Today’s guest post is from SpoonMo.
In response to David Dollahite’s Opinion article “Guest Opinion: Why we need LDS bishop-youth interviews” which was cited by Tad Walch’s article “Here’s why Sam Young faces discipline from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” to justify the excommunication of Sam Young.
David Dollahite, a professor of family life at BYU, wrote “Guest Opinion: Why we need LDS bishop-youth interviews” published in the Deseret News. LDS bishops interview youth at least every six months and ask questions relating to the youth’s worthiness and sexual purity. The Protect LDS Children movement is calling for an end to this practice. In response to these calls, Dollahite claims that research shows the necessity and benefits of LDS bishop-youth interviews, citing his own research and that of others. We examine, point by point, the evidence in the literature cited by Dollahite, and show that the data do not support his claims and many of his opinions are overinterpreted or unfounded. Dollahite’s main flaw is that he conflates the difference between one-on-one interviews and any adult-adolescent interactions. All of the benefits cited by Dollahite can be achieved in the absence of one-on-one interviews and do not require bishops to ask sexually explicit questions.
“Research suggests that when youths have positive interactions with religiously articulate and active adults, they are better equipped to navigate life’s challenges.”
Without even looking at the studies that he cites, it is apparent that he is falsely equating one-on-one interviews with any positive interactions with adults. Many of us can think of times when we had positive experiences with Bishop’s, YM/YW or scout leaders, however, the vast majority of these interactions were in a setting other than a one-on-one interview. On the contrary, over 3000 accounts, accumulated by Protect LDS Children, have detailed the negative interactions that many people have had with their bishop during these interviews. With so many negative interactions, we must expect evidence that the current practice is justified and does more good than harm. Dollahite tries to set forth such evidence, but fails to do so.
“Looking at a study of 3,370 American teens from various faiths…Mormon teens were the least likely to engage in high-risk behavior and consistently were the most positive, healthy, hopeful and self-aware teenagers. [Princeton Theological Seminary professor Kenda Creasy Dean] attributed this success, in part, to the higher number of nonparent adults who played a meaningful role in a teenager’s life.”
The cited books, Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teenagers is Telling the American Church and Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers, state that Mormon bishops and youth leaders help youth stay on track using church talks, youth programs, church attendance, and missionary work. Dollahite is drawing a false equivalency between one-on-one interviews and any interactions with an adult.
“At-risk youths who participated in mentoring programs experienced less depressive symptoms, greater acceptance among peers, more positive feeling about their abilities and improved performance at school.”
This study, “The Role of Risk: Mentoring Experiences and Outcomes for Youth with Varying Risk Profiles”, evaluated the effectiveness of a mentoring program that occurred in places like Big Brothers Big Sisters. The major differences between the mentorship in this context and that of bishop’s interviews are detailed below. Because of these differences, the conclusions of this study simply cannot be applied to the bishop interview.
- Mentors were background checked, reference checked, interviewed and trained. Bishops are interviewed and called by the Stake President, but minimal training is given to the bishops. Members of the church assume that the bishop is a good, law-abiding citizen, but no guarantee is made. Additionally, bishops receive very little training in how to interact with children. The study showed that mentors who received training had longer-lasting and higher quality relationships with their assigned youth. Given the lack of training of bishops, we would not expect the same quality of relationships and level of positive outcomes.
- Mentors and youth had the ability to dictate the nature and duration of their mutual friendship. In the LDS church, members are forced to attend the ward in which they live. Youth are not allowed to choose their bishops and are not allowed to switch bishops if they do not feel comfortable with the one assigned. Youth are expected to meet with bishops twice a year in order to remain in good standing. Bishops are allowed to probe into personal matters such as sexuality. Due to this power imbalance, youth have very little recourse in changing the relationships.
- Mentor-youth relationships in this study were friendship-oriented in which they participated in activities and met at least twice a month (p. 10). This is not an ecclesiastical relationship, especially one in which the bishop is able to act as a “judge in Israel” and deem the child’s worthiness. Successful mentorships tended to be ones where the mentor was less interested interested in achieving changes in the youth’s behavior and more interested in the youth’s interests and goals (p. 26).
“‘Eighth-graders who are heavy users of social media increase their risk of depression by 27 percent,’ according to sociologist Jean M. Twenge. But, research reveals that attending religious services ‘cut their risk significantly.'”
At the risk of beating a dead horse, we must point out yet again another example of confusing “religious services” and one-on-one interviews. Dollahite also neglects to mention that Twenge’s article in The Atlantic states that in addition to attending religious services, the risk of depression decreases in youth that spend time playing sports or even doing homework. In other words, replacing social media is the important point in this study, not religious activity, per se. A bishop’s interview twice a year is not going to replace the time that youth spend on social media.
“We found that religious youths consider adult leaders to be an important ‘anchor’ in their spiritual development. Removing the ability of religious leaders to minister personally to youths would undoubtedly impact that relationship.”
In his “Anchors of Religious Commitment in Adolescents” study, Dollahite interviewed youth, ironically, in the presence of an adult and with consent and institutional review. He found that religious leaders “anchor” youth to their church due to their authority and a relational component. While we do not have major issues with this study, again the problem remains that these studies do not address one-on-one bishop’s interviews.
“We have also found that meaningful religious conversations between youth and parents strongly influence spiritual development in youths.”
