The traditional LDS practice of bishops giving regular sexual worthiness interviews to minors has suddenly become a hot topic. No one really cares if bishops ask whether a kid attends church or reads her scriptures from time to time. It’s the sex that is stirring the pot here. Some recent Salt Lake Tribune articles:
- “Some say bishops’ interviews with children about sexual matters are intrusive, inappropriate“
- “The LDS Church should revise the bishop’s interview“
- A Robert Kirby piece, with this statement: “If you’re an older guy in a room alone with a 14-year-old girl and asking questions about her moral cleanliness doesn’t make you nervous, then there’s something wrong with you.”
- A “no problems here” statement to the SL Trib from an LDS Church spokesman, citing several policies regarding interviews that no one seems to be aware of or follow.
Almost every LDS bishop has been involved with Scouting and has received training about two-deep leadership. Why does this approach, which everyone agrees is sound and responsible, not strike these same bishops or others in the LDS hierarchy as a good idea for LDS practice as well? Here is a short quotation from the BSA site on youth protection (emphasis in original):
One-on-one contact between adults and youth members is prohibited. In situations requiring a personal conference, such as a Scoutmaster conference, the meeting is to be conducted with the knowledge and in view of other adults and/or youth.
I am sure that 100 out of 100 bishops would sincerely claim they have nothing but good intentions toward LDS youth. Good intentions aren’t enough, however. Just off the top of my head, here are a few problems: (1) bishops receive little training about how to conduct interviews; (2) interview guidelines in the Handbook (do more listening than speaking; let the member bring up concerns and come up with ways to address those problems) don’t seem to apply to youth interviews; (3) bishops receive pretty much zero guidance or training on human sexuality or development; (4) bishops receive no training on how to proceed when a youth discloses abuse; (5) it’s not clear many bishops would even *recognize* a disclosure of abuse by a minor; (6) no one in the system seems to recognize that training LDS youth to regard as normal private interviews talking about sex with unrelated adults sets those youth up to be victimized by predatory adults they might encounter in other situations; and (7) there is almost no supervision or accountability for bishops who conduct inappropriate or aggressive or intrusive interviews. The Church really needs to do some serious thinking about this youth interview system before it blows up into another (avoidable) PR disaster.
I expect some readers have stories to share of their own or of family members. If so, no names or identifying details, please. A recent account posted over at the Exponent, “Being Disfellowshipped at 14,” illustrates some of the problems noted above. A longer and more detailed story is in the book Saving Alex, subtitled “When I was fifteen I told my Mormon parents I was gay, and that’s when my nightmare began.” It is a book and a story that will make you angry but is well worth reading. The bishops who appear in the story were utterly unequipped to recognize the nature of the problems they observed, or to provide helpful counsel to the youth and her parents, or to recognize abuse when it was disclosed and take action to protect the minor who disclosed. A high school teacher, a youth shelter worker, an attorney, even a bus driver helped the girl. Bishops, Mormon missionaries, and Mormon neighbors who were in various degrees aware of the situation did nothing.
I am confident there are very few bishops who intentionally traumatize or victimize LDS youth. But the system doesn’t do much to educate and train bishops or to supervise and correct those who cross the line. What line? There is so little guidance and supervision, how would an LDS bishop or an LDS youth or an LDS parent even know when an LDS bishop crosses the line? Maybe some of that extra tithing revenue that is being invested in ranches in Florida and Montana could be diverted to fund a serious internal study of LDS interview practices and guidelines, and provide some focused training for our bishops. Seems like a good investment to me.
Wheat & Tares 
I’m trying to think of solutions, and it doesn’t get very far very fast. One easy solution would be to change the interview style to the way adult TR’s are done. “Do you live the Law of Chastity?” yes or no. No clarification needed. But then undoubtedly you’ll have teens with overactive guilt complexes say “no” when all they’ve done is occasionally masturbated or accidentally saw boobies on the internet somewhere. You can’t disqualify a kid from being a missionary without clarifying that. I’m guessing more than half the time the “clarifying questions” a bishop does in an interview is to *help* the youth feel more worthy not condemn them. Then you have the requirement of confession. How does a youth confess if it requires some level of detail to actually confess, by definition. Short of completely jettisoning the confessional model, I’m not sure what immediate changes could be done.
