New Church policy regarding Bishop and Stake President interviews

[pam]

SALT LAKE CITY —The First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints made significant changes Monday to policies that will change the way bishops and stake presidencies counsel victims of sexual abuse and how they conduct interviews with church members, including women and children.

The four new statements in policies or guidelines released on Monday will become part of the church's Handbook of Instructions for local leaders. The statements were included in a document titled "Preventing and responding to abuse" that was included with a First Presidency letter sent to local leaders on Monday.

https://www.deseretnews.com/article/900013999/lds-first-presidency-letter-directs-leaders-to-review-teach-policies-on-preventing-responding-to-sex-abuse.html

[Jane_Doe]

Ok, looking for specific policy changes (please let me know however I'm not getting this right):

"When adults are teaching children or youth  in Church settings, at least two responsible adults should be present. e two adults could be two men, two women, or a married couple (see Handbook 2: Administering the Church [2010], 11.8.1). Where it may not be practical to have at least two adults in a classroom, leaders should consider combining classes."

--- This is a change from previous policy in that now no single female may teach a class.  This rule already existed for men teaching a class.  

 

"At least two adults must be present on all Church-sponsored activities attendedby youth or children. All adult leaders participating in Scouting must be registered with the Boy Scouts of America (see First Presidency letter, May 12, 2017) and comply with guidelines in the BSA publication Guide to Safe Scouting."

--- This isn't a change for Scouting stuff, but is for other youth/primary activities.  Essentially issuing a two-deep policy.  For example, I could no longer teach Achievement Days solo if my co-teacher is out of town.

 

"When a brother participates in a ministering visit to an individual woman, he should go with his companion or with his wife."

-- This was always a 'should' and 'basic sense thing', but is now a for SURE do thing.

 

"When a member of a stake presidency or bishopric or another assigned leader meets with a child, youth, or woman, he or she should ask a parent or another adult to be in an adjoining room, foyer, or hall. If the person being interviewed desires, another adult may be invited to participate in the interview. Leaders should avoid all circumstances that could be misunderstood (see Handbook 1, 7.4).

-- Another thing that was common place before but is now a for SURE thing.  

 

Rest of it seems to be re-stating existing policy, reasoning behind it, and reminding of resources which are available.

 

 

 

So.... what did I butcher/miss?

•  

[SpiritDragon]

I'm currently called to teach a youth Sunday School class twice a month which I have been doing solo... I guess I'll need to get another adult to come to class with me.

[MrShorty]

I think you got a lot of it. The things I noticed:

Explicitly stating that a youth can request that a parent or other adult be present in the interview seems new. I recall as executive secretary being present in an adjacent room/office on some of Bishop's interview nights (the Bishopric rotated through the assignment), so that part doesn't seem new.

Making two deep apply to women as well as men.

I don't know what has been in past handbooks, but this explicitly states that "Church leaders should never disregard a report of abuse or counsel a member not to report criminal activity to law enforcement." For me, the big that has stood out to in the recent anecdotes of abuse cases was how many times priesthood leader disregarded, dismissed, or downplayed the accusations of abuse. If it wasn't previously explicit, it is now explicit that we cannot disregard any accusations.

Edited March 27, 2018 by MrShorty
Add closing quotation mark

[NeedleinA]

10 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

I'm currently called to teach a youth Sunday School class twice a month which I have been doing solo... I guess I'll need to get another adult to come to class with me.

I'm in the same boat. I'm a Sunday School teacher and in the SS Presidency. With limited members to call upon, it looks like we will be combining some classes?

4 minutes ago, MrShorty said:

Making two deep apply to women as well as men.

I'm interested to see what, if anything, this does to "Youth" classes OR where the definition for "youth" cuts off...age limit?
For example, seminary teachers. Two deep for each seminary class too?

[NightSG]

12 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

I'm in the same boat. I'm a Sunday School teacher and in the SS Presidency. With limited members to call upon, it looks like we will be combining some classes?

What ever happened to "we need people, so let's get our butts out there and convert some?"

12 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

I'm interested to see what, if anything, this does to "Youth" classes OR where the definition for "youth" cuts off...age limit?
For example, seminary teachers. Two deep for each seminary class too?

Well, it doesn't place any unreasonable requirements, like both of them being awake.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

@Jane_Doe according to the article, the specific changes are:

The changes are:

• "Members should never be encouraged to remain in a home or situation that is abusive or unsafe."

• "When a member of a stake presidency or bishopric or another assigned leader meets with a child, youth, or woman, he or she should ask a parent or another adult to be in an adjoining room, foyer, or hall. If the person being interviewed desires, another adult may be invited to participate in the interview. Leaders should avoid all circumstances that could be misunderstood."

