NOM

I have a question about youth interviews. I was going to post it in the petition thread, but decided it was perhaps off topic enough that I would just post it here.

My oldest child will be eight soon, and while I don’t think questions about sex will come up (although you never know), it sets the stage for allowing private and personal questioning to happen later and normalizes it, so I am concerned for my own kid, as well as being concerned generally.

For reasons beyond my understanding, my husband and I disagree about interviews with the bishop. He is 100% okay with it. We’ve had discussions about it, I told him I don’t want my kids having private interviews with church leaders, I don’t want them being asked questions about sex, and that it isn’t anyone’s business anyway. He maintains that if I try to be in an interview with my kids, if I tell the bishop that my kid doesn’t get worthiness/sex questions, that my kids are going to resent my treating them like children, that I’m helicoptering, that they will be embarrassed that their mother is making these demands when other kids’ parents are not. My kids are all male, so there's that too. What boy wants his mom following him into the bishop's office? I think he’s right about a lot of that.

So here’s my question: how do kids feel who have parents who insist on being there? Are they embarrassed? Are they shamed by church leaders (bishop/YW/YM) for having an over protective parent? Are bishops agreeable? How does this really work in practice? I read a lot about people making the stance with the bishop, but I never read how it plays out in reality. I'm curious.

I sent a letter to my bishopric stating that either DW or I had to be present in all interviews with our kids. We both agree that an adult asking personal questions to a kid while alone is wildly inappropriate. So far, the bishop has avoided any interviews with our kids because DW and I are never available. My oldest will be 10 in a few months and is still unbaptized. *tender mercies*


Some of my thoughts:
1. If your kids are going to resent you, they will do it. Chaperoning an interview is not going to make one bit of difference.
2. I would think that your kids seeing you standing up to leadership will be a positive thing. They will see you having limits and enforcing them. This will help them to do the same.
3. It will teach that leadership is not infallible and you still need to make it with some massive caution.
4. Regarding being a helicopter parent, it is your right to be as your kids legal guardian. While I don't this is is good in general, there are times when you do need to put your foot down.

Maybe a way to look at it is, would it be appropriate for your child's teacher to take your kid into a private room at school and ask them about their sexual habits? Absolutely not. Same for a scout leader. No one in their right mind would think that is okay. Why would a bishop at church be any different?

Many people don't care because they trust their bishop or youth leaders. Problem is, sometimes they turn out to be pedophiles. I bet those who have truly experienced this deception would give anything to have back the chance to say No to youth interviews.

At 8 years old a child shouldn't feel embarrassed about mom and dad sitting in on a baptism interview. It should be expected.

At 16 years old there's going to be a little embarrassment.

Here's what we did.

We made it a family visit with the bishop and talked only about baptism. Since unbaptized CHILDREN are free from sin there's no need for a "worthiness" interview. Our bishop agreed and didn't make it a worthiness interview. It was a congrats your going to get baptized pep talk.

Either tell the bishop before or just walk right in with your child and grab a seat.

Go in as a family to support the decision to be baptized.

Don't let your 8 year old be alone in a bishops office ever!

I have made it clear that this is a hill I am willing to die on. I will not allow my children to be in a position where they are alone with the Bishop in his office. It is less about inappropriate questions for me (although it probably should be more about that) but I want them to feel like my authority and support as a Father is more important than the Bishop's.

I do trust my bishop, and I still think this is a very bad idea.

Where is the little window in the bishop's door by the way?

One thing I've experienced is the Bishop was very offended by my letter. I had to calm the waters by explaining it wasn't personal, it's just my duty in protecting my child. I've also wondered if some Bishops would try and twist this issue into suspecting the parent is guilty of abuse and by attending with the child might be acting as a "minder" to keep the child quiet. Maybe that's far fetched, but some bishops might think that way.

Here is how I have handled it.

As each new bishop has been called in our ward, I meet with him one-on-one.

I explain that the church is very conscious of two deep leadership, as is the BSA. As a BSA leader if he were meet with a youth alone, behind closed doors, he would be removed from BSA leadership. This idea is for both the protection of the child, and the leader. However, if he and my child feel it necessary to meet alone that is their decision to make. He is free to ask the questions in the temple recommend, as listed. However, if my youth does not understand the question, I.E. chastity, then he is NOT freed explain, rephrase, or elaborate.

Doing so will result in the police being called and a report being filed. That is the risk he assumes meeting alone. He is warned to tread very carefully.

Usually once he understands that I am dead serious, and there is no allowance for any deviation there are no issues.

-lost

lostinmiddlemormonism wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:34 am However, if he and my child feel it necessary to meet alone that is their decision to make. He is free to ask the questions in the temple recommend, as listed. However, if my youth does not understand the question, I.E. chastity, then he is NOT freed explain, rephrase, or elaborate.

Doing so will result in the police being called and a report being filed. That is the risk he assumes meeting alone. He is warned to tread very carefully.

Usually once he understands that I am dead serious, and there is no allowance for any deviation there are no issues.

I so want to do this...

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:24 am One thing I've experienced is the Bishop was very offended by my letter. I had to calm the waters by explaining it wasn't personal, it's just my duty in protecting my child. I've also wondered if some Bishops would try and twist this issue into suspecting the parent is guilty of abuse and by attending with the child might be acting as a "minder" to keep the child quiet. Maybe that's far fetched, but some bishops might think that way.

