Youth Interviews Statement

[Sunain]

Personal interviews are an important part of ministering to those in a congregation. They offer an opportunity for a leader to know an individual better and to help them live the gospel of Jesus Christ. Leaders are instructed to prepare spiritually so they can be guided by the Holy Ghost during these interviews. Leaders are provided with instructions in leadership resources and are asked to review them regularly.

Interviews are held for a number of reasons, including for temple recommends, priesthood quorum or Young Women class advancement, callings to serve in the Church or when a member requests to meet with a priesthood leader for personal guidance or to help them to repent from serious sin.

For youth, a bishop meets with a young person at least annually to teach, express confidence and support, and listen carefully. These interviews should be characterized by great love and the guidance of the Holy Ghost. They speak together about the testimony of the young woman or young man, their religious habits (such as prayer, church attendance and personal study of the scriptures) and their obedience to God's commandments. They may review together these teachings in the scriptures or other Church resources, such as For the Strength of Youth.

In these interviews, Church leaders are instructed to be sensitive to the character, circumstances and understanding of the young man or young woman. They are counseled to not be unnecessarily probing or invasive in their questions, but should allow a young person to share their experiences, struggles and feelings.

There are times when a discussion of moral cleanliness is appropriate—particularly if a young man or young woman feels a need to repent. In these instances leaders are counseled to adapt the discussion to the understanding of the individual and to exercise care not to encourage curiosity or experimentation.

Church leaders have a solemn responsibility to keep confidential all information they receive in confessions and interviews. When a young person is faced with serious sin or temptation, a bishop will likely encourage them to share (as appropriate) their struggles with their parents so they can pray for, teach and encourage the young man or young woman.
When a Church leader meets with a child, youth or woman, they are encouraged to ask a parent or another adult to be in an adjoining room, foyer or hall, and to avoid circumstances that may be misunderstood.

If, during an interview, a leader becomes aware of incidents of abuse, they are directed to call the Church's 24-hour help line to seek guidance from professional counselors and legal professionals in how to identify, report and respond to abuse. The leader may also refer them to professional counseling services, as needed.

When counseling with parents, leaders encourage them to remain close to their children, to regularly teach and counsel with them, asking questions about their growth, progress and worthiness. This allows leaders to act in a supporting role to the family and individual.
Our belief is that interviews should be meaningful and sacred opportunities for an individual to counsel with priesthood leaders, who represent the Savior in their ministry.

I couldn't find a thread discussing this issue. Youth Interviews have become a problem for the church but could be solved pretty fast but they doubled down on the current policy.

What I think should be changed:

1. All youth interviews (less than 18 years of age) require at least 1 legal parent or guardian present in the interview.

There is nothing that is being discussed with the bishop that the parents should not already know. This would also reduce a major concern that bishops are in a position to be alone with the youth. Currently parents/legal guardians have the choice if they wish to be in the interview and most wave that right or don't realize they can be in the interview.

2. Hold bishops legally accountable for confidential breaches.

Gossip is a huge issue in the church, especially in ward councils. Reinforce that while bishops are their for spiritual guidance but confidentiality must be an utmost priority otherwise this undermines authority and the repentance process.

If people cannot trust the bishops to keep their sins confidential, and I think we've already reached that point in many wards, people just would rather not confess.

[creator]

What I think should be changed:

1. All youth interviews (less than 18 years of age) require at least 1 legal parent or guardian present in the interview.
... Currently parents/legal guardians have the choice if they wish to be in the interview and most wave that right or don't realize they can be in the interview.

Agreed. Although, I think there should be some allowance for exceptions. I don't ever recall the parent being invited to be present, maybe others have experienced something different. Also, I believe that the Church and members overall could do a better job at educating the youth about confession and the fact that most things can be handled between themselves and the Lord (I think it could help to greatly decrease the amount of shame and guilt that many youth live with due to ignorance and being taught incorrectly). The scriptures reveal a concept different than what many were taught to believe about repentance.

[mes5464]

I couldn't find a thread discussing this issue. Youth Interviews have become a problem for the church but could be solved pretty fast but they doubled down on the current policy.

