Five months ago, I posted “Rethinking Bishops’ Interviews.” Let’s revisit the topic, as today the Church posted at the LDS Newsroom updated guidelines for youth interviews: “First Presidency Releases New Guidelines for Interviewing Youth.” Attached to that post is a copy of the letter sent by the First Presidency to general, stake, and local leaders (and, since it is released publicly, basically sent to all members of the Church). Also attached to the post is the text of the updated Handbook 1 Section 7.1.7, “Guidelines for Youth Interviews,” and one paragraph from Section 7.4. Here are some quick observations on the updated guidelines and what we can learn more generally.
What particular guidelines have changed? Without a line-by-line comparison to the prior version of Section 7.1.7, it’s hard to tell. When the Church updates handbooks and manuals, it does not provide a guide to the updates or changes. You would think that if they make a public announcement about updated guidelines, they would give a clearer explanation of what exactly they updated and why. That would sure be helpful, wouldn’t it?
Parents, teach your children well. Give them a code that they can live by. The Church wants that code to be For the Strength of Youth, which is referenced in the guidelines. At several places, the guidance emphasizes the duty and privilege of parents to teach their children. But parents can teach children whatever they feel the kids need to know. Increasingly, LDS parents are deciding to teach their children not to engage in one-on-one conversations with adult men about sexual topics and behavior. That is likely what this whole update is about, although it is never spelled out in the guidance.
No, children don’t have the final say. Oddly, despite emphasizing the role of parents, the guidelines contain the following statement: “If the person being interviewed desires, another adult may be invited to be present during
the interview.” But the kid does not control this decision, the parent does. What the guidance should really say is: “With the permission of a parent, the bishop may conduct a one-on-one interview with a youth. Otherwise, the parent or another adult approved by the parent should accompany the youth in the interview.” So to prevent the common occurrence of a youth being pulled out of Sunday School class to go have a one-on-one interview with the bishop without the parents’ knowledge, an LDS parent is going to have to be proactive and assertive, expressly informing the bishop of their wish.
Will anything change? Hard to tell. Based on the post and attached guidelines, it is hard to see how any bishop is going to stop and say, “Whoa. I need to change how I set up youth interviews and change the content of my inquiries.” The guidelines refer to the For the Strength of Youth handbook as well as the detailed missionary interview questions to be asked of missionary candidates. Those more familiar with these documents might offer their comments, but as I recall there is nothing in those documents to restrain a curious bishop who feels inclined to review a youth’s sexual thoughts and conduct.
Wild card: Regional leadership training. Sometimes the direction local leaders receive comes through verbal instruction at regional leadership training meetings conducted by visiting General Authorities. That instruction may parallel the public directives leaders are given (such as the letter and guidelines we are talking about), but verbal directives may go beyond earlier written directives and may even contradict written guidelines. If, in the Q&A session, a bishop asks, “I really miss talking to the youth in the ward about masturbation in our interviews,” I doubt the leader is going to praise the bishop for avoiding that topic. The GA is likely to say, “Avoid detailed discussion of such topics, but if moved by the Spirit you can ask such questions, and if a youth is confessing to sexual sin, you can ask questions sufficient to understand the extent of the behavior and provide inspired counsel.” If anyone wants to chime in with an alternate view of the kind of answer a senior leader will give, have at it. The guidelines are frustratingly general on what, for many LDS parents, are relevant and particular concerns along these lines.
Want reform? Only bad publicity changes LDS policy and practices these days. This lesson rang out loud and clear from the Bott Affair: decades of patient requests and good arguments did nothing to motivate LDS leaders to publicly reject racial folklore, which persisted in the Church even after 1978. But a Washington Post story highlighting that LDS racial folklore (and quoting a BYU religion prof spouting it) got results in two days. Here, bad publicity about LDS youth interviews, including hundreds of personal accounts of adults who relate the embarrassing and sometimes traumatizing interviews they had with LDS bishops and several newspaper stories, has produced results. Somehow, LDS leaders need to change this dynamic. Leadership needs to be more open to feedback from the membership and take member comments and complaints more seriously.