The most prying interview I had was the pre-mission interview with the SP. I tried to my sexual sins off my by describing my behavior as mutual masturbation. That was his opening to grill me on exactly what I had been doing and with whom. That whom was very difficult and I pretty much lied about that and told him about the only person that I knew had already confessed. I wanted to die when he said what I did would be called homosexuality. I thought I was going to have a GA interview and figured a mission was never going to happen. Instead SLC approved me anyway and I went. This kept my sexuality locked in the closet for an additional 40 years. If they had proper training and the love of Jesus Christ, I might have gotten the help I needed to accept myself and lived as the real me, instead of having the holy hell scared out of me.
Still not that JR.
Do you think bishops create more sexual problems for adolescents than they help resolve? How many children saved from really dangerous, sexually abusive situations does it take to justify generalized discomfort among the 14-year-olds of the Church?
Had flown, is there any substance behind your comment? Most of the stories I’ve heard don’t resolve or save adolescents from any dangerous or abusive situations. This is a sincere question.
Dang autocorrect! Gadflown
Now that I’m a grandfather, I’ve counseled all of my married children TO NEVER allow their children to go into an interview with ANYONE unless they are sitting right next to them; in the same room. When I think of my beautiful, innocent, trusting young grand-daughter’s being asked by “some guy” if they “touch themselves down there” and if so – “how?”….I see red; and am ready to go a hunting. This practice (where-ever it is happening) should cease immediately and be condemned by church leadership in the strongest possible way. Just my own opinion and perspective.
Note: I am father of daughters (and sons) and to think that this ever happened to them (which I now know it did) makes me physically sick to my stomach.
It would be really interesting to see a poll of people who grew up in the church answering the question: did bishops’ interviews help you growing up, hurt you growing up, or not make any difference? Sure, you can make it sound terribly scary, and I’ve no doubt there have been problems. But there are some advantages to how it is now too. The question is whether on the whole there’s a lot more good that comes out of it to justify the risk. And if you knee-jerk it and say there’s no amount of good that can justify the risk, then you better not be one of those who gets their kid a driver’s license before she’s 18, because that’s one of the most dangerous things you can do to her.
This is not new. I have told this story before and I will tell it again. I see very little progress over decades.
Over 15 tears ago I had an 11 year old daughter and was concerned about these upcoming bishop interviews because of some of the things I saw in a military ward where we lived before she was born, I talked to the bishop and he dismissed my concern and sent me to the stake president who sent me back to the bishop. We held a family counsel and obtained agreement from all parties including my daughter that no interview would be done without an adult female chaperone. We parents would further not allow ourselves to be isolated, Both parents would be present to express our view when the inevitable battle began.
One Sunday it was announced that the youth were going to the temple for baptisms that week and the 9 new beehives all needed to be interviewed by the bishop immediately. My daughter quickly informed the leaders of our family decision and the bishop called my wife in for a talk. I was at work and she “blamed” it on me claiming she was only being obedient to her husband, (If you knew my wife you would know what a farce that had to be), He called me at work and I said no, not without a chaperone .He threatened to not let her go to the temple and I replied, do what is right let the consequences follow. If those are the consequences then let it be upon me.
And that is where round one might have ended. But (pay attention parents of tweens to this part). But my daughter was not about to play a passive role. She did not like the idea either and convinced the other 8 beehives to stand beside her. They all said no interviews without a chaperone and if one of us is excluded for this then none of us will go to the temple. The bishop had a beehive revolt on his hands. Some of the girl’s parents brow-beat them into submission but that didn’t mean they would actually go into the temple. Finally the bishop relented and allowed the mothers of the girls to sit through the interview and he did not dwell on anything very long. They all went to the temple that week. I went and it was a fine experience.
