DiscussMormonism.com

I recently completed a National sexual abuse prevention program, Darkness to Light, designed to help eliminate the epidemic of child sexual abuse that has escalated in the last few years.

As part of the training we were asked to think about the many organizations of which we are a part and consider how they can do a better job protecting children. Every organization with which I work (or am involved in in some way) is up to date and very conscientious about this issue and follows the guidelines necessary to help protect children, except the LDS church.

A primary focus in the training was the need to eliminate or minimize the opportunity for sexual abuse, as stated in the manual:

"If you eliminate or reduce one-adult/one-child situations, you’ll
dramatically lower the risk of sexual abuse for your child"

I have been saying for years that the Bishop's interview is completely inappropriate at best, and should be eliminated. Parents should not allow their children to be interviewed about sexual matters by anyone other than a professional under rare situations with all the appropriate safeguards in place. An adult male should just not be behind closed doors alone with a girl or boy discussing ANYTHING sexual. This situation should never happen. EVER.

The fact that the LDS church holds onto this inappropriate meeting astounds me.

Are there not LDS therapists who can help the LDS leadership understand why the "interview" is not appropriate? Do the Brethren not get that this sort of thing is a disaster waiting to happen (and sometimes does happen)? What will it take for the LDS church to move into this century and help prevent the potential for abuse? To the SCMC folks who may be reading... could you please say something or get the memo to the leaders of your church?

Many insurance companies now require windows in rooms where adults will be alone with children and I understand the LDS church is following these guidelines to some degree, but they have just got to stop the whole interview practice as it currently is.

Perhaps there are members who could take the training, or read a few books and provide some information to the leaders? I think there are some leaders who care about children and would want to do what they can to protect them.

Time for the LDS church to make some changes for the sake of children!

~td~


Darkness to Light

TD,

I know it seems like this post is being ignored, but I agree with you. When I was a bishop the SP always advised us to interview females with the office door slightly open, but at that time the child abuse factor was not strongly considered.

I went very carefully in interviews with teenagers (male and female), and often wouldn't cover sexual questions because it didn't feel right. When you have to struggle to find words for questions you're "supposed" to ask, you know something is not quite right. It felt intrusive and personal, like none of my business. I think all questions of such a personal nature should be left to parents, and even there I'd question whether it's the parents' business (unless they belong to a Church and want their child raised a certain way). My parents certainly didn't, and we were taught "sexual ethics" in schools (Catholic). Had I been questioned by a parent I would have felt intimidated. (Glad I wasn't brought up a Mormon.)

It may not be practical for the Church to entirely eliminate bishop interviews, but I think some guidelines for interviewing children and young people would be okay, as long as they didn't probe sexual matters, and the interview was done in the presence of at least one parent.

TD wrote:

"I have been saying for years that the Bishop's interview is completely inappropriate at best, and should be eliminated. Parents should not allow their children to be interviewed about sexual matters by anyone other than a professional under rare situations with all the appropriate safeguards in place. An adult male should just not be behind closed doors alone with a girl or boy discussing ANYTHING sexual. This situation should never happen. EVER."

Ten Points out of Ten! They usually need to be brought up to speed. But then why would the LDS Church listen to the "outside world" when it is evil. And the outside world are the last people that should be telling people inside the Church what is right and wrong. Right?

Usually it takes an Act of Congress to get the Church to rethink things.

Are you saying that the sex-questions in the interview are tantamount to abuse, or that the private interview offers an opportunity for abuse (apart from the nature of the questioning)?

It is a liability issue. Why does the church want to subject themselves and all their Bishops to a potential liability?

Why should any minor child ever be interviewed without a parent present whether there are sexual questions or not? I feel the interviews should be conducted like a parent-student-teacher interview.

Hi Cinepro,

cinepro wrote:Are you saying that the sex-questions in the interview are tantamount to abuse, or that the private interview offers an opportunity for abuse (apart from the nature of the questioning)?