What I think should be changed:

1. All youth interviews (less than 18 years of age) require at least 1 legal parent or guardian present in the interview.

There is nothing that is being discussed with the bishop that the parents should not already know. This would also reduce a major concern that bishops are in a position to be alone with the youth. Currently parents/legal guardians have the choice if they wish to be in the interview and most wave that right or don't realize they can be in the interview.

2. Hold bishops legally accountable for confidential breaches.

Gossip is a huge issue in the church, especially in ward councils. Reinforce that while bishops are their for spiritual guidance but confidentiality must be an utmost priority otherwise this undermines authority and the repentance process.

If people cannot trust the bishops to keep their sins confidential, and I think we've already reached that point in many wards, people just would rather not confess.

I disagree with number 1. Even a child is entitled to seek help from the bishop without a parent hovering over them. Like temple interviews or advancement interviews. They are more likely to open up if their parent isn't there. The other edge of a policy like this is a child wouldn't have an opportunity to seek help with child abuse while parents are sitting right there with them. I think the real problem is our "infallibility doctrine" that we can't criticize the bishop or that church leader's can't lead us astray. Instead, children need to be trained that the commandments apply to everyone equally, and if bishop (anyone) attempts to violate the commands you have a right to resist and fight back. The abuse of power in a situation like this should be treated seriously and be a capital crime.

The flip side to this is, if I were a bishop, I would never meet with anyone (man, woman, or child) alone for fear false accusations. Now that I think about it, I would rather do interviews in a large room or outside, in clear view of witnesses but not so close that they can over hear what is being said. Maybe a video on closed circuit television.

I like number 2.

I don't agree with the idea of making illegal the recording of a conversation. If you need to collect evidence on anyone in power you need something like video or audio. That said, with the advent of AI, don't believe every recording you see or hear.

[abijah]

I don’t envy the current leaders of the Church. It will only become increasingly uncomfortable for them and for the Church as the world veers further away from the true course.

[Sunain]

The other edge of a policy like this is a child wouldn't have an opportunity to seek help with child abuse while parents are sitting right there with them. I think the real problem is our "infallibility doctrine" that we can't criticize the bishop or that church leader's can't lead us astray. Instead, children need to be trained that the commandments apply to everyone equally, and if bishop (anyone) attempts to violate the commands you have a right to resist and fight back. The abuse of power in a situation like this should be treated seriously and be a capital crime.

The flip side to this is, if I were a bishop, I would never meet with anyone (man, woman, or child) alone for fear false accusations. Now that I think about it, I would rather do interviews in a large room or outside, in clear view of witnesses but not so close that they can over hear what is being said. Maybe a video on closed circuit television.

I think that you're right about the issue of parents abusing their child and not having a private place to report it but I don't think a church worthiness interview should be the place where a child is reporting that kind of abuse. Schools (at least where I live), are more legally setup to deal with parent-child abuse than the church is as they have direct police contact and have school councilors. My first point would help reduce Bishop-youth abuse that many in the media seem to be highlighting.

[Michelle]

2. Hold bishops legally accountable for confidential breaches.

Gossip is a huge issue in the church, especially in ward councils. Reinforce that while bishops are their for spiritual guidance but confidentiality must be an utmost priority otherwise this undermines authority and the repentance process.

If people cannot trust the bishops to keep their sins confidential, and I think we've already reached that point in many wards, people just would rather not confess.

My concern here is plenty of people overshare, I would hate for the bishop to get blamed for the gossip when it may have been someone else.

[WikiUp]

... I think the real problem is our "infallibility doctrine" that we can't criticize the bishop or that church leader's can't lead us astray. Instead, children need to be trained that the commandments apply to everyone equally, and if bishop (anyone) attempts to violate the commands you have a right to resist and fight back. The abuse of power in a situation like this should be treated seriously and be a capital crime.

...

Cathoic doctrine states the Pope is infallible; most Catholics don't believe it.

LDS doctrine states ALL humans are fallible; most LDS don't believe it.

