According to a poster over at r/exmo, the Mormon church is surveying members regarding their feelings about worthiness interviews for young children ages 8-11. Here is a copy of the survey:

https://imgur.com/a/8d4mdnl

Just when you thought the Mormon church couldn't possibly get any more creepy!

OMG!!!!

I'd be pretty careful as passing this off as legit, until you get independent source verification.

Note to self- do not let my nieces go to "worthiness" interviews alone until they are old enough to carry mace.

KUTV has a story about it right now. www.kutv.com

For sure they need to get one on one with kids who are nursing!!!

Boobs are involved!!!

"Who will save the chi-chi's!? I mean the children...

"Changes in their lives" could mean anything.

Puberty and associated feelings, possibly seeking early intervention on same sex attraction.

Kids would be a gold mine of info on the family. Mom and Dad fighting, infidelity, parents not following the sunday home study, expressions of doubt about the church by anyone in the family etc etc etc.

Um, so the cult claims to run on revelations from God, so, is this survey for God?

Is this a legitimate survey, or a BYU-type survey?

BYU administration would occasionally ask us to fill out surveys, as student body officers, about important changes and further cut-backs of student's rights and self-government. The first year I was at BYU, I thought these surveys were legitimate, but we figured out that they were just a toolto appease us, and make us feel that we actually had a vote. All the surveys were blind, so the officers would assume that they were out-voted by fellow officers, and the cut-back would proceed, without a hitch. Even in Student Council meetings, all of our student representative voting was by blind ballot, and this could have been easily manipulated. We were, of course, refused to use the simpler "show-of-hands" voting method. Too often, we were shocked by the outcome of the voting, when the popular opinion lost.

Our teacher-advisor, years later, admitted to me that the BYU administration would just toss the surveys, without even looking at them! The admin knew what they had to do to appease the Board of Directors, and they followed orders, no matter what. We students would have respected admin more, if they had been honest with us, and not so sneaky and disrespectful of us.

>> "Um, so the cult claims to run on revelations from God, so, is this survey for God?"

Nope. Since it's for the members, it proves that they are god. They have the power to smite evil. No other god exists IMO.

I was subjected to worthy interviews at 10 years, maybe 9 years old. I was very naive. I thought that I had done something awful because I lied about having dirty pictures. What?

I was angry with my family; it was so long ago I no longer remember why. I took the most recent family portrait that was framed and buried it in my backyard. Naturally, my Mom was livid and unable to figure out which bratty kid caused it to disappear. I was so afraid that she would discover my deed that I re-dug it up during a thunderstorm. Well it got damaged and it was dirty/muddy as hell.

I didn't want to admit that I had dirty pictures of my family, but I made up for it. I admitted to fortification (which is what I thought I heard. In my juvenile mind, it had a lot to do with making forts and playing outside). It scared the bishop, but then he realized that I had no idea what he was asking me about.

I don't think there should be any worthy interviews. I think your conscience should be between you and your deity and nobody else.

Grrr...

The word you're looking for is "worthlessness interviews".

What bishop, especially in large Utah wards, has time to interview half the kids in Primary along with youth and adults?

The church is obsessed with indoctrinating the youth. Having so many young adults leave the church has the leadership scared. The church is obsessed with interviews.

The reality is they had to go to two year temple recommends because all the interviews were burning out the bishoprics and stake presidencies.

My experience serving in the bishopric was most bishopric members HATE doing interviews. I and the other counselor hated doing them. The bishop wasn't fond of it either but some people abuse their position in the bishopric. Some let the power of the calling go to their heads. The bishop I served under didn't believe it was his business to probe into people's lives. If they wanted to bring something up themselves he was there to hear them out and try to help.

Teaching them to lie at an even earlier age. Sounds legit.

They will not lie. They will experience a living hell.

What could possibly go wrong ?

If they do this it will become a breeding ground for future narcissists.

I don't know what the thinking is here.

Do they want people to become more comfortable with being interviewed constantly at a younger age?

Are they suffering from the delusion that Satan is coming after kids at an earlier age, and they need the behavioral...ugh...protection that these invasive interviews provide earlier in life?

