if parents were present. At the very least, they'd show more personal interest and sensitivity. At most, the more aggressive bishops would likely back off the intrusive questions, and the parent could explain to the bish if a kid didn't understand a question or let the bish know if the child was acting hurt or nervous.
I think that's an important consideration. If the questions were appropriate they shouldn't have a problem conducting the same interview in front of a parent.
my (now ex-) wife and I told the bishop we wanted to be present during any of our children's interviews. He obliged, and of course, the pointed chastity questions were not given.
But like professor Farnsworth so aptly said, "not fair, you changed the outcome by measuring it."
is that the child feels that they can tell the bishop anything and can answer the questions the bishop asks honestly without worrying about Mom and Dad finding out. Even if every word of the bishop's interview were the same, the real concern for me is the outrageous attempt to implant the church between parent and child. And fundamentally breaking down one of the most important bonds a child should have in life. How DARE some accountant presume to tell MY child that they can tell the bishop anything and it won't be repeated to the child's mom and dad. How DARE some middle aged freak have a secret with my child that I don't get to know about.
Now mind you, if my kid needed to talk something over with my sister (their aunt) that they felt they couldn't come to me about, I'd be grateful that my sister was there for them. MY sister that I chose to be a part of my childrens' lives. What I find totally unacceptable is that some strange neighbor guy I barely know wants to claim the right to jump in the middle of my relationship with my child AND tell my child the always creepy phrase "I won't tell your parents".
It's the principle of the interview that bothers me more than the content of it. And that's saying something because the content of it bothers me enormously too.