[mes5464]

2. Hold bishops legally accountable for confidential breaches.

Gossip is a huge issue in the church, especially in ward councils. Reinforce that while bishops are their for spiritual guidance but confidentiality must be an utmost priority otherwise this undermines authority and the repentance process.

If people cannot trust the bishops to keep their sins confidential, and I think we've already reached that point in many wards, people just would rather not confess.

My concern here is plenty of people overshare, I would hate for the bishop to get blamed for the gossip when it may have been someone else.

This is true. I didn't consider this before.

[Sunain]

2. Hold bishops legally accountable for confidential breaches.

Gossip is a huge issue in the church, especially in ward councils. Reinforce that while bishops are their for spiritual guidance but confidentiality must be an utmost priority otherwise this undermines authority and the repentance process.

If people cannot trust the bishops to keep their sins confidential, and I think we've already reached that point in many wards, people just would rather not confess.

My concern here is plenty of people overshare, I would hate for the bishop to get blamed for the gossip when it may have been someone else.

True, though in most instances, especially in the repentance process, the bishop should be the only point of contact. This would remind bishops of their responsibility to privacy. If it's the parents, siblings or someone else is disseminating the information, obviously the bishop is not the one responsible. When I was missionary, I told by bishoprics specific things about investigators or ward members that I shouldn't have been told. This is the kind of instance I'm referring to as well as ward councils where people talk too much and go into specifics and detail.

[marc]

Also, I believe that the Church and members overall could do a better job at educating the youth about confession and the fact that most things can be handled between themselves and the Lord (I think it could help to greatly decrease the amount of shame and guilt that many youth live with due to ignorance and being taught incorrectly). The scriptures reveal a concept different than what many were taught to believe about repentance.

Alma 36:17 And it came to pass that as I was thus racked with torment, while I was harrowed up by the memory of my many sins, behold, I remembered also to have heard my father prophesy unto the people concerning the coming of one Jesus Christ, a Son of God, to atone for the sins of the world.

18 Now, as my mind caught hold upon this thought, I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who am in the gall of bitterness, and am encircled about by the everlasting chains of death.

19 And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my pains no more; yea, I was harrowed up by the memory of my sins no more.

20 And oh, what joy, and what marvelous light I did behold; yea, my soul was filled with joy as exceeding as was my pain!

[Gage]

"There is nothing that is being discussed with the bishop that the parents should not already know."


Yes because all Mormon youths that are having sex tell their parents about it. Many only confess to the Bishop because someone ratted them out. If you are mature enough to have sex or drink alcohol you are mature enough to tell the Bishop about it without mommy and daddy. Many lie to the Bishop anyway so they surely aint going to confess their darkest sins with their parents sitting next to them.

[Rose Garden]

I couldn't find a thread discussing this issue. Youth Interviews have become a problem for the church but could be solved pretty fast but they doubled down on the current policy.

What I think should be changed:

1. All youth interviews (less than 18 years of age) require at least 1 legal parent or guardian present in the interview.

There is nothing that is being discussed with the bishop that the parents should not already know. This would also reduce a major concern that bishops are in a position to be alone with the youth. Currently parents/legal guardians have the choice if they wish to be in the interview and most wave that right or don't realize they can be in the interview.

2. Hold bishops legally accountable for confidential breaches.

Gossip is a huge issue in the church, especially in ward councils. Reinforce that while bishops are their for spiritual guidance but confidentiality must be an utmost priority otherwise this undermines authority and the repentance process.

If people cannot trust the bishops to keep their sins confidential, and I think we've already reached that point in many wards, people just would rather not confess.

I disagree with number 1. Even a child is entitled to seek help from the bishop without a parent hovering over them. Like temple interviews or advancement interviews. They are more likely to open up if their parent isn't there.

I agree. I think this problem would easily be resolved by bishops being required to consult parents first if they are the one asking for an interview but not being required to do so if the teen is the one asking for an interview. I think that sort of policy would provide the right balance to enable teens to consult with their bishops without parents feeling like they are overstepping their place.

[Jamescm]

I couldn't find a thread discussing this issue. Youth Interviews have become a problem for the church but could be solved pretty fast but they doubled down on the current policy.