But the bishop did not give in so easily. He interviewed me the next week and said he did not feel right about it and demanded to interview my daughter again alone, I suggested that he contact the temple president and make sure they did that work for the dead over because he had let youth enter the temple without proper interviews. Or if he wished I would be more than willing to do it myself, The bishop didn’t think that was necessary. He was suspicious that I was hiding something inappropriate in my relationship with my daughter. I got the feeling this was supposed to scare me. I picked up the phone and handed it to him, inquiring if he had any idea what he was supposed to do if he had any basis in reality for such suspicion? CALL THE POLICE!
But realize what the consequences will be, DFAC will take my children away today and it could be months before I get this straightened out. And then I will take you to court for slander and lying and your career as a church leader in this ward will be over. Not to mention you may go bankrupt defending yourself. In the mean time my daughter will stay in touch with her friends in the ward with whom she has considerable influence and they and the rest of the youth will never respect you or maybe even any other bishop they ever meet.
Make the call bishop. Do you have one scrap of evidence? Either you have grounds for this accusation or you don’t. If not, stop lying and making smack up.He took off his glasses and wiped the sweat off his forehead and said I’m sorry and quietly asked me to leave his office. I forbid him from talking to my daughter alone under any circumstances for the next year. I don’t think he interviewed her again for several years, She just went along with the flow and attended the temple with her friends when the ward planned trips.
I will mostly skip the details where about 4 years later she as a prank set him up to sound like he was molesting her and recorded it on her phone for the amusement of her friends. This resulted in an investigation after it was shared with friends at school. But for her willingness to come clean and tell the truth this could have gotten the bishop arrested. I don’t think all the youth involved had the stones to make it through a trial. But still I changed my stance: from protecting my daughter from the bishop, to protecting the bishop from my daughter’s pranks.After that he understood my concerns and we were finally on the same page. He never interviewed a young person alone again. His successors have nor followed his example with other youth but have followed our family practice for my children. Institutional memory is short, on the local level at least.
The protection runs both ways .Why does the LDS church insist upon sending every bishop into a dangerous situation, almost every week in wards with more than a couple dozen youth? Where the bishop could have his reputation and life ruined and it could cost the church millions of dollars, Is this really necessary?
Confession was not always conducted by bishops historically, and likely has intensified in its depth with time. It is prescribed in scripture, but mute on how detailed it has to be.
Confession seems to have some therapeutic value if you reveal your soul and are still loved despite your sins. But, it is likely harmful if you are rejected. Hiding things we are ashamed of hurts us because we often think that if people really knew us they would not like us.
I wonder if the humility that comes to honest young men who confess to masturbation is worth it? Or would they be better off risking the pride that captured the Pharisee? This is a real question, no sarcasm intended. The gate to Heaven is humility. My guess is that plain teaching about masturbation is enough to instill humility without painful confession about something that is mostly about self control which is weakness not evil.
There are no easy solutions to this problem. As far as confession goes, I do think there is value in people having someone to confess to. There is a burden that is lifted from the person confessing. I think confessing to a committee might feel more like a disciplinary council, so having two people in there might be weird. The Catholics might be on to something with that little room with a partition between the confessor and the priest. When there is an issue beyond just a confession, I have noticed our bishop has started referring people to professionals through LDS social services. The best professional in our area happens to be a woman, so the priesthood official is made aware of the problem, realizes his inadequacy in dealing with the problem, then refers the person to a trained professional. We had a wise woman in the ward who passed away a few years ago. I called her a number of times when I had things that I was struggling with (not confession stuff). It never crossed my mind to go visit with the bishop. I sought out the person I felt was most equipped to help me with my specific problem. Maybe a woman could be called as a ward counselor to interview girls under 18, do marriage counseling, etc.. I know this is not going to happen because only certain people can sign temple recommend and I do not see this changing, but it would be nice.
My oldest child turned 12 last May and I prepared him for the questions he was going to hear. I then told the bishop I wanted to sit in on the interview and he was fine with it. He knows me well ( I am his first counselor), so I don’t know if that is the only reason he did not push back much. I did notice that my boy looked at me after every question, so I don’t know if having a parent there is the perfect answer either.