Wheat & Tares 
Nothing will change unless this is announced over the pulpit. Most LDS outside Utah will not see the Deseret News article. Even fewer anywhere will read the lds.org newsroom link. There needs to be a clear announcement in every ward in the church that any man, woman, youth or child being interviewed for whatever reason can have another person in that interview.
I should note that there is a prominent link at LDS.org about the guideline changes. The link takes the reader to the Newsroom story and attachments.
The Deseret News has a story out already: https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900022262/lds-leaders-again-update-guidelines-for-bishops-interviews-with-children-and-youth-including-a-list-of-topics-and-questions.html
The Salt Lake Tribune as well, in more detail: https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2018/06/20/mormon-church-publicizes-revised-guidelines-for-youth-interviews/
I am a bit with Bis Bill on this and I agree with Dave’s last statement of “only bad publicity can change most church policies.”
I’ve just sent a request to our bishopric, via my husband (who is the ward Executive Secretary), asking that the bishopric consider using the 5th Sunday in July to educate the ward on these new guidelines for interviewing youth. Specifically, I want the parents and youth to know that youth may ask for a parent or other adult to sit in with them when being interviewed. There will be those who don’t care one way or the other, but there may be some who care, but don’t know that the option is even available to them. As ES, my husband retrieves youth during 2nd hour for interviews with the bishop nearly every Sunday. I’m not sure that the parents have any idea, or that the youth know that the bishop wants to visit with them until my husband arrives to fetch them from Sunday School. (Maybe they do. I haven’t asked.) I think having a discussion about the “why” of interviews for both adults and youth would be a great topic, as well as a timely one, what with these updated guidelines. Thank you for bringing this to our attention!
Meh. Nothing will really change until, like adult interviews, leaders are restricted to specific questions. This directive approaches that, but Bishops ignore instructions until reinforced in training sessions.
I don’t know if it is too far off topic, but the part that stood out to me was the part about parents having primary responsibility over teaching their children, and that bishoprics are there to support the parents. I think this stood out to me because I recall one internet discussion trying to decide how this applies if parents do not believe that masturbation is a sin, and don’t want bishoprics teaching their child that masturbation is a sin in these interviews. Of course, if the bishop agrees with the parents, then this is not a big deal, but there are many cases where a bishop may strongly disagree. In such cases, should a bishop teach his personal belief, while acknowledging the parents differing belief, or should the bishop respect the parents wishes completely?
How are kids supposed to realize they might need someone to protect them from the bishop, when they’ve already been trained to disclose everything to him in private? And taught over and over again that obedience is the most important thing.
And what about kids (and adults!) who aren’t being molested, but shamed? I would never have asked my parents to accompany me to an interview, because I wanted to spare them the details of how awful and unworthy I was told that I was for masturbating. (Which, my parents told me that too … )
I almost killed myself in 2008, and that was a huge part of it … sexual shame kind of has a long history in Mormondom, and LGBT+ kids and adults have been getting it especially hard ever since the Prop 8 fight.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Jewelfox, I’m afraid that with these minor changes the leadership thinks, “Well, we’ve taken care of that problem.” I don’t think they even grasp the full scope of the problem. It is hard to see how these recent changes would have avoided or even lessened the negative impact that is reported by you and hundreds of other adult Mormons about their youth interview experience.
Although it never happened to me, I heard hints that some bishops asked about masturbation during interviews. When my son was 13, I told our bishop that I would teach my son and that I did not want him to ever ask a question on that matter, for as long as he was a minor child, as masturbation was not reached by our law of chastity. Later, about 15, I told my son that I had given that instruction. That said, I don’t think our bishop would have asked anyway.
I can vouch for Dave B’s comment: I’m afraid that with these minor changes the leadership thinks, “Well, we’ve taken care of that problem.”
That was my thought and I’m not even leadership. Then I watched some of the Protect our Kids stuff and I quickly changed my tune.
It’s also so ingrained in us. My dad warned me ahead of time that the bishop would ask me questions about masturbation. He didn’t warn me in terms of “don’t let him ask it” it was more along the lines of “this is normal, just go with it.”