What I think should be changed:

1. All youth interviews (less than 18 years of age) require at least 1 legal parent or guardian present in the interview.

There is nothing that is being discussed with the bishop that the parents should not already know. This would also reduce a major concern that bishops are in a position to be alone with the youth. Currently parents/legal guardians have the choice if they wish to be in the interview and most wave that right or don't realize they can be in the interview.

2. Hold bishops legally accountable for confidential breaches.

Gossip is a huge issue in the church, especially in ward councils. Reinforce that while bishops are their for spiritual guidance but confidentiality must be an utmost priority otherwise this undermines authority and the repentance process.

If people cannot trust the bishops to keep their sins confidential, and I think we've already reached that point in many wards, people just would rather not confess.

I disagree with number 1. Even a child is entitled to seek help from the bishop without a parent hovering over them. Like temple interviews or advancement interviews. They are more likely to open up if their parent isn't there.

I agree. I think this problem would easily be resolved by bishops being required to consult parents first if they are the one asking for an interview but not being required to do so if the teen is the one asking for an interview. I think that sort of policy would provide the right balance to enable teens to consult with their bishops without parents feeling like they are overstepping their place.

Then there could be the circumstance that a teen asks for an interview with a bishop, then later accuses the bishop of having initiated an unsupervised interview.

The problem behind all of this is that a system can not be created which flawlessly governs those who need excessive governing in the first place. Unfortunately, people with an agenda against the Church and snowflakes who refuse to be admonished in any thing pertaining to Church doctrine or responsibilities are going to grief the leaders no matter how they try to protect themselves. If we're at a state in which a bishop can not have a one on one interview with another person regardless of sex or age, we're at a state that can not be sustained indefinitely. Thankfully, the Head of the Church will (hopefully)soon be here and we won't have to sustain it for long, if at all.

[ShockHouse]

Yeah definitely not 1. I know I would have had a much harder time going to my Bishop to repent if a parent was required. Everything a child does the parents do not need to know about.

[Gage]

I am still trying to understand why some think it is necessary to have a parent present?

[Gage]

Nobody can explain huh? maybe the original poster? So my child is mature enough to commit the sin but not mature enough to confess to such on their own?

[Rose Garden]

I couldn't find a thread discussing this issue. Youth Interviews have become a problem for the church but could be solved pretty fast but they doubled down on the current policy.

What I think should be changed:

1. All youth interviews (less than 18 years of age) require at least 1 legal parent or guardian present in the interview.

There is nothing that is being discussed with the bishop that the parents should not already know. This would also reduce a major concern that bishops are in a position to be alone with the youth. Currently parents/legal guardians have the choice if they wish to be in the interview and most wave that right or don't realize they can be in the interview.

2. Hold bishops legally accountable for confidential breaches.

Gossip is a huge issue in the church, especially in ward councils. Reinforce that while bishops are their for spiritual guidance but confidentiality must be an utmost priority otherwise this undermines authority and the repentance process.

If people cannot trust the bishops to keep their sins confidential, and I think we've already reached that point in many wards, people just would rather not confess.

I disagree with number 1. Even a child is entitled to seek help from the bishop without a parent hovering over them. Like temple interviews or advancement interviews. They are more likely to open up if their parent isn't there.

I agree. I think this problem would easily be resolved by bishops being required to consult parents first if they are the one asking for an interview but not being required to do so if the teen is the one asking for an interview. I think that sort of policy would provide the right balance to enable teens to consult with their bishops without parents feeling like they are overstepping their place.

Then there could be the circumstance that a teen asks for an interview with a bishop, then later accuses the bishop of having initiated an unsupervised interview.

The problem behind all of this is that a system can not be created which flawlessly governs those who need excessive governing in the first place. Unfortunately, people with an agenda against the Church and snowflakes who refuse to be admonished in any thing pertaining to Church doctrine or responsibilities are going to grief the leaders no matter how they try to protect themselves. If we're at a state in which a bishop can not have a one on one interview with another person regardless of sex or age, we're at a state that can not be sustained indefinitely. Thankfully, the Head of the Church will (hopefully)soon be here and we won't have to sustain it for long, if at all.

