NOM

Let's add a little fuel to this fire.

Monday night, the church released an updated policy regarding interviews. Parents/Adults can now attend, if they choose.
https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/multimed ... -final.pdf


Reddit ExMo is screaming too little, too late
Reddit LDS is heralding it as modern revelation in action

My suspicion is the truth is somewhere in the middle. This document is a bit too refined to be produced in only a matter of days. It has cross-referenced talks and scriptures. The church wouldn't knee-jerk produce a document like this without the blessing of the legal department/counsel. However, the timing of the release of the document is highly coincidental.

Look at the document, at the very bottom of the last page it says "English Approval 8/17"

My thoughts are this policy update has been in the works for a while. If the English version was approved August of 2017, they must have started on it months or even years previously. At the same time, they probably released it now to appease the masses. If my kitchen was on fire, I'd use any fire extinguisher available.

If we've learned anything, the COB is a giant bureaucracy. It takes a long time for inspiration from Jesus to go from prophet to scribe to committee to correlation to counsel to print to publishing to press release. I'm pretty sure they were told to start moving to Missouri in 2015 but they're still letting their Realtors review that one.

https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/multimed ... -final.pdf
2nd page, top right corner - 'ministering visit'

That's why it wasn't released until yesterday. This has been in the works and they were waiting for the big reveal this weekend.

The church sites a few scriptures to justify the change, but the thing that continues to bug me is there are no canonized revelations/scriptures anywhere that says the church is authorized/required to have Bishops perform probing worthiness interviews for youth or adults or male or female in the first place!

The current church practice is strictly a made up policy with no doctrinal/scriptural basis.

The Bishop is to be a judge in Israel when charges of transgression are made, i.e. when a person is accused, but there is no language anywhere that says he is to do probing interviews. See D&C 107:72

"And also to be a judge in Israel, to do the business of the church, to sit in judgment upon transgressors upon testimony as it shall be laid before him according to the laws, by the assistance of his counselors, whom he has chosen or will choose among the elders of the church."

Simply having another adult in an adjacent room to listen in on the sex questions could double the amount of sexual titillation such questions provide depending on the other adult listening. Much better to just take any sexual interrogation off the table. Seems the only time such a practice might be beneficial is if an adult interviewee and a bishop had some sort of exhibitionist/voyeur thing doing on.

What exactly is the LDS policy on interview confidentiality? Is that something left up to the discretion of the bishop (Joseph L Bishop)?

Was it around April 2013 when the first woman said a prayer in general conference? It seemed to suspiciously coincide with the efforts of Kate Kelly and Ordain Women. But I approached an apologist friend with this sequence of events and he assured me that Sister Kelly and Brother Dehlin had nothing to do with the decision to allow Sister Jean A. Stevens, first counselor in the LDS Church's Primary general presidency to pray in conference.

It starts to feel like the LDS church has a bunch of handbook changes and policies simply held in reserve so that they can be released at the right time to thwart the momentum of apostate agitators like Sam Young. Yes, the date on the policy says it's from August 2017, but I remain skeptical about trusting the date on this policy and it's strategic release days before the March and after the Joseph Bishop event.

It's not that I disagree with their new policy. But this would have been lauded by both faithful members and critcal apostates had this come out last summer rather than awkwardly trotted out between two PR nightmares for the church.

Corsair wrote: ↑Tue Mar 27, 2018 10:03 am It starts to feel like the LDS church has a bunch of handbook changes and policies simply held in reserve so that they can be released at the right time to thwart the momentum of apostate agitators like Sam Young. Yes, the date on the policy says it's from August 2017, but I remain skeptical about trusting the date on this policy and it's strategic release days before the March and after the Joseph Bishop event.

I take this as more evidence that the only way to effect change in the LDS church is through outside pressure. A small amount of media attention garners a small amount of LDS change. A lot of media attention will bring about more.

No one should be discouraged, but quite the opposite. Here's a little breadcrumb of hope that this sort of action really does make people move.

Corsair wrote: ↑Tue Mar 27, 2018 10:03 am Was it around April 2013 when the first woman said a prayer in general conference? It seemed to suspiciously coincide with the efforts of Kate Kelly and Ordain Women. But I approached an apologist friend with this sequence of events and he assured me that Sister Kelly and Brother Dehlin had nothing to do with the decision to allow Sister Jean A. Stevens, first counselor in the LDS Church's Primary general presidency to pray in conference.

It starts to feel like the LDS church has a bunch of handbook changes and policies simply held in reserve so that they can be released at the right time to thwart the momentum of apostate agitators like Sam Young. Yes, the date on the policy says it's from August 2017, but I remain skeptical about trusting the date on this policy and it's strategic release days before the March and after the Joseph Bishop event.

It's not that I disagree with their new policy. But this would have been lauded by both faithful members and critcal apostates had this come out last summer rather than awkwardly trotted out between two PR nightmares for the church.

I agree. I'm calling TOTAL BS on the stamped Aug 2017 date, and any future statements that this was in the works for a year (give or take a few months either way.) . I believe that they put a big team of intelligent people together to work on this for the last few weeks. They knew about the upcoming march, and then the Bishop MTC thing exploded.

oliver_denom wrote: ↑Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:01 am I take this as more evidence that the only way to effect change in the LDS church is through outside pressure. A small amount of media attention garners a small amount of LDS change. A lot of media attention will bring about more.