As a parent, I’m not so “go with the flow”. I will be sitting in with my daughter for her interviews (even if the policy hadn’t changed) and I will be correcting the bishop if he asks a question other than do you live the law of chastity and I recommend all parents do the same.
Most bishops are awesome, just trying to do their best, people.
Not all bishops are and the ones that aren’t don’t wear a badge that warns you about it.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
Andy, it is a bit puzzling why the Church has, for many years, endorsed and followed the two-deep rule for Scouting activities, but saw no reason to consider such a step (or similar steps) to protect LDS youth in church settings. It’s as if the normal rules of physical and personal safety don’t apply within the Church. Think how silly the following claims sound:
“We don’t need to wear seat belts. We’re Mormons.”
“We don’t need to install fire alarms or sprinkler systems. We’re Mormons.”
“We don’t need to lock the doors at night. We’re Mormons.”
But the leadership has quite serenely adopted the following: “We don’t need two-deep leadership in adult-child interactions in the Church. We’re Mormons.” I could go on, but you get the picture. I think we need to transition this magical thinking (as if kids inside church walls are magically protected) with real-world thinking. The reasonable precautions that parents take and organizations take outside the Church should also be adopted within the Church. We do reasonable things in so many areas, why not child protection as well? To quote the Church’s own advertising: Isn’t it about time?
Dave B, I understand why the want to have a 1 on 1 for a confession due to confidentiality, having said that, if the child doesn’t set up an 1 on 1 for a confession, I see no reason to have the child be 1 on 1 with any leader.
I’d like to know when we started asking children questions about their sexuality. Interviews didn’t start until 1857 and that was for an endowment.
It should start off with “I understand it’s hard to answer questions with your parents in the room. If you feel like you need to talk to me privately, you can always pull me aside.”
Then the question to a child should be simple, “Are you living the commandments according to your understanding of them?”
A bishop shouldn’t feel the need to dig and extract a confession. That’s the Holy Ghost’s job.
I like Andy’s proposed child interview style, but why should it be limited to children?
Oh, and what should be done with the children who won’t talk to their father because he’s the bishop and won’t talk to the bishop because he’s their father? Or those who won’t talk to father or bishop because each prefers preaching to listening? I doubt there’s a one-size-fits-all solution, but the base-line standard practice could certainly be further improved.
When I say child, I mean minor.
If there is a Bishop or Bishopric member that my wife is not comfortable with she has always asked me to go to her temple recommend interviews and sit in during the interview and I have always obliged. We have had several over the years that have tried to object and I have always asked them to show me where it is forbidden. It has never been and if they still have an issue with it we invite them to ask someone else to do the interview with. My wife is more than capable of taking care of herself but, I love going with her because it bothers the Bishopric so much.
I have always offered to my children, oldest is 25, that if they wanted me or their mom to be in any interview with the Bishop that we would support them in that desire and Bishops have only ever interviewed my child without my knowledge once and after I speak with the Bishop they strangely never make that mistake again. I have been in the same ward for 20ish years and I rarely have to correct Bishop’s about that anymore.
While serving as a member of the Bishopric I required parents to be in the room for YW temple recommend interviews and for YM interviews at Deacon age and any other time they wanted to after that. That has always been for my benefit as I have no desire to ever have to describe to anyone else’s child what the Law of Chastity entails.
Bishop Bill,
I live outside of Utah and got an email notification from the church in my personal email that there was a letter regarding this topic. When I clicked the link, I had to sign in to my lds.org account to read it, but the notification was the very day it was released. I am not in a Bishopric calling, but rather a YM calling. So, I do hope that the information is more readily available than only from reading the Deseret News articles. Did any of you that are not in Bishopric callings get this email?
Ji,
I was asked. I was 13 and the feeling of being asked was shocking and shaming. I was angry that nobody had prepared me for that line of questioning. I never told my parents about it and tried to deal with it the best way a 13 year old kid in isolation could. Well done on pre-emptively protecting your son. That was the only time I was ever asked.
Dave B. It’s even sillier than your scenario. It’s not, “We don’t need to wear seat belts. We’re Mormons.” Rather it’s more like, “We only need to wear seat belts when on Scout trips (or counting tithing money). All other times, being Mormon keeps us safe.”
