sense that @prisonchaplain describes--"solution-based, short-term (4-6 sessions) ministry."

I'm torn both ways on this. On the one hand, bishops usually do not have any formal training in counseling. On the other, most who seek "soul care," do not need the professional input. They need what our elders used to get from something called a friend. That listening ear that offers an occasional suggestion. Friends can also call us out on our self-delusion (i.e. lies). So, yeah, in a world where such friends are rare, bishops may need to step up and "stand in the gap," for brothers and sisters in need.

Ironically, the steering of bishops away from administration and towards teaching/counseling sounds right out of the Apostle Paul. Add a few hours, and a bit more training and the church will be getting quite close to having professional clergy. 😎

[The Folk Prophet]

13 minutes ago, prisonchaplain said:

On the one hand, bishops usually do not have any formal training in counseling. On the other, most who seek "soul care," do not need the professional input.

I'll let you guess what my view on "formal training" and "professional input" are when it comes to these matters.

[MarginOfError]

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

That's interesting. Thanks.I don't really know how that can ever become less than 50%.  Only the bishop can do various types of interviews. 

The complete list of interviews that only the bishop can do is

• Baptismal interviews (for eight year old children)
• Annual youth interviews
• Semi-annual interviews for youth aged 16 - 18(ish)
• First time temple recommends (excludes limited use recommends)
• Priesthood advancement (for young men, this usually gets covered in the annual interview)
• Worthiness matters (confession / disciplinary action)

Nothing on that list is what I would call administrative, because it is dealing directly with individuals and evaluating their spiritual well being. I would only consider administrative time the time the bishop spends talking about people, not the time spent talking to people.

Quote

Only the bishop can to tithing settlement. 

yeah, this is largely administrative.  Personally, I think the way we do this is a total waste of time. But that's a discussion for another thread.

Quote

Only the bishop can deal with confession.  Only the bishop can approve priesthood advancement. 

Covered previously

Quote

Only the bishop can make the final call on callings.

This can largely be farmed out as well. In some cases, I've seen callings handled in the same way that "the bishop must approve all expenses before they are incurred."  In the case of expenses, he authorizes a budget for each organization at the start of the year and the organizations are free to spend within that budget without prior approval for every expense. Likewise, I've seen bishops say, "we need to fill Calling X. Brother First Counselor, take point on this and let me know who should be called." Two weeks later, First Counselor comes back and says, "I think Sister Amazing should be called." and the bishop says, "Great.  Let's pray."  At which point, the bishop has spent all of 10 minutes on the matter.

 

As for administrative tasks that only the bishop can do, the exhaustive list is:

• Approve financial expenditures
• Approve changes in meeting schedule
• Applications to the First Presidency for changes to sealing status

Clerks can handle every other administrative task.

 

[prisonchaplain]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'll let you guess what my view on "formal training" and "professional input" are when it comes to these matters.

80% of @The Folk Prophet's financial portfolio is invested in Psychology Today magazine and psychologytoday.com. So, yeah...I think I know. 😜

Edited December 5, 2018 by prisonchaplain

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MarginOfError said:

The complete list of interviews that only the bishop can do is

• Baptismal interviews (for eight year old children)
• Annual youth interviews
• Semi-annual interviews for youth aged 16 - 18(ish)
• First time temple recommends (excludes limited use recommends)
• Priesthood advancement (for young men, this usually gets covered in the annual interview)
• Worthiness matters (confession / disciplinary action)

Nothing on that list is what I would call administrative, because it is dealing directly with individuals and evaluating their spiritual well being. I would only consider administrative time the time the bishop spends talking about people, not the time spent talking to people.

Semantics.

I consider them all administrative because for the most part they are procedural.  Only when something is "wrong" that it becomes time to "counsel" or be a judge in Israel.  If everything is ok, then it is really about going through the motions.

[MarginOfError]

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Semantics.

I consider them all administrative because for the most part they are procedural.  Only when something is "wrong" that it becomes time to "counsel" or be a judge in Israel.  If everything is ok, then it is really about going through the motions.

I'm going to have to firmly disagree that it is semantics.  If the bishop is just doing these interviews because he is going through the procedural motions, then he's doing it all wrong. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MarginOfError said:

I'm going to have to firmly disagree that it is semantics.  If the bishop is just doing these interviews because he is going through the procedural motions, then he's doing it all wrong. 

I'm going to guess I understand what you're saying.  But if I do, I don't see how that counters my point as described above.  So, I'll ask:

How is he supposed to do it?