NOM

It's a start. Seems agitation and a Mormon Leak have got the ball rolling.

“If the person being interviewed desires,” it states, “another adult may be invited to participate in the interview.”

https://www.sltrib.com/pb/religion/2018 ... dren-women

What do you want to bet that it becomes a badge of honor for members to *NOT* invite another person?

AmIjaded?

I wonder if they tossed this together because of the leak, or if it was in the works before that.

I don't think it's going to change much as far as Sam's march is concerned. 'Twill be interesting to watch.

Can men have another adult or child in the room when they’re being interviewed?

All the church’s lawyers and all the church’s surveys couldn’t put Jesus back together again

This part is important, and we shouldn't overlook it:

[...] the LDS Church’s governing First Presidency issued revised guidelines Monday for one-on-one meetings between members and local lay leaders while emphasizing that “most … allegations of abuse are true, and should be taken seriously.”

Pre-emptive strike for Sam Young's Protect the Children march on Friday. To me, it's a token gesture - a way for them to say, "Nothing to see here, move along." This still does nothing to prevent the grooming effects that these interviews have. The interviews need to end in their entirety.

Sheamus Moore wrote: ↑Mon Mar 26, 2018 6:26 pm Can men have another adult or child in the room when they’re being interviewed?

No, only women and children, which are really the same thing anyway.

Yeah, it's a start. Clearly the church does respond to pressure, so I for one will try to keep the pressure on. I'm still with Sam on this one, that they need to end full stop. But at least a small sign that the pressure is working.

I will be very interested, though, on how some of my kids (honestly don't have many left that are in this position, but I won't give an exact number ) will feel if I want to go with them to an interview; I can see it going a number of ways. It will be an interesting conversation to be sure - I will return and report my findings.

If there is a systemic problem wouldn't Jesus have done something about it by now? It's his church, after all.

couldnt you have another adult with you in an interview if you requested anyway?

I think i will invite my neighbor, the state policeman, to sit in on interviews with me and my kids in the future. How come i never thought of that before?

Hermey wrote: ↑Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:10 pm Pre-emptive strike for Sam Young's Protect the Children march on Friday. To me, it's a token gesture - a way for them to say, "Nothing to see here, move along." This still does nothing to prevent the grooming effects that these interviews have. The interviews need to end in their entirety.

I agree. This isn’t a change - parents could already request being in the room, and a small number have. This is just PR, trying to make it look like they are addressing the problem when they aren’t.

This isn’t a baby step. It’s worse than nothing, because it placates members who might otherwise still feel troubled about the whole situation. Now they can say “look, the Church made a change, what are you still complaining about”. It was just enough to calm believing members down without actually changing anything.

And by the way, COB lurkers, worthiness interviews NEVER worked. Hundreds of unworthy people going into holy temples every day because all members have to do is lie. Joseph L. Bishop passed them for years and probably entered the temple hundreds of times.

What gets me about this 'change', and TBM won't see it, is just how ridiculous it is on the face of it to say, "Oh parents, we'll let you be present while we interview your child." The assumption and tone behind the statement is absurd, 'We're going to put your child alone in a room with a man you may or may not know and interrogate them, possibly on sexually explicit topics. You have no say on your presence unless we grant it to you."'

3 years ago I sent my bishop a letter about this and he was pissed off. Now I can rub it in a bit.

Son-of-a-bi**h!

Within the last three days my wife started to actually respond to the BYU-Bishop/Sam Young/interview theme. She openly admitted to being bothered, and wondering why on Earth the church would continue with an obviously dangerous method of conducting interviews. She was asking why the church was holding onto a broken policy for decades when there were obviously people suffering because of it.

Then they announce these new "guidelines" and suddenly her faith in the institution, in prophets, and in the revelation of God to protect His one true church is restored and validated!

This wasn't revelation, this was a man-made bureaucracy bending to social pressure, the same way it did when...

• The Feds dis-incorporated the church and confiscated its property until polygamy was "discontinued"

• The church realized that entire countries who wanted to join (pay tithing) would not be able to do so until black people were given full rights

• Women were given the privilege of praying in general conference and offering concluding talks in sacrament

To me, the new language makes it clear that parents can be with their children during interviews. Some bishops previously allowed that, others did not, so clarifying the actual rules is a step in the right direction for sure. But don't call this revelation, or even inspiration, this is the evolution of a man-made, man-lead organization.

2bizE wrote: ↑Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:13 pm couldnt you have another adult with you in an interview if you requested anyway?

How about if I invite a lawyer to an interview? Does this new policy allow for any change to attendance at a disciplinary council? Perhaps I am anticipating my own disciplinary council eventually.

Corsair wrote:

2bizE wrote: ↑Mon Mar 26, 2018 10:13 pm couldnt you have another adult with you in an interview if you requested anyway?

How about if I invite a lawyer to an interview? Does this new policy allow for any change to attendance at a disciplinary council? Perhaps I am anticipating my own disciplinary council eventually.

I fantasize about it often, but then reality hits that it would likely be a terrible experience. There is no opportunity to stand forth like Abinadi in chains before curly shoe leopard bearing kings. Instead you get to unceremoniously shake hands with a council of gossipy neighbors.

Is is just me, or does anyone else think that this (non) change is a re-direct to try and take the focus off of MTC Rape Rooms, and LDS-Inc.'s M.O. of covering up, and enabling people like Joseph L. Bishop?

Corsair wrote: ↑Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:03 amHow about if I invite a lawyer to an interview? Does this new policy allow for any change to attendance at a disciplinary council? Perhaps I am anticipating my own disciplinary council eventually.

I'm pretty sure the "accused" has always been able to bring their own "witness" with them, though I'm not sure it's always allowed. Whether or not the "accused" or the "witness" actually gets to speak is another matter also.

wtfluff wrote: ↑Tue Mar 27, 2018 8:36 am Is is just me, or does anyone else think that this (non) change is a re-direct to try and take the focus off of MTC Rape Rooms, and LDS-Inc.'s M.O. of covering up, and enabling people like Joseph L. Bishop?

I don't think it's entirely a re-direct. Yes, it does create a bit of a distraction to the issues at hand. Yet I think it's simply "Oh Shit, we gotta do something..... Let's just say it's OK to have someone attend an interview with women and children."

It's a concession to the critics to show they are doing something. It's a legal ploy to show a judge they are actively responding in preparation for upcoming lawsuits. It's a token to members to indicate ongoing revelation.