• "Church leaders should never disregard a report of abuse or counsel a member not to report criminal activity to law enforcement personnel."

• "At least two adults must be present on all church-sponsored activities attended by youth or children."

[NeedleinA]

10 minutes ago, NightSG said:

What ever happened to "we need people, so let's get our butts out there and convert some?"

We did, we have. Our ward grew multiple times to the point it has been split 3 times into new wards since I've been here. We are not too far removed from the last split, so at current time... we have limited resources for the moment.

[NightSG]

1 minute ago, NeedleinA said:

We did, we have. Our ward grew multiple times to the point it has been split 3 times into new wards since I've been here. We are not too far removed from the last split, so at current time... we have limited resources for the moment.

Well, then, run a few off so you have to re-join the wards from the last split.

[NeedleinA]

1 minute ago, NightSG said:

Well, then, run a few off so you have to re-join the wards from the last split.

Not our cup of (herbal) tea, sorry.

[truthseaker]

I must be reading this wrong, surely bishops (who from what I understand are just members in good standing with the church and have a bishop 'calling', certainly not qualified counsellors) are not counselling sexual abuse/assault victims.  These people need specialised counselling.  

Actually anyone who needs counselling for anything needs a professional (be it marriage issues/personal issues/depression etc), not an 'bank manager or similar' with a 'calling'.  

Im horrified if this is the case.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

12 minutes ago, truthseaker said:

I must be reading this wrong, surely bishops (who from what I understand are just members in good standing with the church and have a bishop 'calling', certainly not qualified counsellors) are not counselling sexual abuse/assault victims.  These people need specialised counselling.  

Actually anyone who needs counselling for anything needs a professional (be it marriage issues/personal issues/depression etc), not an 'bank manager or similar' with a 'calling'.  

Im horrified if this is the case.

No, they are not offering counseling.  I think the issue is related to the Rob Porter case (and others like it) where a woman is being abused by her husband and the Bishop counsels her to try and work things out.  Here's a quote from the CNN article: 

Willoughby, who was married to Porter from 2009 to 2013, also said Mormon bishops discouraged divorce. One of the bishops worked with Porter and warned her that filing a protective order could harm her husband's career. 

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/09/politics/rob-porter-mormonism-metoo/index.html

 

 

 

 

Edited March 27, 2018 by LiterateParakeet

[truthseaker]

Just now, LiterateParakeet said:

No, they are not offering counseling.  I think the issue is related to the Rob Porter case (and others like it) where a woman is being abused by her husband and the Bishop counsels her to try and work things out.  Here's a quote from the CNN article: 

Willoughby, who was married to Porter from 2009 to 2013, also said Mormon bishops discouraged divorce. One of the bishops worked with Porter and warned her that filing a protective order could harm her husband's career. 

 

 

 

 

That is counselling though (bolded section above), and potentially very damaging to the people involved if not done by a trained professional.  Very unethical 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

1 minute ago, truthseaker said:

That is counselling though (bolded section above), and potentially very damaging to the people involved if not done by a trained professional.  Very unethical 

I think you are misunderstanding me.  Often Mormons when they have trouble in their marriage first to the Bishop, then if he feels there is a need, he will refer them to professional counseling.  Yes, as we can see in the Rob Porter case, grave mistakes have been made, and thus the Church Leaders are re-emphasizing that abuse is not to be tolerated.  

[truthseaker]

2 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I think you are misunderstanding me.  Often Mormons when they have trouble in their marriage first to the Bishop, then if he feels there is a need, he will refer them to professional counseling.  Yes, as we can see in the Rob Porter case, grave mistakes have been made, and thus the Church Leaders are re-emphasizing that abuse is not to be tolerated.  

I understand, I think you are missing my point.  The point is no one should be going for counselling or referrals for counselling to someone not qualified to make that judgement.  A Bishop is not qualified to counsel people or refer people for further counselling to anyone else.  He shouldn't be involved in it at all.

[pam]

Personally if I needed to talk to the Bishop about a sexual sin, I don't want another person in on the conversation.  If I felt uncomfortable, I know where the limits are.  But for those more vulnerable I totally get it.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Just now, truthseaker said:

I understand, I think you are missing my point.  The point is no one should be going for counselling or referrals for counselling to someone not qualified to make that judgement.  A Bishop is not qualified to counsel people or refer people for further counselling to anyone else.  He shouldn't be involved in it at all.