No one should be discouraged, but quite the opposite. Here's a little breadcrumb of hope that this sort of action really does make people move.

I'm totally in agreement. Regardless of when they started working on this policy update, they only move when their hand is forced. History has proven this repeatedly.

Social Pressure = Modern Revelation

Lets back up, blogs on the Blogernackle about the harm of personal worthiness interviews have been appearing for at least two years, so the church has had plenty of time to "officially" address this. Then look at when Sam first started, not when his movement was getting strong, then the response to it could have been written as early as last summer, or way before. So, when people were collecting stories about worthiness interviews gone wrong, the church sees a possible PR problem, so they start a response, but they don't want it to sound like it only addresses the worthiness interviews so they throw some other stuff in. Then Sam's movement gets going and the story about the man who abused two different wives and both were told to just accept it because telling the police would hurt the abuser, then the story of Bishop comes to their attention by way of the tape, then the tape is made public, so maybe they hurry their response about worthiness interviews because it contains some stuff about spouse abuse and child abuse also.

I also do not think this changes anything. The right to ask for someone to be in the interview has always been there. Legally, the bishop has no right to interview minors if their parents object. So, this is just an acknowledgement of what has always been, not a change. And as far as the other things, it is just common sense to not send a wife back into an abusive situation and to investigate any accusation. Those things should have been official policy like 100 years ago. This is not progressive and not really changing anything. Just a policy statement of the obvious way to handle abuse and worthiness interviews.

I wrote this post in August 2014.

RR in aug 2014 wrote:The church will eventually change policy to allow for a patent to sit in on worthiness interviews so that perverted leaders will not have an opportunity to titilate the youth. This will probably come as a result of sexual allegations scandal between an MTC President and let's just guess a Sister Missionary. I know, I know, call me crazy as nothing like that will ever happens in Mormonism.

Kishkumen wrote: ↑Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:29 am 2nd page, top right corner - 'ministering visit'

I noticed this last night too. Historic GC here we come! This will change everything! Revelation is the key to the living church! /s

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:43 am I wrote this post in August 2014.

RR in aug 2014 wrote:The church will eventually change policy to allow for a patent to sit in on worthiness interviews so that perverted leaders will not have an opportunity to titilate the youth. This will probably come as a result of sexual allegations scandal between an MTC President and let's just guess a Sister Missionary. I know, I know, call me crazy as nothing like that will ever happens in Mormonism.

Good stuff RR! What do you foresee from this point on?

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:43 am I wrote this post in August 2014.

RR in aug 2014 wrote:The church will eventually change policy to allow for a patent to sit in on worthiness interviews so that perverted leaders will not have an opportunity to titilate the youth. This will probably come as a result of sexual allegations scandal between an MTC President and let's just guess a Sister Missionary. I know, I know, call me crazy as nothing like that will ever happens in Mormonism.

Wow. That's pretty prophetic! Let me know where I should send my tithing.

RR for prophet, deer, and revelatory!!
I wonder if they will add a new calling call interview attendant. This person sits in on interviews, or at least in an “adjacent room” when a parent is not present.

2bizE wrote: ↑Tue Mar 27, 2018 12:13 pm RR for prophet, deer, and revelatory!!
I wonder if they will add a new calling call interview attendant. This person sits in on interviews, or at least in an “adjacent room” when a parent is not present.

With a hand towel and moisturizer like they have in the Detroit Airport bathroom?

Kishkumen wrote: ↑Tue Mar 27, 2018 9:29 am https://www.mormonnewsroom.org/multimed ... -final.pdf
2nd page, top right corner - 'ministering visit'

That's why it wasn't released until yesterday. This has been in the works and they were waiting for the big reveal this weekend.

There is a link to ministering resources that looks like it's only available to leaders.

https://providentliving.lds.org/leader/ ... s?lang=eng

alas wrote: ↑Tue Mar 27, 2018 11:43 amI also do not think this changes anything. The right to ask for someone to be in the interview has always been there. Legally, the bishop has no right to interview minors if their parents object. So, this is just an acknowledgement of what has always been, not a change. And as far as the other things, it is just common sense to not send a wife back into an abusive situation and to investigate any accusation. Those things should have been official policy like 100 years ago. This is not progressive and not really changing anything. Just a policy statement of the obvious way to handle abuse and worthiness interviews.

Yep. This is how the Church works - they have a dangerous, irresponsible, obviously problematic policy that works to the Church’s advantage but is harmful to members. It gets negative PR. The Church talks about how very concerned they are about the well being of the members and how seriously they take the situation. They make a minor change that doesn’t really change anything, members feel like the Church has solved the problem because all they want is for the cognitive dissonance to go away, and the Church continues on with the dangerous, irresponsible, obviously problematic policy.

As long as the members continue to accept insignificant changes where major systemic changes are needed, and as long as the negative publicity dies down quickly, you will see this pattern repeated over and over.

If only the LDS church had people who could see into the future and warn the members of things that are going to happen. They could reveal to members what is going to happen so that people can be ready for it. They can have policies and procedures in place to prevent abuse from happening. A simple prophecy could prevent sooooo much harm from being done.

If only they had a person or 3 that were prophets, seers and revelator. Or even 15! ...


If Mormonism really is a true church, then god must have a very weird set of priorities. God must feel that the best way to help his children is to have help go to his children though litigation against his preferred church. His church is constantly getting sued for stuff like this.