This finding, from Dollahite’s “Talking about Religion” study, is completely irrelevant to the topic of one-on-one interviews and if anything stresses the importance of parents, rather than leaders, having conversations with their children.
“We have also found that youths who decide to abstain from sexual intercourse draw motivation from both internal and external sources including parents, peers, and others.”
Dollahite somehow over interprets that “…and others” to mean bishops in one-on-one interviews. This study, Dollahite’s “Adolescent Motivations to Engage in Pro-Social Behaviors and Abstain From Health Risk Behaviors,” sought to find whether abstaining from health-risk behaviors was due to internal or external motivating factors, but does not address the specific source of the external motivations, especially whether that motivation comes from a bishop’s interview. Additionally, one could argue that perhaps talking to a grown man one-on-one about sex is a health-risk behavior.
“Youths from various faiths spoke articulately about how abstaining from early sexual activity improved their lives and protected them from various problems they observed in peers who did not abstain.”
This one is confusing. The cited article “Giving Up Something Good for Something Better: Sacred Sacrifices Made by Religious Youth” does not once say anything about abstaining from early sexual activity. The only time the word ‘sex’ is mentioned is when listing “Distinct expectations” that many faiths require of their adherents. The cited study does not talk about how abstinence “improved their lives” or how it “protected them from various problems.” We can’t tell if he miscited the study, or perhaps did not accurately represent what was published. Nevertheless, nothing in this study has anything to do with one-on-one interviews.
After presenting this very flimsy evidence of potential benefits from the literature, Dollahite equivocates by saying “Would these benefits still derive if the church ceased one-on-one interviews between bishops and youth? Perhaps.”
According to the evidence that he presents, we can conclude that the benefits derive from positive interactions with adults. Period. As long as the majority of the positive interactions with adults are maintained, the benefits will still derive. Protect LDS Children is not advocating for the removal of positive programs such as Sunday School, YM/YW, Mutual, etc. It is advocating the removal of one-on-one bishops interviews, a major source of negative interactions. The possible benefits, as he outlines, are not worth the possibility of harming a child. The need for personal attention for each youth could be accomplished just as well by two-on-one or a small counsel setting, with the added benefit that the youth is protected from shaming and abuse.
This point in the article is where Dollahite stops presenting evidence to back his claims and starts with pure conjecture and anecdotal personal experience. We won’t get into a point by point rebuttal, as this response is meant to deal with the evidentiary claims. We do want to direct the reader’s attention to his many ambiguous statements and unsubstantiated claims. “Countless youths….”, “Many would say…”, “….some would undoubtedly report…”, “Some have used….”. Without evidence, we cannot evaluate the validity of each of these statements.
Dollahite concludes his article by saying “To lose that individualized attention would not only deviate from strong social science data on the importance of religious mentoring but would also fail to follow Jesus Christ’s example of ministering ‘one by one’” We conclude our response by saying that the “strong social science data” is in fact weak and in some cases directly contradicts his argument. We also want to point out that Jesus’ example was mininstering “one BY one”, not “one-on-one.”
Discuss.
Lead image from LDS Media Library.
Great response, SpoonMo. You make such good points about how the Dollahite piece repeatedly cites studies that are at best vaguely connected to the practice of worthiness interviews, and then concludes that teens would pretty much lose all positive interactions with and support from adults if these were to go away or be changed in format. What a bizarre argument! And how unconnected from the stuff he’s citing!
So the decision as to whether one on one interviews are having a positive impact on the lives of our young people is to be determined by reviewing the literature? In a Church founded and maintained by revelation why don’t we ask God what He thinks? Duelling banjos may be a nice hobby but I’m not sure it I would make a decision on the value of one on one interviews by who won the duel. I’ll throw my support behind doing one on one interviews the day the prophet canonizes section 139 on the issue. Until then offering up our youth on the alter of one on one interviews, which have been proven to be detrimental to their psychological and spiritual health, for the uncertain benefits that may accrue seems to me a bad decision.
All the best,
Bob
As a retired Big Sister, I want to add that during the years that I was mentoring my Little Sister, both of us had regular contact with a Match Support Specialist who continued to give me training and support appropriate for the life situations that my Little Sister was dealing with. I developed a close relationship with my Little over many years of weekly one-on-one activities that were (mostly) fun and very unlike a bishop’s interview. The experience that I and my Little had was not at all like the experiences between most bishops and the youth in their ward. I am disappointed that he tried to paint the two as being equivalent.
You make some great points here. This is apologetics at it’s finest. You start with the conclusion and twist everything to conform to it.
I just can’t get past the fact that he seems to argue not just for the interviews in general, but for those specific lines of questioning. The church is just reinforcing the puritanical fear of the s-word that leads to so many, um, ‘romantically’ dysfunctional adults.
I find the reference to ministering one-by-one as being equal one-on-one morality interviews. Anyone else notice that our missionaries always travel in pairs?
Bob,
Thanks for the comment. I agree with your point that it is like dueling banjos, but I think mostly for people with certain perspectives. For a complete believer, we should ask God what is right regardless of data. For people that are not literal believers, or who have friends or family inside of the church, it may be upsetting to see someone use weak data to support their erroneous claims. At the very least, people should hold Deseret News accountable for presenting opinions based on weak and misinterpreted data.