A one on one private interview, behind closed doors by a trusted man in a powerful position over a child should never happen and is the EXACT condition under which the vast majority of sexual abuse takes place.

The fact that the discussion is in part of a sexual nature is unconscionable and totally inappropriate; basically in the world of child protection and prevention it is considered "passive acceptance" of abuse since it is providing the perfect conditions under which abuse typically occurs.

Now, is the sexual discussion in a private behind closed doors setting itself abusive? At minimum it is completely inappropriate and unhealthy for children. Is it technically abusive? I suppose this can be debated to a degree since there is often a judgement call and and every interview is not the same. But it is clear, a child should NEVER be required to discuss anything related to their bodies or sex with anyone (obviously with the exception of a trained professional in those situations where a child must be protected or helped, and even then with the most careful guidelines); nor should a child feel pressure to meet one on one with a man (typically a neighbor) behind closed doors.

Children should be taught NOT to be in a one on one type of setting, NOT to discuss sexual matters with anyone other than a trained professional under specific circumstances, and NOT to keep secrets or have "private" conversations with adults. Children should also be able to talk to parents about any concerns but this is another topic! :-)

The LDS church really needs to stop this archaic practice and start acting in the best interest of children!

~td~

Hi Pok,

Pokatator wrote:It is a liability issue. Why does the church want to subject themselves and all their Bishops to a potential liability?

Why should any minor child ever be interviewed without a parent present whether there are sexual questions or not? I feel the interviews should be conducted like a parent-student-teacher interview.

Yep! Absolutely! My observation is that schools, government agencies and other churches abide by very strict standards when dealing with children and do not place children in an unhealthy or unsafe situation.

I don't know why the church won't change this practice. I suppose it will take some sort of government intervention, insurance denial, or members refusing to allow their children to participate before the leaders will stop demanding children undergo such humiliation in an unprotected environment.

~td~

The LDS church really needs to stop this archaic practice and start acting in the best interest of children!

Let's look at it from another point of view, that of the Bishop. The LDS church fails to protect it's own religious leaders from allegations of abuse.

I think you already know that I agree with what you've written with regards to children one:one with adults and especially behind closed doors. Totally inappropriate!

One can say that they trust God/Heavenly Father to have chosen religious leaders that are ethical.

One can say that they trust God/Heavenly Father to protect their children.

How about trusting God/Heavenly Father to supply them with good common sense in order to protect their children, their religious leaders and ultimately the reputation of the LDS church itself from abuse and/or allegations of abuse?

How about trusting God/Heavenly Father to create human beings with the talent to develop glass doors, two-way windows, monitoring devices such as video cam's and ceiling mikes and head sets...and USE them.

Yep! Absolutely! My observation is that schools, government agencies and other churches abide by very strict standards when dealing with children and do not place children in an unhealthy or unsafe situation.

Yes, and I want to add something from my own perspective. I've worked with children professionally for 23 years. Always 2 adults present. Always observable. Always a witness for helping with toileting accidents including wiping bottoms. No children behind closed doors with an adult one:one, not once not ever. No children behind closed doors, period.

I've worked in classrooms where I was essentially surrounded by glass, with two-way windows, ceiling mikes and head sets for observation.

This, as I implied in a previous post, to protect children from possible abuse and to protect adults from allegations.

The principle goes two ways and these types of controls/preventive measures should be in place any time minor children are involved with adults who are not family members.

Well, what a dilemma.

The primary responsibility of a bishop within the interview is to determine the worthiness of the interviewee.

A shepherd needs to check his sheep's fur coats for zippers occasionally, you know.

In Mormonism, teenagers are forbidden to participate in certain activities if they practice specific unauthorized sexual behavior (activities including taking the sacrament, baptisms for the dead or the living, stake dance cards or passing/blessing the sacrament).

If a bishop is forbidden to ask, he would also be forbidden to be told. If he has no knowledge of worthiness he cannot authorize a recommend. If he cannot recommend, he is no longer a Judge in Israel.

You pull the sexual questions from a bishop's interview and you remove their right and authority to act in their god's name.