Really interesting post. I think I’m with left on this, especially because I don’t believe that the law of chastity as currently practiced and taught by the Mormon Church is helpful or healthy. In my experience and in my opinion, it’s much more about shaming people by using a medieval form of sexual blackmail as yet another way to keep them in line. But my view of the L of C aside, I echo the concerns of others concerning the training (or lack thereof) of bishops and the ham-handed interviews I myself endured at BYU. Also, there is simply no other place in our society where a grown man being alone in a room with, say a 16-year-old girl and asking her about her sex life would be met with anything but absolute outrage. I think at least a parent needs to be in the room. Or better yet, let’s stop asking such specific questions. What’s wrong with sticking with the more general ones like, “Do you feel worthy?” or “Do you feel that you’re doing your best to live in harmony with Christ’s gospel?” That’s really what the more specific questions are pointing to anyway. And I don’t have any data or references on this, but I wonder if these intrusive interviews have anything to do with the church losing so many millennials. Usually, a lot of other factors are listed, but I’m wondering if there’s any correlation here.
Wothiness interviews are inherently damaging especially when forced.
My teenage daughter was so traumatized by a Bishop’s interview that she could not speak to me for days and still refuses to enter that Bishop’s office or meet with him, even though she is now a junior in college. It was an interrogation of an innocent girl and it traumatized her.
My advice to all parents of teens is to talk to your Bishops and make sure they know your child understands the law of chastity and that only a single question about the law of chastity is required. I wish that was church policy. Anything beyond that is sexual harassment of a minor.
While I don’t want to put the burden of the situation on the kids at all, I would like to see YW/YM lessons taught on appropriate boundaries – with leadership and in life. I think youth don’t realize they can say no to these situations. A good percentage are in the bishop’s office not because they want to be but because they feel obligated or coerced.
ReTx,
Imagine what would happen to a youth who refused a Bishop’s interview or refused to answer a question. No temple recommend, no calling, no mission call. Not many adults can stand that type of pressure. Teens are prone to black and white or extreme thinking. If the Bishop doesn’t approve of me, then God does not love me.
Maybe I am some kind of unicorn, but across two wards and multiple bishops and bishopric counselors, no one ever asked me anything explicit in a youth temple interview. (I did not go on a mission, so didn’t have a more intensive mission prep interview) It was basically just a chat about how things were going, if I had any concerns and then, “Do you feel worthy to enter the temple at this time?” I assumed that’s what the handbook calls for until you are 18, when they are just supposed to stick to the regular temple recommend questions, but maybe the Southern California bishops I dealt with all got the same extra-handbook training?
Honestly, the most uncomfortable I ever was in an interview was when a counselor kept telling me how uncomfortable he felt and that he thought I should be interviewing him and didn’t really ask me anything.
Segullah – Exactly. And under such circumstances how is the experience spiritually uplifting or helping a youth come unto Christ?
A few thoughts:
1.) most wards and many stakes don’t have qualified counselors to take up interviews.
2.) I cant find scriptural evidence or a rationale I agree with to support the idea of lds confessions. I cling to American Protestant traditions which place personal accountability and relationship with the divine in the hands of the individual. I think that Mormons haven’t untangled their thinking about bishop figures as institutional intermediaries vs personal responsibility and empowerment to work out ones own salvation with God. Theologically, we don’t rely on intermediaries, with the exception of Christ. That’s Catholic.
3.) Catholic priests covenant to keep confessions confidential. Many a priest throughout time has been tortured, imprisoned, or killed rather than divulge a confession. Our bishops take no such covenant and have little to no respect for privacy. (Kirby pointed that out in your link). I wish we had a catholic priest on our thread to talk about how seriously they take the responsibility of confession and how much preparation goes into assuming that heavy responsibility. Even with those good intentions, the recent Catholic scandal shows that the process is still vulnerable to corruption. We shouldn’t dabble in this area unless we are prepared to commit the same time and create the same and even greater protections for the clergy and the confessor.
Why can’t we just drop the idea of confession and teach our children to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling and grace before their maker?
I agree with much of what has already been said, and I would add that these interviews set up worthiness as external. I don’t think we should teach our kids to let someone else tell them they are or are not worthy. When we do, worthiness becomes a performance instead of a way of being.