I don't think most bishops are that aware that this is exactly what some abusive fathers do. I think a person has to be very aware of child sexual abuse to even have this enter their head. But if the option for the child to choose which parent is open, then it is not something that would raise a red flag, even to people like me who worked with women who had been sexually abused. Often the sexually abusive father is extremely jealous. He can freak out if she is late getting home from school, or goes over to a friends house, because he imagines her having sex with other men. Most often it is this jealousy, but sometimes it is fear that she might tell. I had clients whose sexually abusive father demanded to go with the 15 year old daughter to her doctor visits, be in on all bishop interviews, and essentially hovered over their daughter thinking that all males were out to have sex with her. They frequently accuse their daughter of being a whore, because after all, she is allowing him to have sex with her. They just do not comprehend that their daughter is being given no choice by themselves. They place all the responsibility on the child to prevent sex, just like the church teaches them that it is the females responsibility to say no and even prevent rape. So, if she is "willing" she is a whore.

So, one way to solve this problem is to tell the bishop that the child gets to pick another adult. It does not have to even be a parent, just so the child is not alone behind closed doors.

Just This Guy wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:09 am Maybe a way to look at it is, would it be appropriate for your child's teacher to take your kid into a private room at school and ask them about their sexual habits? Absolutely not. Same for a scout leader. No one in their right mind would think that is okay. Why would a bishop at church be any different?

I completely agree, but my husband doesn't see it that way. We've gone round and round in circles on the subject and it simply goes nowhere.

2bizE wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 6:30 am Many people don't care because they trust their bishop or youth leaders. Problem is, sometimes they turn out to be pedophiles. I bet those who have truly experienced this deception would give anything to have back the chance to say No to youth interviews.

Too many people blindly follow church leaders. While it is possible that the bishop may molest the child, I don't think it is the most likely scenario. I'm not saying it has never happened or can't, and I'm not diminishing the pain and experiences of those who have had that experience, I just don't think it is the most likely scenario. More likely, the child will come away shamed, confused, educated/curious about things that should never have been brought up in that situation, etc. I consider this grooming for future improprieties and normalizing obedience to church/priesthood authority over other things. It makes the jump to asking a grown woman about her underwear perfectly normal - after all, she's been having these kinds of conversations with a man behind a closed door since she was twelve.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:11 am At 8 years old a child shouldn't feel embarrassed about mom and dad sitting in on a baptism interview. It should be expected.

At 16 years old there's going to be a little embarrassment.

Yes, I'm not concerned about it now, and hopefully everything changes by the time this becomes a reality for our family (but the church moves sooooo slow!) I would have found it weird as a teenager.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:11 am Here's what we did.

We made it a family visit with the bishop and talked only about baptism. Since unbaptized CHILDREN are free from sin there's no need for a "worthiness" interview. Our bishop agreed and didn't make it a worthiness interview. It was a congrats your going to get baptized pep talk.

Either tell the bishop before or just walk right in with your child and grab a seat.

Go in as a family to support the decision to be baptized.

Don't let your 8 year old be alone in a bishops office ever!

I really, really like this.

Emower wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:40 am I have made it clear that this is a hill I am willing to die on. I will not allow my children to be in a position where they are alone with the Bishop in his office. It is less about inappropriate questions for me (although it probably should be more about that) but I want them to feel like my authority and support as a Father is more important than the Bishop's.

This is really important. I wonder how that plays out for me as a woman/mother? I can see the church doing what it can to weaken a non-priesthood holder's authority. By the time my kid's a deacon he'll have more authority than I do.

slavereeno wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 8:43 am I do trust my bishop, and I still think this is a very bad idea.

Where is the little window in the bishop's door by the way?

In our old building, the Stake President had "peep holes" drilled into the bishop's door. I guess the idea was good, but...there's a lot of space in that room you can't see through a tiny hole

FiveFingerMnemonic wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:24 am One thing I've experienced is the Bishop was very offended by my letter. I had to calm the waters by explaining it wasn't personal, it's just my duty in protecting my child. I've also wondered if some Bishops would try and twist this issue into suspecting the parent is guilty of abuse and by attending with the child might be acting as a "minder" to keep the child quiet. Maybe that's far fetched, but some bishops might think that way.

I can''t imagine one bishop I have had who would receive such a letter and not have this reaction. And I do think retaliation is a real possibility. Does that make me paranoid?

lostinmiddlemormonism wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 9:34 am I explain that the church is very conscious of two deep leadership, as is the BSA. As a BSA leader if he were meet with a youth alone, behind closed doors, he would be removed from BSA leadership. This idea is for both the protection of the child, and the leader. However, if he and my child feel it necessary to meet alone that is their decision to make. He is free to ask the questions in the temple recommend, as listed. However, if my youth does not understand the question, I.E. chastity, then he is NOT freed explain, rephrase, or elaborate.

This is what surprises me about the church's position the most. It is such a huge liability.

I like the idea of not allowing any more information, explanations, etc.

alas wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 11:06 am So, one way to solve this problem is to tell the bishop that the child gets to pick another adult. It does not have to even be a parent, just so the child is not alone behind closed doors.

Another really good idea, and one that gives the child some responsibility and ownership of the situation.

I find it interesting that in the church it's not okay for a man and a woman who aren't married to each other to teach a classroom full of kids together, yet a bishop can be one-on-one with an unrelated minor behind a closed door. Hmm.

dareka wrote: ↑Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:05 pm I find it interesting that in the church it's not okay for a man and a woman who aren't married to each other to teach a classroom full of kids together, yet a bishop can be one-on-one with an unrelated minor behind a closed door. Hmm.

It's the power of the priesthood.