I agree. There is no way to 100% assure that nothing bad happens to either the bishop or the person being interviewed. I was presenting an idea that I think would provide the best balance possible. I think it would be too restrictive to insist that there always be a parent present but I also think that when it's the bishop initiating an interview, they should go through the parents. I believe that would appease the group who is trying to make sure parents are present at interviews.

[Rose Garden]

I am still trying to understand why some think it is necessary to have a parent present?

I think people might have been confused by the question since this has been talked about extensively. In a nutshell, there are people who are concerned about bishops discussing things of a sexual nature with their teens in private interviews. Many teens have been introduced to new sexual terms in bishop's interviews and many parents and teens are apparently very uncomfortable with the situation. Some parents have even been told that they are not allowed to sit in the interview with their kid. That's why they are trying to change it to require a parent in the interview.

[BackBlast]

What I think should be changed:

1. All youth interviews (less than 18 years of age) require at least 1 legal parent or guardian present in the interview.

There is nothing that is being discussed with the bishop that the parents should not already know. This would also reduce a major concern that bishops are in a position to be alone with the youth. Currently parents/legal guardians have the choice if they wish to be in the interview and most wave that right or don't realize they can be in the interview.

As a requirement this is terrible. Every bishop I've worked with encourages the involvement of the parent, especially if there is some sin involved. While it is encouraged a child isn't forced to interact with the parent, or to have the parent present at all times.

On the flip side, I am not present for all my son's interviews with the bishop. But I instigated one where my son confessed to me and I brought him to the bishop for a discussion. The bishop was very happy to interview me in lieu of my child regarding his worthiness.

2. Hold bishops legally accountable for confidential breaches.

Gossip is a huge issue in the church, especially in ward councils. Reinforce that while bishops are their for spiritual guidance but confidentiality must be an utmost priority otherwise this undermines authority and the repentance process.

If people cannot trust the bishops to keep their sins confidential, and I think we've already reached that point in many wards, people just would rather not confess.

What, exactly, does it mean to hold them legally accountable? You're going to fine him? Put him in jail? Publicly censor him? This is totally the wrong approach IMHO.

One bishop I served with was excellent and very exacting about what he would and wouldn't share. Others have been too loose. I've experienced the loose lips that crop up from time to time. I think some training and some education on the fruits of confidentiality would be good. Not in favor of trying to criminalize it - this is one of, if not the most demanding volunteer position(s) in the church.

[Gage]

I am still trying to understand why some think it is necessary to have a parent present?

I think people might have been confused by the question since this has been talked about extensively. In a nutshell, there are people who are concerned about bishops discussing things of a sexual nature with their teens in private interviews. Many teens have been introduced to new sexual terms in bishop's interviews and many parents and teens are apparently very uncomfortable with the situation. Some parents have even been told that they are not allowed to sit in the interview with their kid. That's why they are trying to change it to require a parent in the interview.

Are the young people uncomfortable about new sexual terms or uncomfortable talking about their sexual experience? Most young people confess because they got ratted out, otherwise they lie.

[Rose Garden]

I am still trying to understand why some think it is necessary to have a parent present?

I think people might have been confused by the question since this has been talked about extensively. In a nutshell, there are people who are concerned about bishops discussing things of a sexual nature with their teens in private interviews. Many teens have been introduced to new sexual terms in bishop's interviews and many parents and teens are apparently very uncomfortable with the situation. Some parents have even been told that they are not allowed to sit in the interview with their kid. That's why they are trying to change it to require a parent in the interview.

Are the young people uncomfortable about new sexual terms or uncomfortable talking about their sexual experience? Most young people confess because they got ratted out, otherwise they lie.

Apparently, some bishops are getting explicit in interviews, often with youth who have no issues with the law of chastity at all. One frequent complaint is that young teens had never heard the word "masturbate" until they were asked if they did it in a worthiness interview and then they went home and looked up what it meant. There is no need for bishops to probe into details in any sort of interview even those where a confession is taking place. Those who are doing so should be set straight.