We have always taken the position that until our kids are old enough to make a reasoned decision themselves about being alone in a room with an adult, we will accompany them to any interviews. We’ve never asked anyone in leadership if that’s ok, but have always made it clear to the Bishop when we arrive in a ward that that’s how our family operates.. If there’s another adult our kids would like to accompany them, we encourage them to ask them to attend with them instead of their overbearing parent. Or if they want to talk privately, they’re free to ask us to leave, but can always choose to leave the door open, not to answer, or to finish the discussion.
Our 15yr old always asks us to come along and at the last interview, the interviewer was considerably flustered by this, explaining “Well, now I have to change all the questions I usually ask.” Eek. Yeah, that’s why we have someone come along. That, and because I wish that someone had thought of this issue 20 yrs ago when I was a teenager, or let me know it was ok to say “I don’t feel comfortable with this discussion. I’d like to stop.”
When you know better, do better. We all know better than the current practice.
JR: I know that, in some jurisdictions, Bishops are obligated to report sexual or domestic crimes to authorities, and that they do so with enough regularity that the Church has lawyers available round the clock to give advice about how that report should be made. I have no direct evidence, but I imagine that at least some of those reports lead to interventions by law enforcement that protect people from sexual crime. The moral obligation to confess a sin to the bishop is one more reason for a perpetrator to come clean, and I think that is valuable. I do not have data, but perhaps it is forthcoming with the recent Title IX efforts at Church universities. This is why one of the foundational purposes of Church discipline is to “protect the innocent.”
Also, what does happen if a youth refuses a question? Does the interviewer skip to the baseline “do you consider yourself worthy” question, or does he withhold the judgement of worthiness?
Being asked “Did you orgasm?” by two people isn’t any better. It’s the entire line of questioning that’s deeply problematic.
I also don’t like how this has turned into focusing so much about sexual abuse. While that is an issue and has happened, the guilt and shamed instilled for normal sexual feelings and behavior has caused far more widespread harm
As someone who was shamed by my bishop and made to repent of my rape and apologize to my rapist as a teenager, this is something I feel so strongly about. I spent every day of my youth struggling with extreme guilt and shame and suicidal ideation, in part because of childhood sexual abuse, but in large part because of these bishop interviews which made me feel dirty and ashamed all over again and convinced me that God could never love me (I won’t go into detail, but suffice it to say, I did not win at leadership roulette).
I shared some of my story at protectldschildren.org (an organization I am not personally involved with). The website is gathering stories because:
“∙ Various media outlets have asked for a convenient location where testimonials can be viewed of the damage caused by LDS interview practices.
∙ Many church members are still unaware that sexually explicit questions are being asked of our children.
∙Many church members are unaware of the severe consequences that our children have suffered.”
(From an email I received after signing the organization’s petition.)
If you would like to contribute your story (as a parent or as a former youth), please consider doing so. They are trying to reach 1,000 stories in the next couple of weeks. My hope is that the Church will reconsider this risky and damaging practice, or at the very least, put some additional safe-guards in place to protect our vulnerable youth.
More info about the initiative can be found here: https://invisiblescubit.wordpress.com/2017/12/29/10000-gifts-for-our-children/
Thanks for the comments, everyone. The experiences and perspectives shared in the above comments are very enlightening. As a relatively new contributor at W&T, I am impressed by the comments and the discussion here. All viewpoints welcome, of course.
Some serious and easy to implement ideas that could improve the interview process: (1) designate the RS President or some specially called sister in the ward to conduct interviews of young women, and put a line on the youth recommend for signature by “Bishop or Sister”; (2) senior leaders could provide more detail to local leaders as to what is and is not directed or permitted in youth worthiness interviews; (3) make those guidelines publicly available to all parents; (4) expressly direct local leaders to permit a parent to accompany their minor child into an interview if requested by either parent or child.
The idea that having a parent along will prevent a child from disclosing some form of abuse to a bishop (who would act to protect them by notifying local authorities) is utterly absurd. First, as noted in the OP, many bishops won’t even recognize a disclosure and won’t know what to do even if they do recognize it. There are way too many reliable stories of local leaders who, upon receiving a disclosure from a minor child, then act to protect the perpetrator, not the victim. To any young LDS who is being sexually or physically abused: DO NOT disclose to your bishop. Share your situation with a police officer, a state social worker, a private therapist or counselor, a school counselor, or a trusted teacher.