Terrific response. Absolutely spot on! Well done. As a scientist (virologist), I simply cannot stand it when people misinterpret, mask, or otherwise twist the words and intent of somebody’s legitimate research findings to derive a meaning or conclusion that cannot be derived from the material they are citing. The fact that the guilty party in this case is somebody who professes to be an academic makes it even worse. Dollahite should be embarrassed and ashamed of himself.
I kind of agree with ptylerdactyl that Dollahite’s article is a bad attempt at apologetics. Apologetics is merely a defense of a religious position based on rational arguments. If the arguments aren’t rational, then it’s ineffective.
SpoonMo, “people should hold Deseret News accountable for presenting opinions based on weak and misinterpreted data.” I don’t know that a lot of members care about the validity of Dollahite’s data. They see bishop’s interviews as appropriate for more religious reasons – social science isn’t going to sway them one way or another. Only a small number of members will care about the quality of the intellectual defense.
I agree that Dollahite’s data are flimsy, but the same can be said for data presented by Protect LDS Children. First, almost all data collected is self-selected, and not able to be verified. Second, the major objections arise not out of one-on-one interviews, but specific questions asked in those interviews. Further, Protect LDS Children goes far beyond any scientifically collected data to presume that merely asking generally about chastity is damaging.
Great article. I strongly sympathize with several of the stories on the Protect LDS Youth website. I haven’t read through them all, but I can see why people are upset about the issue.
But myself? I had a fantastic relationship with my Bishop. I struggled with pornography in high school, and I talked to my Bishop about it often. He was a terrific help. It wasn’t anything crazy that he did: we read the scriptures a lot together. He helped me see that sex wasn’t a bad thing, that attractions can be good but they need to be controlled. And I really credit his ministering to me on the subject of sexuality, a topic that I’ve come to see as a beautiful element of a Christian life. (I’m married now, so, y’know.)
I guess my questions are something along these lines: is my experience common at all? I have NO way of knowing, and maybe not. I get the point about Bishops being untrained. My Bishop wasn’t but he helped me out a lot nonetheless. A related question: how common an issue does the issue Protect LDS Youth raises have to be to ban it outright, church-wide? Discussing sex with the Bishop undoubtedly helps SOME (it helped me to discuss it frankly with someone I strongly believed receives revelation from God), but can we put a number on that? What are the benefits of one-on-one discussion? Do we lose those by adding people? (I would NOT have told my dad, for example.) I’m not asking this to dispute the topic of this article–obviously, Dollahite was doing equivocation. I’m just trying to sort out in my head what justifies an outright ban on one-on-one interviews. Is it 100 bad experiences? 800? 1? Is it just the possibility of inappropriate or damaging content? Assuming that sexuality is part of Christian doctrine (and I know that can be contested, but I personally believe it is), then when should it be discussed in church? And where?
Hope those questions make sense. Again, great article.
If LDS Leadership remains “hell-bent” on conducting these interviews…then I have to ask “we have cameras on buses, in buildings, in meeting rooms – everywhere where the public conducts their business. Why not Churches; where we have men behind closed doors asking children very intimate (and inappropriate) questions?” Then, when something goes awry (which it inevitably does) then a third party can “pull the footage” and get to the heart of the matter.
In my line of work, my team and I have done this three times today to verify “what really happened”!
Bob,
“which have been proven to be detrimental to their psychological and spiritual health”. Is there data, of the standard that SpoonMo has (correctly) called for from David Dollahite, that backs up that claim? If someone were to selectively collect stories of youth who were positively impacted by one-on-one interviews, would that information be sufficient?
Dsc,
There is objection to one-on-one interviews even if there are no sexually explicit questions as grooming. Children from a young age learn it is safe and appropriate to be alone in a room with an adult male.
Mary Ann,
Sadly I agree. I hope for a future where more people care about data and reasoning.
Most people will gloss over the data. I guess I wrote this for the few that are looking for the intellectual arguement and only finds Dollahite’s opinion.
I think it’s extremely unlikely that one could find any data on the positive benefits of one-on-one youth bishop interviews – I’ll bet there is no such study. My personal experience is that such positive benefits exist. I had some really good interactions with youth in one-on-one interviews that simply would not have occurred if another adult was present, especially if the other adult was the kid’s parent. While it never rose, say, to the extent of rescuing a child from abuse, I certainly did give kids a sounding board for stuff they absolutely wanted confidential and wouldn’t talk about with friends or family.
On the other hand, I can easily see how even a well-meaning bishop, let alone a wicked bishop, could do some serious harm. Those kids are in a vulnerable position. I certainly pray I didn’t screw up in some way. Not every interaction was positive, even if they weren’t the type Sam Young is alarmed about.
So the question is whether more good or harm comes from them overall. Generally speaking, the doses of good would be small, and the doses of harm would be huge, so the doses of good would have to vastly outnumber the bad. That would require pretty good bishops, among other things.
I think the church ought to do a study in which they ask older kids and young adults in various study groups throughout the world whether they felt the one-on-one interview was important and whether it helped or hurt them. If more than a few percent indicated distrust of their bishops, then that’s probably a good indication to change the practice.
A part of me would be sad if it were discontinued, because it would take away a very powerful tool from bishops to do good. But, it would also take some heavy responsibility from them as well.