Dave B.,
I am definitely not an adult Mormon! More like an adult ex-Mormon and anti-Mormon, in the sense that I resigned and I’ve been paid to write stuff that’s highly critical of the Mormon church. Although in my opinion, people should have already been aware that masturbation interviews were driving kids to suicide, which is one thing I wrote about …
Talking of children wanting 1 on 1 interviews for their own protection, one has to ask, what are the kids getting out of it? A bishop is the last person I’d recommend telling that you’re being abused, given that they have no training and their sympathy may well lay with the abuser. So that aside, what is even the purpose of worthiness interviews besides prurience and shame? Or teaching children to lie, about stuff where you’ve only their word and your gut, which I suspect is how most of the boys in the wards I grew up in advanced in the priesthood and got sent on missions.
Children need parents or other trusted adults with them because bishops, as a class, cannot be trusted.
In our ward, we didn’t wait for a fifth Sunday meeting. We held a joint meeting on a convenient Sunday and discussed abuse prevention. The new policies were announced and our plans for implementation were discussed. The key points were
1. Every child, youth, and adult is entitled to have a friend, parent, or mentor accompany them to any interview. This applies to bishopric, Relief Society, and Elders Quorum interviews.
2. The door to the room will be left slightly ajar for all Interviews so that calls for help are easily heard.
2a. Since the bishop alone handles worthiness and financial issues, the door to the bishops office is closed, but the door to the clerks office is ajar (with an adult, usually the clerk, present)
3. No one-on-one contact between youth and leaders. Anyone who will not adhere to this policy will be removed from positions of authority.
The only caveat we make is that if a youth desires to meet privately with the bishop, a responsible adult must be in the adjacent clerks office with the door between offices ajar.
There has been no objections to this from anyone. As a side effect, in our youth Interviews, the youth have taken to bringing a friend with them. The reports I have heard back are that the discussions have been more forthcoming and open. I suspect we will see youth more comfortable in these interviews and more open with a friend present. As an added bonus, there is more face time spent between youth and the bishopric.
“What the guidance should really say is: “With the permission of a parent, the bishop may conduct a one-on-one interview with a youth. Otherwise, the parent or another adult approved by the parent should accompany the youth in the interview.””
I disagree wholeheartedly. If the youth wants to talk to the Bishop about a situation at home, perhaps an abusive parent or a parent who is complicit in the abuse, how will the youth ever be able to talk to the Bishop about it? Remember that family abuse is far more common than abuse by an ecclesiastical leader. Most lawsuits against the Church involving child abuse rely on allegations that the Church failed to take appropriate action in response to abuse, not that a leader was the abuser.
Thanks for the comments, everyone.
I understand where you’re coming from, Dsc. The problem with that line of thinking is: (1) Any youth who wants to disclose abuse can and should disclose to law enforcement, a social worker, a teacher, a doctor or nurse, or some other trusted adult who has received some training in dealing with abuse reports and will report the abuse to the proper authority. Because: (2) Bishops receive no such training and in many cases will not even recognize that a disclosure is being made. (3) Even if a bishop understands a disclosure is being made, stories related by Mormons who have made such disclosures suggests bishops often protect the abuser by leaping to the conclusion that the victim needs to forgive the abuser and move on. (4) Or worse, a bishop who understands there was some sexual contact but doesn’t understand that the victim was a victim, so the bishop requires the victim to “repent” of their “sin.”
I have read a lot of stories of adult Mormons who, as minors, were traumatized by explicit sex discussions with a prying LDS bishop. I have read no accounts of an adult Mormon who, as a minor, wanted to disclose abuse to a trusted adult but could not because his parents would not allow the minor to visit one-on-one with the bishop. So I think what you are offering is a sham argument (because there are no facts to support it and the reasoning doesn’t hold up).
“If the person being interviewed desires, another adult may be invited to be present during the interview.”
That is not a choice for my child to make.
Unfortunately, it is the reality of today that children are frequently driving the bus with church and state as mere passengers of a teenager’s whims.