Interviews are a peeve for me since leaving the LDS Church, because I realized that it is one big reason I couldn't stay in knowing it was not true. I hated being on either end of a worthiness interview. They were super uncomfortable for me, but the LDS Church is obsessed with these interviews. I remember getting home from my mission, and being interviewed so I could be released after a 15 or so hours in planes. Had to do it right then--WTF!

Interview = interrogation.

and opportunity.

Untrained men mucking up kiddies' esteem and taking up their time when they should be running, playing, reading, building Lego creations, kicking balls, and swinging, sliding, balancing, and painting pictures.

Let kids be kids and tell meddling grownups to "get a life."

I saw this post on FB. The lady that posted it was asked in the comments to post the link so the commentators could all take the survey. This request was made just minutes after the story was posted by the news KUTV. Within 10 minutes she came back and posted the link would no longer open.

Guess the powers that be got the message this idea was not popular at all.

Maybe they rescinded the children of gays ban so they could baptize them and then harass them even earlier.

When the lawsuits start to drop they will be able to pull out this “study” and using concocted numbers will argue that their membership demands these interviews.

Do not trust these people.

I'm trying to figure out what they are doing with this. It seems utterly stupid, given the recent scandals, to go younger with the interviews. They could be interested in that, but I would be surprised.

This is just thinking out loud, but could this be cover to investigate a couple of other possibilities? For example, could the focus really be on finding out how strongly people feel about having other adults present during the interviews of kids 12 and up? Could it be that they are re-evaluating the one-on-one interviews or the sexual content in general?

My point is that sometimes you design a survey in such a way as to hide what you are really trying to discover. You might add an extra question or two, or even make it look like you are interested in an issue that really isn't your concern. Maybe the church isn't really considering bishops' interviews with younger kids than at present but instead are re-evaluating the whole process for older children.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/11/2019 09:38PM by Lot's Wife.

Actually 8 years old aligns with their doctrine. They are actually considering being more doctrinally consistent which throws a considerable light on the absolute abusiveness of considering a child accountable.

That opens their abuse door opportunities so much wider.

It does indeed conform to doctrine. But sometimes doctrine is, and should be, ignored.

If they really do what they are ostensibly considering, the situation will get far worse. They may well be stupid enough to do that.

I predict they will implement it.

That terrifies me.

Since I didn't grow up in the church, I was exceptionally naive for a kid between, say, 8 and 11.

If a church leader asked me something like, "Do you touch yourself?, I would be puzzled about what was meant. (Do I scratch a mosquito bite if it itches? Doesn't everybody? Do I "touch myself?" Well, I gotta bathe, don't I? What's wrong with that?)

I would not have had any idea what they were fishing for. I was way too naive for sexual issues and would have been clueless.

My granddaughters are being raised atheist. None of this BS for them.

My friend told me the bishop asked him did he masturbate...(11 years old) he didn't know what the word meant... so he said no... after getting dunked for the dead for a few years... he is a really small guy, so was a favorite for dunking... he figured out what the word meant... of course he was going to town on himself... my question is if these bishops are spoke pieces for Gawd shouldn't they be able to see everything you do while sinning.?. thus no need for the worthiness interviews in the first place!

We've had a number of stories from people who were first asked about this at a young age, and either had no idea what the bishop was talking about, or had to be given the definition by the bishop. How parents consider this to be even remotely acceptable is beyond me.

>"How parents consider this to be even remotely acceptable is beyond me."

My parents had complete and total trust in the church leadership. Be it Bishop, Stake Pres., Young Men's leader, anyone who had a church calling. They truly believed that they were called by God and that God would never call anyone who would do their child harm. I was told this from birth.

I remember telling myself at various times that God wouldn't let anything bad happen to me, that my parents trusted them and so I could too. This would be in Bishop's interviews asking me about questions regarding sex. My most vivid memory of this was when I went through the temple the first time and I was doing the washing and anointing. I was a teenager preparing for my mission and I found myself in the temple, what I believed the most holy place on earth at the time, and some old guy that I had never met before was touching my essentially naked body very close to awkward places. I could tell he was uncomfortable too, but honestly, that didn't help. I just kept telling myself that my parents wouldn't have me do anything they didn't think was unsafe. I know better now. They put too much trust in the leadership of the church. They were lucky that none of their 5 children were harmed more than they were.

That's a good explanation, FF. It's essentially grooming going on at all levels. That is why efforts to publicize the issue, and educate about the issue are important.

