“Oh, no, my dear! I’m a very good man! I’m… just a very bad wizard” -The Wizard of Oz.
Allow me to start off by saying that my own experiences with Bishops and other leaders in the Church have been good ones overall. As far as I knew, they were good men trying to be better men. Yet we treated them almost like “The Wizard” in The Wizard of Oz: The Great and Powerful Bishop of Ward!
Early life training and teaching made the Bishop bigger than life in the eyes of children, teens, and even many adults. And you knew that he, as a judge in Zion, would be the one you answered to and who would determine your worthiness.
For some reason, perhaps because they have been placed on an untenable pedestal when a Bishop falters, it seems somehow worse than when just a regular member falters. No mere human being can be everything to everyone all the time. Bishops are humans. They make mistakes and yes, they have to deal with sinful thoughts and feelings.
But for some reason, that was never thought much about, let alone talked about. If you did think of it, you didn’t dwell on it much. Maybe because of the pedestal getting in the way of their humanity.
There’s been a great deal of discussion about the practice of the “Bishops Interview” or “worthiness interview”. Mr. Fife is a defender of the practice:
“But shouldn’t children and youth have a trusted adult to talk to if something is wrong at home? Or at school? How much abuse has been stopped or prevented through the Church’s semi-annual interview program?”
Bishop interviews are conducted for several reasons almost always having to do with questioning a person to determine whether or not they’re “worthy” to do whatever it is they either want to do or are called to do. The person is asked about their tithes, their personal lives, and how well they follow the various rules and what they believe.
The list is fairly detailed. It also involves interviewing children and teens for everything from baptism (making sure the child knows what it’s about, etc.) to making sure that teens are ready and worthy to become Deacons, Teachers, and Priests or to acquire their Patriarchal Blessing, go do vicarious baptisms for the dead in the Temple, and other things.
These questions, in the past, were invasive for adults and embarrassing for teens. I am told that many of the guidelines for asking questions have been changed and that the option (it’s not required) for a child or youth to request a family member or other trusted adult be there is afforded.
I remember my interviews. Back in my day, there wasn’t as much emphasis on girls being sexual. Oh, we were cautioned against necking and petting, and the rules of dating (don’t begin dating until you’re sixteen; never be alone with a boy; etc.) pretty much reinforced the law of chastity enough that, at least, the Bishop was satisfied that he didn’t need to ask us girls too many questions. I believe I was asked if I participated in petting or necking one time.
Boys on the other hand (and I got this from my brothers and my sons), were asked more personal things like whether or not they masturbated. This could be very embarrassing for young men even if the answer was no. To have a man, who isn’t your father or even a close friend, ask you such a personal question was even embarrassing to my Sailor husband (some of the questions asked of married couples were extremely personal and yes, embarrassing to discuss). Being embarrassed by something isn’t a sign of guilt, rather, it's a sign of a sense of propriety.
While I agree that young people should have a trusted adult to speak with it isn’t true that they’ll talk to someone in authority over them, especially if they don’t want parents to know about the problem.
Research in the area of victim disclosure shows that most teen victims do not disclose to an adult but rather…
“…to a peer, with that parent being the second most common choice of confidante (particularly among those who disclosed at a younger age)” (1).
In every study, the majority of disclosures, especially if the abuse took place in the home, were delayed for years. So to even attempt to indicate that a Bishop would be the person a child or teen trusts to disclose to is to ignore all the studies and data.
In my case, though asked about “Daddy touching” me by my sister (the person I most trusted), not only did I not understand why she asked, I thought she was weird for asking and told her “No”. Denial isn’t uncommon, especially if the child doesn’t understand the question or why it’s being asked.
As a teen, I never thought to go tell the Bishop and I seriously doubt that a 1970s Bishop would have known what to say or do aside from reiterating what we were being told about remaining pure and how we must do so.
This is not an unusual reaction. Sexual abuse disclosure in regards to a religious organization tends to carry with it a type of disclosure barrier.
Religious communities tend to be tightly knit. Everyone knows one another. A study by The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse collected data from survivors about these barriers that included:
fear of disclosing to their own devoutly religious family members
concerns about the attitude towards sex in their community
fear of being ostracized
a reluctance to “bring shame” on the religious organization.
It should also be noted that grooming might also be involved, making it unclear to the victim what precisely is going on. Another factor in prohibiting disclosure may also include the very thing that the Church takes great pride in: Authority.
“…the status and authority of people in religious ministry prevented many victims from disclosing about their experiences of sexual abuse” (2.)
Perhaps Mr. Fife doesn’t know this but these Bishop interviews, or worthiness interviews, do not exist to help kids and teens talk about their home life. They exist to prove whether or not that teen is “worthy” enough for whatever it is they’re supposed to be worthy to do.
Using an online database of 582 offenders it was interesting to discover that 118 of those listed were or had been bishops when they offended (3). Of these, there is a list of 67 men who were bishops at the time they offended who have or were convicted of their crime and are now either currently serving a sentence, have been released on parole as registered sex offenders, or have died.
The temptation is to excuse this by saying it’s a small number compared to the over 4,000 names in the database. It’s also easy to rationalize that because these assaults didn’t always take place during an interview encounter then the interviews should continue. Do we risk a child or teen being harmed because it hasn’t happened “all that much?” My question for Mr. Fife is simply this:
Would you allow your children to be in a situation where sexual abuse might happen in the hope that it doesn’t happen all that often?
As nice and kind as the Bishop may be, the Bishop Interview can be a very intimidating moment for any young person. We’re taught that the Bishop has discernment through the Holy Ghost and the Priesthood. To a young person, it gives the impression that he can see right through you so you better tell the truth. He is a “Judge in Zion” and knows what’s going on, just like the Wizard.
Yet if that’s the case, why do so many of them lack the insight to discern the pedophiles in their midst? Or maybe they do and simply don’t want to deal with the problem.
NOTES:
1. Adult and Adolescent Disclosures of Child Sexual Abuse: A Comparative Analysis https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9723505/ see also: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/08862605221088278 https://incacs.org/kids-immediately-tell-when-theyre-abused-is-a-dangerous-myth-most-dont-and-heres-why/
2. Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, 2017 https://bravehearts.org.au/research-lobbying/stats-facts/child-sexual-abuse-religous-organisations/
3. Floodlit.org lists 4, 025 reports made alleging sexual abuse that includes both adult and child/teen abuse as well as male-to-female and male-to-male abuse. Of that list, there are 583 cases and of that, 67 were offending at the time they held the office of Bishop. 99.5% of the cases involved children and minors. It should be noted here that many more cases are attached to a large lawsuit involving bishops. Some of these lack first names of alleged offenders and some are still awaiting civil trial due to the statute of limitations having run out and other factors.