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think you understand Mormon culture.  The Bishop isn't requesting them to come in.  They chose to on their own because they respect his opinion.  People can seek marital advice from whomever they please...it might be their best friend, or their mom, or their Bishop.  Not everyone needs professional counseling.  Yes, of course, with abuse professional counseling is needed, but a woman in an abusive relationship is not likely to pick up the phone and call a therapist.   She often needs help....perhaps from family, friends or a Bishop, to be persuaded and encouraged to make that step.  

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

1 minute ago, pam said:

Personally if I needed to talk to the Bishop about a sexual sin, I don't want another person in on the conversation.  If I felt uncomfortable, I know where the limits are.  But for those more vulnerable I totally get it.

As an abuse survivor, there is no way in h...----err...on earth--I would want to talk to a Bishop about a sexual sin without someone else present.  But as you pointed out everyone is different. 

[pam]

1 minute ago, LiterateParakeet said:

As an abuse survivor, there is no way in h...----err...on earth--I would want to talk to a Bishop about a sexual sin without someone else present.  But as you pointed out everyone is different. 

I totally get that.  I was just speaking personally.  Yes we all are different in our situations.

[truthseaker]

6 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

I understand what you are saying, but I don't think you understand Mormon culture.  The Bishop isn't requesting them to come in.  They chose to on their own because they respect his opinion.  People can seek marital advice from whomever they please...it might be their best friend, or their mom, or their Bishop.  Not everyone needs professional counseling.  Yes, of course, with abuse professional counseling is needed, but a woman in an abusive relationship is not likely to pick up the phone and call a therapist.   She often needs help....perhaps from family, friends or a Bishop, to be persuaded and encouraged to make that step.  

But a bishop is in a position of spiritual authority over these people, it is unethical to offer advice on their personal lives (marriage or otherwise) from a counselling perspective, its very different than talking to a friend about your problems. I understand that is your culture but it invites a lot of problems, problems that could be avoided.

[bytebear]

Most people don't have a psychologist or therapist.  Going to an ecclesiastical leader (of any faith) is often their only option, so it's important that church leaders at the local level are trained and understand their role and responsibility to help the member find the right resources.  No different than a teacher, or even a boss.  Their primary role is not to give counseling in any professional manner, but they can and should counsel people whom they attend to, supervise, whatever.

 

[Sunday21]

I am so glad that they have made this policy change.

[Sunday21]

The First Presidency also clarified on Monday that "at least two adults must be present on all church-sponsored activities attended by youth or children."

Does ‘activities’ include Sunday school classes? I am not sure how we will manage. I guess we will combine classes. Many times when teaching youth and children, I have wished for some help. I once asked a young bully to leave the class because she was heckling impoverished youth. I wish I had had the opportunity to have an adult take her aside and discuss her behaviour  instead.

[estradling75]

9 hours ago, truthseaker said:

But a bishop is in a position of spiritual authority over these people, it is unethical to offer advice on their personal lives (marriage or otherwise) from a counselling perspective, its very different than talking to a friend about your problems. I understand that is your culture but it invites a lot of problems, problems that could be avoided.

The thing is @truthseaker is that for most people there are not clear and bright lines between spiritual, and personal, and family lives.  We are all tangled up messes where our spiritual life affects or personal and family lives and our personal and family lives affect our spiritual lives.  For example the need to forgive is a very spiritual trait that plays out in our personal and family lives.  The bishop can correctly council the spiritual need for forgiveness which is a true and correct spiritual need well within his calling and framework.. and it can be misunderstood that the person needed to stay with an abuser in their personal and family life. 

The simple fact is people's internal lives are not distinct and separate elements and so drawing the line is not as easy and you would like it to be.

Edited March 27, 2018 by estradling75

[Just_A_Guy]

9 hours ago, truthseaker said:

But a bishop is in a position of spiritual authority over these people, it is unethical to offer advice on their personal lives (marriage or otherwise) from a counselling perspective, its very different than talking to a friend about your problems. I understand that is your culture but it invites a lot of problems, problems that could be avoided.

Surely you don’t mean to suggest that holding spiritual authority entails an ethical obligation to never actually use that authority?

I work in child protection.  While I would agree that you don’t want lay spiritual leaders going around diagnosing and treating disorders out of the DSM-V, trying to limit them from giving general life-advice or from helping parishioners to work through the consequences of a particular choice throigh the lens of a particular spiritual worldview, goes WAY too far.  Especially given that in my experience more than a few “qualified therapists” really have no idea what in Sam Hades they’re doing; whereas what I’m hearing from you—carried to its logical conclusion—would suggest that a parent of a sex abuse victim has no business, say, helping their child select a university.  

I’m disinclined to isolate people from meaningful sources of support just because some PsyD or LCSW with a god-complex doesn’t want the competition.

Edited March 27, 2018 by Just_A_Guy