Yes, this needs to publicised a lot more. There are too many trusting people like my parents who don't understand the very real danger they are putting their kids in. And the constant refrain of "Trust the leadership" increases the potential for disaster.

"Trust in leadership."

The sexual intrusiveness is horrible, but so is the fact you address: interviews about such intimate matters from a young age onward breaks down all possible emotional boundaries. The church uses those interviews to teach young people, who later become adults and parents, that there is no area of life that is beyond the legitimate reach of leaders' interference.

I've said before that in my opinion the lack of boundaries, the deference to authority and the subordination of personal conscience, is the key to totalitarianism in the church and elsewhere. When people let others make the moral choices, atrocities follow. The youth interviews are dangerous for precisely that reason: they inure people--kids, parents, families--to the loss of individual moral autonomy and make it more likely that those people will do evil things if instructed to do so by Mormon leaders and sometimes by others as well.

They inculcate the habits of sheep.

I still don't know what I would have done had the old man gone further and touched me inappropriately. Would I have justified it as "part of ceremony"? Excused it as we're in the temple and he couldn't possibly have "evil" intent? I barely knew what was going on, no Sunday School class even hinted at what goes on in the temple. All I knew was that my parents said it was not just "OK", but desirable to be there. They were excited for my first trip through the temple.

I do worry about how many of those washing and anointing ceremonies were done with inappropriate touching, and the temple worker would get away with it. They could just say, "Oops, I didn't mean that, sorry!" How many people would question it.

You are very right about how "They inculcate the habits of sheep." I'm still amazed that I found my way out of the church.

I swear I had anual Bishop inteviews before I was a Deacon. Maybe not, I could be mis-remembering. Or maybe it was just the ward I was in, but I thought that was a thing.

And I was one of the ones who first heard the word "masturbate" in a Bishop's interview and since I didn't know what it meant, thought that it didn't apply to me. The look on the Bishop's face told me enough to know that I didn't want to answer yes and I didn't want further information on the topic, so I never asked my parents about it either. When I found out, I was mortified and lied from that point on.

I will say that Bishop's interviews did teach me how to convincingly lie at a very early age, so that was a bonus, I guess? I was always worried that I would be caught, that the "spirit of discernment" would give me away at any moment. Never did, but that only added to my feelings of guilt.

Why they would want to increase this at a time where public scrutiny is on them about the dangers of this and the potentials for abuse during these interviews is at an all time high, I'll never understand. This should be a time for them to pull back from the topic publicly, even if they don't change their policy, not draw attention to themselves over it.

It doesn't make a lot of sense does it?

I wonder if it's pure retaliation for S-am Y-oung and his supporters.

We'll do what we want and the sheeple will let us!

It is indeed for real. In light of the recent survey:
Jana Riess, author of The Next Mormons: How Millennials Are Changing the LDS Church.

Where the results show that there is a lack of trust with church leaders by millennials. AS someone said earlier, Greater "trust in Leadership" is the issue! So, yes, they are indeed trying to "normalize" the interview process, as young as they can. It is surprising that they didn't let the dust settle for a couple of years (from bad press concerning worthiness interviews), before bringing this up.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2019/07/12/should-lds-bishops/

The comments are awesome. One commenter pointed out that 12 year olds are becoming too savvy to hang on every word from a bishop's mouth.

Many 8 year olds believe in Santa and the Power Rangers. They are much more likely to believe the bishop has special powers.

But Russ said the church was going to become a home based church. Isn't it the parents job to watch over the welfare of their children in a home based church?

Looks like Russ has been talking out his ass. Nothing has changed other than a hour got cut off of the block. If anything, things are getting worse.

Now 8 year olds are going to get asked if they masturbate and if they look at porn. Yeah. That will make the youth bond to the church. I'm sure the youth will love it so much.

It's all about control, nothing more nothing less. Any other explanation by LDS Corp is just an attempt to mask this simple fact.

"Asking" young children questions allows LDS (mis)"leaders" to ALWAYS probe them, and keep records on them, and their "progress" (or regress) and GET INFORMATION on their Private Lives and have something to hold over their head and something across their heart. A CHECK BOX.

LDS Children Are Numbers. They don't care how they treat them... AS LONG AS they Mistreat them.

(Make them) suffer the little children to come unto me. ~ Jesus Hamptons Christ