Jules,
So are we to believe that no child or youth should ever be in a room with an adult male under any circumstance? No psychologists, school principals, other counselors, doctors, etc.? I am 100% for taking precautions (I have advocated in the past for a window between the bishop’s office and the clerk’s office, where another adult must be present), but I just don’t believe that one-on-one interviews per se are the problem.
Dsc,
I agree with your point that a child may be in a one on one situation in certain circumstances.
Some of the main differences are that the people you mentioned (psychologists, principals, doctors) should have training, oversight, parental consent, licensing, professional standards, mandatory reporting. Also if I don’t like how my doctor or counselor treats me, I can report them, switch to someone else.
SpoonMo,
The problem, then, isn’t one-on-one interviews. Bishops should have better training, do have some level of oversight, and almost universally have parental consent (are we regularly interviewing children without scheduling through their parents?). I don’t see licensing as a great protection, but perhaps professional background checks are a step in licensing that could help. Bishops do have standards, and if they are insufficient, then the solution is clearer standards and better implementation of those standards. Bishops are mandatory reporters in many states. You can always report problems with your bishop to your stake president. Granted you can’t generally switch to someone else, but you can’t easily switch your school principal either.
My main point, however, is that this entire argument is based on gut instincts and not supported by data, which is fine, but is unpersuasive, especially in response to this particular article.
For me, this decision has little to nothing to do with statistical analysis. Rather, I’ve come to the conclusion (through the course of my lifetime) that I do no want the local CPA (as an example) talking to my little grandkids’ about sexual matters: of any kind. I’ve apologized to all of my adult children for my wife and allowing this to happen to them. I will do everything in my power to keep my grandchildren away from (what I consider to be) an unwholesome and potentially dangerous practice.
Lefthandloafer,
That’s fine for you, but what about those for whom personal interviews have been a positive experience? If personal experience is the standard for Church policy, what do you do about those who have personal experiences (or experiences as a family) that differ vastly from yours?
I know some who have had positive experiences and some who have had negative. In my circle of active LDS women it is about 50-50. But for those of us who had negative experiences, the negative did terrible harm that impacted how we felt about ourselves and our subsequent personal relationships. I’m not willing to play leadership roulette with my kids. They have many positive experiences with adult leaders that don’t require sitting alone one on one being asked probing questions.
Dsc
You asked two good questions. I hope I don’t offend you by asking you a couple of questions in reply.
As far as your first question is concerned we don’t have to look beyond what Sam has provided. Most anthropological data comes from ethnocentric research, in other words personally stories. So of the 800 plus stories that Sam has gathered how many of them do you think are legitimate and how do you think are fake news? If we assume that the number is between one and 799 then how many of these individuals ended up experiencing psychological and or spiritual trauma? If just one person has a negative experience then in my world that is one too many. I would argue that most of the stories are true and that they provide the evidence to support my claim that significant harm has been done.
I would further argue that the reason the Church made the changes in their interviewing policy was because they recognized that harm had been done in the past. If my memory is correct I believe that they stated that as one of the reasons for the changes in their press release.
The question is, have the changes the Church made in the interviewing policy sufficient to mitigate the possibility of further damage in the future? I hope and pray that the answer is yes. Unfortunately we will have to wait and see.
As far as your second question is concerned I stipulate that there are stories of young people who have been helped by their Bishop. But do you think that this whole issue comes down to a matter of pragmatism where we balance the good and the bad? Sorry for one more personal question but how would you feel if you had to decide who was going to harmed by some well intentioned but ill advised Bishop. This is not a decision I would want to make. I would prefer to eliminate one on one interviews altogether. Doing this would guarantee that no harm would come from them and then we could look for other methods that would support the goals of the Church while eliminating the harm from one on one interview.
All the best,
Bob
Dsc: Fair question(s). While there are currently no clear answers re: these procedures within “The Church”, as a family we’ve simply decided to take the matter into our own hands – which is probably what we should have done a long time ago – and have made it clear that at least one parent WILL ALWAYS be in any interview with any of our grandchildren. This is (for us at least) one of the most positive outcomes of this whole debate; both public and private.
Additionally, we’ve made it clear to our local Bishops that no question (re: sexuality) will be asked beyond “are you living the Law of Chastity”? Period.
My children are grown. But I would simply say they don’t need to be interviewed UNLESS they are going to the temple to do baptisms for the dead. Period. And if interviewed, someone of their choosing will accompany them. I will also insist they receive a copy of the questions beforehand.
DSC: you may not be aware, but in many states even many physicians are no longer allowed to be in a room alone with a child. I work in health care and helped oversee the legally-required deployment of training related to this issue in my state. The law in question was passed after a primary care physician was discovered to have sexually assaulted over a hundred children in his care and recorded the abuse. One victim’s mother said, “…she permitted her daughter to be alone with [the doctor] ‘because of his position as a doctor and because she ‘trusted him.'” (Google “Bradley pediatric abuse case” for more details.”)
Under state law now, a physician must have either 1) a patient’s parent/guardian or 2) a nurse/PA in the treatment room. So actually no, we no longer trust many physicians in these situations. The vast majority of providers are law-abiding people, but the potential for harm is so great that in some cases we have modified laws and practice guidelines to prevent such crimes.
On a lighter note, I love the photo at the top of the post. His tie and her bangs are giving me so much life.