Not to get out in front of the pitchforks and torches when everybody’s out to protect their children from the monster, but I think a little balance is in order.
First, to any young LDS who is being sexually or physically abused, please take the risk of trusting someone and disclose it. If that’s a police officer, school counselor, trusted teacher, OR bishop, disclose it and get help. Telling kids not to trust a bishop is similar to their peers telling them not to trust a teacher — you’re simply closing down one more possible way for them to get help, and the very hardest part of the process is usually just to tell someone.
Second, if you have a bad experience with your bishop, it’s going to last forever. If you have a good experience with your bishop, it’s most likely going to fade into the ether. Meeting with a bishop is supposed to help one move on, whether from sin, trauma, whatever, and if it works, whatever you went in to see him about will become a smaller part of one’s life. One may feel some gratitude toward the bishop, but he’s only supposed to be a facilitator, not a big part of the story. If the bishop does poorly, he suddenly becomes a big part of the story and will forever be associated with amplifying a problem. In the comment sections of a news article or blog post, those are the people you’re going to hear from the most. It’s only relevant to the discussion to the extent that decisions are based on anecdotal horror stories, which is all you really have, since I don’t know how you could get any comprehensive data.
I also get the impression that a lot of the horror expressed at the idea of a 40-yr-old man talking to a 16-yr-old girl behind closed doors is somewhat generational. My experience with teens these days is that they talk about sex and sexual things with much more abandon and much less shame than did my generation. Don’t get me wrong, each kid is different, but sex has been so demystified among youth these days compared to when I was young that for many of them the emotional burdens associated with it (both in and outside the church) just aren’t as great.
Finally, the main reason kids don’t have interviews with the bishop with their parents present is simply to give them an opportunity to talk to a trusted adult about things they want to keep confidential, including from their parents. If you didn’t want to give the kid a chance to talk, you could just have them answer the recommend questions online and be done.
When I hear you dismiss my, and other’s, stories as anecdotal what I hear is that this problem is not worth addressing unless it happens to many, many others. It is strange that Jesus was concerned with leaving the 99 to minister to the ‘one’, and yet the ‘one’ is always the one to be disregarded when the demand for cold, comprehensive data is issued. Maybe to you, the sacrifice of the one (though we are more than you imagine) is just acceptable collateral damage so that these interviews can keep happening. For me, one, is one too many.
No, Rachel, what I’m saying is that there is no perfect system that solves everybody’s problems. You don’t necessarily want to center your system around outliers, even if those outliers are cataclysmic. That was my point earlier about giving 16-year-old kids driver’s licenses. It’s disastrous for some people and empowering for most. You could make a strong case it shouldn’t be legal, because the big harm done to a few outweighs the lesser good it does for the many. If the topic really came up for debate, we’d most likely get the strongest input from those who’ve been hit by 16-yr-old drivers who’ve made dumb decisions. It’s not that you don’t matter, and you’re certainly not the only one who’s been crushed, but the question still remains whether everything should be changed based on your experience. I’m not convinced, personally. But I can’t make much of a case because I can’t think of a way to quantify the cumulative lesser goods that come from the current system.
I made my comment last night and went to bed and forgot about it, and I think based on the down votes that it came across as denying there is a problem based on my experience. That’s not what I meant to do. My point was, based on my experience, asking these kinds of very problematic questions isn’t necessary for youth interviews, so why are they being asked?
I’ve read a lot about this recently and have persuaded scores of opinions. One thing that hasn’t been clearly defined (anywhere that I can tell) is just what it is a bishop’s interview to youth is for. Until we’re clear as to the purpose of each and every type of interview, we’re comingling conflicting ideas and strategies. This mixing leads to more confusion.
An interview to a 12 year old girl is different from an interview from a 17 year old priest, etc. Until we can get more specific on the types of interviews and their purposes, all this talk will remain confusing and unclear.