Bob Cooper,
You make some excellent points. To make my own position clear, let me elaborate on a few things. First, I don’t disbelieve the Protect LDS Children stories. They are uncomfortable, cringe worthy, and often depressingly tragic. Second, I applaud the changes the Church has already made and don’t think the Church should stop looking for ways to improve. Anyone who wants another person in the room should have that opportunity. I also am an advocate for having a window into the next room, so that the mandatory second person just outside can check on things (as a former executive secretary, this also has the unrelated bonus of allowing the ES to remind the bishop that he has another appointment). My objection is only to the notion that such interviews should be abolished or that a second person should be mandatory for youth interviews.
We’ve seen some stories of the positive effects of a caring bishop speaking confidentially to youth. I suspect there are many more (I have such a story). I think many people underestimate the magnitude of those positive aspects. I think we can minimize the negative without sacrificing the positive.
Bro. Jones,
I was not aware of that law. What state and what she does it apply to? I’m much more open to blanket prohibitions of an unrelated adult being alone with a child under the age of 12 or so, but teenagers are much more sensitive to the concept of confidentially, and I would think that a doctor would need to be able to assure such confidentially in order to treat the patient, which is why doctor-patient privilege exists. I know that nurses assisting the doctor can and do keep those confidences, but there is a psychological effect of multiple people on the perception of confidentially.
Lefthandloafer,
Fortunately, you can now insist that an adult be in the room and that questions on chastity be limited, and I applaud you for the active concern that you have for your family.
Bro Jones
That should be what *age does that apply to. New phone….
DSC: 1) apparently it’s just in Delaware (at least near me) but I know other states have similar laws. 2) It’s for ages 16 and younger, but is waived in cases of emergency or at patient request. 3) I hadn’t realized that it’s limited to physical exams. So on that note, the patient can undergo a physical while a third person (parent/nurse) is present, but can request a confidential 1-on-1 conversation with the doctor afterwards.
I wonder if application could still apply to our church: require a chaperone for worthiness/progress interviews, but with the option of confidential 1-on-1 followup at the request of the minor. That would offer opportunity for private counsel under the control of younger church members, while still providing safeguards and oversight for standard meetings. There could still be the chance that a questionable leader would coerce the followup request, but with the initial two-on-one situation, hopefully it would head off most situations like that (which should hopefully be rare anyway).
I’m one of those people that isn’t ready to give up on the one-on-one interview. I think it has value and importance. I’m not opposed to having more specific guidelines . To that end, I have questions for which I’d be interested in hearing answers from several here:
Some preconditions
A. One-on-one interviews are useless if the leadership (bishop, counselors, youth leaders, etc) don’t have a personal relationship with the youth. If the only time you talk to or express interest in the youth is when they have their semi-annual interview, you may as well not have it.
B. Standard, scheduled interviews, such as the semi-annual interviews or temple recommend interviews, must be considered separately from youth requested interviews (such as confessions, or desire to ask specific questions)
C. For now, I’m going to ignore issues about windows and doors, etc. That’s a best practices issue that really ought to be independent of what occurs within an interview.
D. We’re going to assume the validity of confession to priesthood leaders for sexual sins. I know this is controversial, and I don’t yet know where I fall on this argument. Still, from a pragmatic point of view, I’m only interested in responses that are based on this premise.
The questions:
1. For a standard interview, is appropriate for a bishop to ask “Do you live the law of chastity?”
2. For a follow-up question, is is reasonable to ask “What do you understand the law of chastity to mean?” With no other follow-up questions or explanations beyond that. (The assumption being that if any youth have flawed ideas about what the law of chastity means, it ought to be discussed in public at Bishop’s Youth Discussions, firesides, meetings with parents (all parents, not just one youth’s parents) where other adults can mediate, observe, and verify that nothing inappropriate or damaging is being taught?
3. If a youth seeks to make a confession (and wishes to do so alone so as to not have to make admissions to his or her parents), what questions are appropriate? It seems like, “what is the extent of your sexual activity?” and “what was the frequency?” are all a priesthood leader needs to ask to fulfill their role.
4. If a youth requests an interview with the bishop and wants to ask what the boundaries and limits of the law of chastity are–say because their parents won’t discuss it with them–what ought a bishop do?
Am trying to wrap my thick head around this latest little hack job.
We have a new and interesting religion created by a charismatic and visionary prophet who also proved to be lecherous, a liar and scoundrel. We have a colorful history and we hide much of it or white wash it for over a century. We correlate it and water it down to make it palpable to be carried by a naïve army of missionaries to the world with some success. We make wise financial decisions and grow fabulously wealthy. We achieve an element of respect.
We enter the information age with the advent of the Internet and many experience a faith crisis for a variety of reasons including eroding truth claims. We try to be a little more transparent with efforts like the gospel doctrine essays and the book Saints (which seems to me to be like a hybrid of Rough Stone Rolling and The Work and the Glory series.) We make a number of other needed changes, but basically dig in on most things at least for now.
The Dollihite article shows the true face of the LDS church. They really don’t get it. White washing, deceitfulness and weasel words don’t work in the end. If you don’t bow to their authority then forget about making any but superficial changes. Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on your way out. A review of any number of stale articles on the FAIRS website results in the same conclusion.Not a good prognosis.
***
Let me state the obvious. Sam Young lost. It was a heroic and justified battle but in the end he is now labeled apostate and he will be ignored by the core of the church. The flawed Dollihite article is a sufficient and final response. Same with John Dehlin and Kate Kelley. They sent temporary shock waves but the institute did not really respond. Our recent history is littered with the spiritual corpses of critics and progressives. Some of us recall the September Six, including Lavina Fielding Anderson and Michael Quinn. (Wiki article on the September Six if you are interested). They remain excommunicated. That event was a major turning point of retrenchment in 1993 about 5 years before the Internet became widespread. It greatly heightened the broiling faith crisis that would follow. How unwise it seems now, and yet it remains in effect. If you think the Mormon church leaders and their Priesthood has any influence in the next life, they all have succeeded only in making a warmer bed for themselves in hell. If not then why bother? (Yeh, I know –tribal and family reasons, the middle path, etc.)
***
I have in mind a vague idea of a different approach. I can’t even put it into words without using numbers which are even more contrived at this point than the Dollihite use of data. So I offer it to you as a parable where the exact numbers don’t matter.
Imagine a parallel universe with a CofJCofLDS and a similar tradition of these objectionable interviews of youth with their whiffs of lechery. In my seer stones I see that about 10% of the adults agree with a twin of San Young and about 90% don’t, including most of the core leadership from top to bottom. These 10% are upset that they cannot foist their views on the rest with the use of reason or data or petitions or public stunts.
I also see with my seer stones the youth of this parallel church. The children of the 10% are mostly protected by their parent’s civil rights (as recently conceded by the church) and said parents take steps to greatly lower the risk and the overt damage for them. The children of the 90% fall along a continuum into three groups. About a third find the interviews unpleasant, inappropriate or “icky.” About a third find them a minor annoyance or don’t really care. About a third find them uplifting and affirming, to answer all the questions properly and gain approval of authority figures representing God, unaware of the weaknesses for future grooming they are acquiring.
What if the youth take control of this problem? Not solve it in some grand and final way for the ages like adult revolutionaries want to do. But in the passive, sneaky, persistent ways of youth. The children of the 10% and some of the first third of the children of the 90% causally refuse to be interviewed next month. And the next. Over time the children of the second third follow along like the sheep that most of them are. Even the last third might be persuaded to be slack, skipping some of the interviews- when they interfere with cheerleading practice or a school project or whatever.
I see in the seer stones about 5 female victims for 1 male victim. Conveniently, the girls face no institutional consequences for skipping all of these interviews between age 8 for baptism until temple marriage if they choose to do that. And half of them don’t even face the second one. The boys do face biennial advancement in the Aaronic Priesthood and of course the mission related interviews including temple recommends. So they could quietly skip a majority of the interviews and still fly.
I see in the seer stones that bishopric members are very busy and often, in an immediate situation, would appreciate delaying the interview until later. I see that a similar process is what killed home teaching and will eventually shrivel ministering down to something sustainable and good.
The youth are exceptionally skilled with social media and this greatly enhances the influence a few armed with the truth can have on the rest. So adults, keep up your ineffective moaning and whining on this topic. But also get your teenage kids to tell their friends to skip the next interview. It is not cool (or whatever the latest general appeal works with the current crop of youth).
Finally, I see in the seer stones, bishops being falsely accused by more mischievous, disrespectful and irreverent youth of wrong doing in these interviews. I see them able to creatively “document” these transgressions with their ever present digital devices and blow the smallest act into something outrageous. Reputations are destroyed, marriages are jeopardized and millions of dollars are paid in lawsuits. But dutiful bishops like lemmings march off the cliff, which is fortunately not very tall or steep in most places.
This is no victory but it slowly lessens the damage.
Dsc,
Can you tell me just how many children (including teenagers) is an acceptable number of children to be abused or harmed in one-on-one bishop interviews to allow the practice to continue?
Bro Jones,
Those suggestions seem reasonable to me.
JR in AR,
Can you tell me how many deaths is an acceptable number before you build a bridge over a railroad track? Or how many botched abortions that kill the mother are acceptable before banning abortion? Or how many failures to abort resulting in the death of the mother are acceptable before legalizing abortion? Or how many teachers abusing kids is acceptable before banning school?
At some point, you have to recognize that the world has some terrible people in it, and bad things happen. The whole notion that “one is too many” is great as an aspirational motto, but not very good for policy in the vast majority of circumstances.
Dsc
I believe Jesus said something about not harming even one child and something about it being better for that person to have milestone tied around their neck and tossed into the sea.
SpoonMo, great point by point analysis. It occurs to me you spent a whole lot more time and effort on this than Dollahite.
I’m interested in knowing how the changes to the interview policy have been rolled out in your respective wards. In my ward, no announcement was made about the change. I am left to trust that the information has been discussed in ward council and that the information trickled down effectively to the youth and their parents. I suspect that this process has been uneffective, at best. What about your wards? Was a general announcement made in sacrament meeting? If not, for those in callings in the YM and YW organizations, was an announcement made? If not, are youth being informed, at the time of an interview, that they can bring somebody else in with them?
JR in AR,
I’m not sure what you’re getting at. Doesn’t that principle hold true for all of the other situations I presented?