Mily, some “down votes” are mere accidents, as various commenters periodically confess. Many (most?) times it is impossible to determine what an up or down vote means. The whole voting procedure is silly with respect to any comment that includes anything ambiguous whether as to content as to tone and with respect to any comment that has any complexity or balance to it at all, since there is no telling to what content, consideration, implication, mere inference, or perception, or indigestion the voter is responding, whether it was considered or merely reflexive, or what. Still, your clarification has been appreciated.
If we are going to try to weigh the harms and benefits of mandatory confession and regular worthiness interviews, it is worth remembering that requiring confession of certain sins can make people feel significantly worse than they would if they had been taught that they could pray and ask forgiveness of the same sin without confessing it to a bishop. The confession appears to lift a weight off the person confessing, but they might not have experienced the heavy weight in the first place if confession wasn’t mandatory. This effect is well understood and can be replicated in non-religious contexts.
Gadflown: State sex abuse reporting laws often exempt church leaders from reporting sexual abuse if they learn about it during a confession. The lawyers at the church hotline don’t just advise bishops on how to report, they also interpret the reporting requirements law and tell the bishop not to report if state law doesn’t mandate reporting based on the circumstances. If the church wanted to use interviews and confessions to get help for victims, the church lawyers would tell bishops to always report abuse unless doing so would be a crime.
Andy: good point about the artificial weight of confession. That’s worth considering. With respect to reporting, you’re correct, but I guess I left a major point unstated: where state-mandated reporting to authorities does not exist, the Church often initiates private disciplinary proceedings against the perpetrator. That is, legal authorities do not necessarily need to get involved in order for the Church to prevent harm. The victim is always welcome to report the matter to legal authorities in addition to pursuing Church disciplinary proceedings. Even where laws protect the absolute confidence of confession, the confessor owns the privilege and can waive it at any time.
I’m not sure I have anything helpful to say, other than that in good, functional families encouraging young people to take their confidences anywhere other than their parents is not helpful. The opportunity to strengthen relationships by sharing vulnerability and being helped through it by loving well intentioned parents is lost. Hard to see how this strengthens the family. Seems to me this action assumes dysfunction.
However, when I did go to my Bishop as a young person being then abused by my parent, he encouraged me to go home and honour that parent. Good thing the Spirit taught me that the behaviour was neither normal nor desirable, and needed to be addressed in my future parenting.
Andy—the issue that has arisen is that in some jurisdictions if you don’t assert the privilege the jurisdiction asserts that you don’t have clergy.
That has a number of side effects.
I know that general counsel for the church advised just reporting.
But that would mean missionaries are not clergy in some countries and gets missions expelled.
It is a complication of having a world wide church.
As a psychologist with many Mormon patients, I see two very different problems arising from the way worthiness interviews are conducted. The first problem (and common in my practice) is that it can initiate and exacerbate OCD tendencies to scrupulosity and compulsive confession. I’m sure any singles’ ward bishop will attest to the long line of anxious young people eager to confess–yet again–outside his office every week. The frequent, ritual confession becomes the main way the scrupulous person manages their anxiety. It is not healthy, and it is unnecessary.
The other problem happens when the 12 year old goes into his (or her) first worthiness interview, is asked if he masturbates, and lies. Suddenly, his simplistic view of the bishop’s spiritual discernment is in tatters. “I can lie to get out of uncomfortable situations,” or “it doesn’t matter if I lie in a church setting,” or even “they–the church, society in general–don’t care if I don’t tell the truth, what matters is how I look in public on Sunday.” This is how you end up with stake presidents who have multiple affairs for 20 years before they’re exposed and finally released. I can think of three such situations right now off the top of my head.
One of my greatest regrets is that I left my children to the mercy of well-meaning but ignorant bishops. One fell into the scrupulosity trap. He has since recovered, but has also left the church. The other was date-raped, and was required by her bishop to confess and repent. She has also since left the church. That seems to me to be the saddest consequence of this risky practice.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Here is one more link to an account of what can go wrong with bishop’s interviews and how parents are cut out of the process:
https://sistersquorum.com/2017/12/04/the-confessional-and-rape-by-fraud/
As the discussion seems to have run its course, I’m going to close comments.