Back in the 60’s when I was growing up, I’m. pretty sure that we were taught that confession was between you and God, with only Christ as an intermediary. We looked down on the Catholic model. Now we have adopted the Catholic model, but on steroids. The Bishop is also judge and jury.
Interviews should be reserved for special occasions. Not routine. Raising children in the parents responsibility. Only in possible cases of abuse should a bishop intervene. And then only to take the appropriate response, not to counsel.
Dsc,
It doesn’t hold true for your examples. The subject of this post is placing or allowing children to be placed in this situation in the name of religion. While the vast majority of bishops are good men, but if even one child is harmed, the practice needs to end.
JR in AR,
Where does “in the name of religion” come in? It’s certainly not in the scriptural account that you referenced. Why do we tolerate “even one” child harmed at school? Your argument seems to start from its conclusion.
Troy, in our ward, an email was sent out to youth and parents of youth with a letter from the First Presidency explaining the change in policy and including the pages from the Church Handbook of Instructions, Handbook 1, 7.1.7 “Guidelines for Youth Interviews”. The letter from the First Presidency was addressed to church leadership including YW and YM presidencies (I’m 2nd counselor in YM), so maybe the bishop or stake president arranged to have parents and youth copied as well.
Just a side note. Last night on Fresh Air Terry Gross interviewed a woman about the evangelical “Purity Movement”. https://www.npr.org/2018/09/18/648737143/memoirist-evangelical-purity-movement-sees-womens-bodies-as-a-threat
More than a little reminiscent of the church’s emphasis on chastity and the recent discussion about youth interviews.
JR in AR:
My friend Dsc seems to be having trouble with your little math (counting?) problem: People -try to focus.
“Can you tell me just how many children (including teenagers) is an acceptable number of children to be abused or harmed in one-on-one bishop interviews to allow the practice to continue?”
For me some level of risk is acceptable- which I think is Dsc’s point. After consulting my seer stones, the number is 47. This is the highest number acceptable . Now that we got that settled, I am going to have to get someone who can count higher than me to answer the next question just in case it is way higher..
How many children including teenagers have been harmed in these interviews? Sam Young, do you read me?
If it is greater than 47 the interviews must stop. Less than or equal to 47, they may continue .Thus sayeth the spirit illuminating from my seer stones.
Other situations might have a different number. But we are not discussing them .
“Research suggests that when youths have positive interactions with religiously articulate and active adults, they are better equipped to navigate life’s challenges.”
I don’t know if research shows this, but it was true for me. Through my entire Navy career I knew that back home was a man (not my father nor my bishop) whose wise counsel and friendship I valued and help me steer clear of many icebergs (figuratively speaking) that could have sunk my ship.
““At-risk youths who participated in mentoring programs experienced less depressive symptoms, greater acceptance among peers, more positive feeling about their abilities and improved performance at school.”
I have no way of knowing whether I was “at risk” but I suppose divorced parents and largely absentee custodial parent probably qualifies. I had several mentors, my school teachers. One in particular took me under his wing and I learned much about chemistry and photography, another was working after school on the stage crew.
“Eighth-graders who are heavy users of social media increase their risk of depression by 27 percent.”
Does a rotary dial telephone qualify as social media? At any rate, I seldom used the telephone and watching television for any reason was a rare treat.
“We have also found that youths who decide to abstain from sexual intercourse draw motivation from both internal and external sources including parents, peers, and others.”
I didn’t exactly decide to abstain; I would gladly have leapt at an opportunity but I also knew or suspected it was forbidden in my teenage years. Remember that I had no church or religion at all until 9th grade and in those days any kind of explicit instruction was largely non-existent and salacious material was National Geographic.
By the time I was an adult, and in the Navy, I had already seen the effects of promiscuity among sailors although I suspect many of their claims were exaggerated. So I went through life without having STI’s, STD’s, and offspring that I didn’t know existed showing up at my door.
“Would these benefits still derive if the church ceased one-on-one interviews between bishops and youth?”
In my case, none of these benefits arose from interviews with my bishop, but rather the friendship and wise counsel of my school teachers, one of whom taught seminary and the others were men and women having honor and virtue.
First comes a trusting and friendly relationship, someone that you or I can talk to any day of the week and won’t be judged right then and there. Talking to the bishop, a “judge in Israel”, is like asking your friendly neighborhood policeman for advice regarding something that might be illegal.
It might be the bishop but probably won’t be.
JR in AR writes “but if even one child is harmed, the practice needs to end.”
But if even one child is benefited, the practice needs to continue!
Maybe the answer is not that everyone must do what you want, or everyone must do what I want; but rather parents and youth decide for themselves whether in any particular combination of bishop, youth and circumstance to have a youth conference.
Benjamin writes: “One-on-one interviews are useless if the leadership does not have a personal relationship with the youth.”
Agreed.
“4. If a youth requests an interview with the bishop and wants to ask what the boundaries and limits of the law of chastity are–say because their parents won’t discuss it with them–what ought a bishop do?”
I don’t know about “ought” but if I were bishop I would approach it same as tithing question; the Temple definition is “for men, sexual intercourse only with your lawfully wedded wife.” By saying what it IS, it becomes not necessary to explore the very large number of things it is not. Defining the terms is not given in the temple and probably ought to be avoided with youth.
However, it is probably harmless to point out that the degree of sinfulness varies enormously from barely worth mentioning to serious destroyer of families and only God through the Holy Ghost can really shrive a person of his guilt. I mentioned a few weeks ago about my roommate that thought he had committed the unpardonable sin because he had intercourse with his wife, after trying for a week after his marriage to remain celibate.
It is possible for a youth to have a question so serious on his mind that FAILING to answer his question could result in his suicide; to him deadly serious but to you hardly worth mentioning, or vice versa. Anyway, it is simply too risky to have one-on-one with youth. Somebody in Arkansas is only looking at one side of the coin. I’ve been there with the serious teenage question but in my case there wasn’t anyone for me to talk to but God; and that was one of the first times that God answered, because there was nobody else and no other way.
The parable of the lost sheep, well any parable of the sheep, teaches that the shepherd is responsible for the sheep and will leave 99 to go find one that is wandering; and the worth of souls is great.
So harming a soul is very bad; saving a soul is very good.
Refusing to do either is like the man who buried his talent and was found to be a slothful servant.
Doing nothing is almost always the wrong choice.
Bro. Jones — indeed. I saw my urologist yesterday. Sure enough, there was a female P.A. present for the entire time he was in the room with me so as to avoid any improper one on one contact. I had wondered about that, appreciate the explanation of why the change.
Mike — I assume you would also apply the number 47 to children dying in automobile accidents in a year. Up to 47, let people drive Over 47, no cars allowed on the road.
Was that a fair statement by me — no, but much of the discussion is turning into statements like that.
“Some of us recall the September Six, including Lavina Fielding Anderson and Michael Quinn. (Wiki article on the September Six if you are interested). They remain excommunicated.”
Err. Giliadi was restored, with an apology. Maxine Hanks has been re-baptized. Quinn has born his testimony (though as an actively gay man has not been re-baptized), most recently in interviews by more than one podcaster.
I think that sometimes memory obscures the facts for some people, and not out of malice, but because memories are not facts, they are a collection of the lessons (correct or not) someone has learned).
Troy Cline,
“I’m interested in knowing how the changes to the interview policy have been rolled out in your respective wards. In my ward, no announcement was made about the change.”
This is a great point. The positive changes the church has made have not been uniformly announced and practiced as well as they should be. Also the policy is buried in Handbook 1, which has restricted access. Maybe it should be in the FSY. “Feel free to invite your parent or another adult to the interviews.” I don’t think the church would do this though. Their intentions for allowing another adult is not to protect the child, it is to “Protect against Misunderstandings.” as it says in Handbook 1, 7.4.
Also, here is an example of how the policy has not been uniformly announced. I was sitting in the foyer and I overheard a bishopric member say to a new convert mother, “Hey your daughter will be in the Young Women’s program. We, as the bishopric, like to chat with all of the young women to see how their doing, make sure things are going alright. Is that ok with you?”
Yes he asked for consent from the mother, but it is far from informed consent. They don’t specify who will be there. “We, as the bishopric” implies more than one adult. “…all of the young women” implies other youth. They don’t mention that “like to chat” equals an interview. Or “see how their doing…(in their sex life).
“Research suggests that when youths have positive interactions with religiously articulate and active adults, they are better equipped to navigate life’s challenges.”
None of my 4 teenagers have told me their experience with the bishop on law of chastity questions was a “positive interaction.” It was stressful. For my 2nd daughter, I told the bishop I would be in the interviews always, after she came home crying from an interview with a YW leader (not the bishop). He told me that isn’t how it works and he feared they wouldn’t be honest with me present. Now…that gets kinda weird when the church leaders start thinking they are better for the kids than the parents and these experiences are good for them, whether they like it or not.
Why does there have to be a handbook policy with one way to do this?
I continued to demand being present, and my daughter loved seeing her dad stick up for her even against church leaders, it created a good experience between my daughter and myself. Is there any research on that?? I have a small sample size, but so far, my research shows positive experiences with parents is pretty darn useful to youth making choices to navigate life inside the church.
It also wasn’t a big deal that I was there. Why do church leaders think no other adult must be in the room?
It seems, if we want to use the research to show positive interactions…let’s do that…which do not need to include one-to-one interviews with direct sexual questions. Have the interactions be attending their High School sports activities for support, hallway discussions, phone calls to ask about their new award, and home visits to ask how they feel about Christ.
Seems like the important thing is Positive Interaction. Stick to that. Let go of creepy and awkward private office interviews that are not the most positive thing. Focus on the positive, not trying to sell us on compliance to handbook policy as a positive thing. Then, I think, the research holds up.
“Research suggests that when youths have positive interactions with religiously articulate and active adults, they are better equipped to navigate life’s challenges.”
The integration in interviews actually drove a wedge in the relationships with my bishops. As a youth I was never close to any of them. I am very close with 2 of my young men leaders even 35 years later.
Brother Marsh;
Have your Urologist check your irony level in your blood. I think it might be a little lower today than the 47 mg/dl cut-off. When it gets back to normal you will find that we agree.
Since Michael and Lavina others remain excommunicated, their opinions have effectively been neutralized for core members of the church who hold the power. Little progress has been made on their concerns. That a few are allowed back quietly as long as they grovel and remain below the (my) radar is useless. My point stands. These battles were lost. Different tactics are needed.
Selective memory loss, the basis of most good stories.