Bullying The Church Into Submission

[DH]

Libs:

Demanding unreasonable change is bullying.

No, it is not.

Browbeating and acting cruelly towards others, especially people who are weaker than you, is bullying. Think of the mean big kid who shakes down little kids for their lunch money at school.

I could go before the City Council and make all kinds of unreasonable demands, like a $200,000 per year allowance and full retirement, even though I don't work for the City. But they could just ignore me or laugh me off, because I am not in a position to cause them much trouble if they don't meet my demands.

People might make unreasonable demands of the Church, and they may even speak cruelly, but the Church is not exactly weak, and I don't think anybody can force the Church to do anything it doesn't want to. The Church has enough members and support that it can ignore shaming and social pressure and continue with its current policies.

Edited August 18, 2012 by DH

[DH]

Unless women are ordained to the priesthood, I doubt the Church will let them conduct interviews. However, the idea of having a woman present during an interview reminds me of a friend of mine who insists that either he or his wife (or both) be present when any of their underage children are interviewed by a Church leader. They decided to do this after their oldest daughter was asked inappropriate questions by their then-bishop. This protects both the child and the bishop, as well as the Church, for liability purposes. And parents do have the legal right to make this demand, or refuse to allow Church leaders to interview their children at all.

I think it would be wise for the Church to either make this a regular practice, or at least not resist parents' requests for this. Whether or not parents actually do request to be present during interviews of their children is up to them to decide.

[Calm]

I think it would be wise for the Church to either make this a regular practice, or at least not resist parents' requests for this. Whether or not parents actually do request to be present during interviews of their children is up to them to decide.

So what about the case where a child might tell need to tell their bishop one of their parents is abusing them or another sibling or the other parent....I am thinking that allowing the child to chose who he/she wants in the interview might work better....an older sibling, another trusted adult.

There was a recent case where the family sent their daughter to the bishop because she would not tell them she had been abused by a young man (apparently she had told others so perhaps the parents were hoping the bishop would tell them or at least convince her to tell them).

Edited August 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[DH]

So what about the case where a child might tell need to tell their bishop one of their parents is abusing them or another sibling or the other parent....I am thinking that allowing the child to chose who he/she wants in the interview might work better....an older sibling, another trusted adult.

There was a recent case where the family sent their daughter to the bishop because she would not tell them she had been abused by a young man (apparently she had told others so perhaps the parents were hoping the bishop would tell them or at least convince her to tell them).

Yes, there might be exceptions. But as a general rule, parents have the legal right to be present or not allow an interview.

The point is, having an adult (any adult--I'm not singling out men) alone in a room with an underage child asking questions about their sexual behaviors is risky business. It makes sense, as a rule, to have another adult present, or at least have a window in the office door. Parents are obvious candidates for the role of "other adult," though obviously if it's the parents who are abusive, that would be a possible exception.

Edited August 18, 2012 by DH

[Storm Rider]

Unless women are ordained to the priesthood, I doubt the Church will let them conduct interviews. However, the idea of having a woman present during an interview reminds me of a friend of mine who insists that either he or his wife (or both) be present when any of their underage children are interviewed by a Church leader. They decided to do this after their oldest daughter was asked inappropriate questions by their then-bishop. This protects both the child and the bishop, as well as the Church, for liability purposes. And parents do have the legal right to make this demand, or refuse to allow Church leaders to interview their children at all.

I think it would be wise for the Church to either make this a regular practice, or at least not resist parents' requests for this. Whether or not parents actually do request to be present during interviews of their children is up to them to decide.

And I suspect that was also the end for any private interview or opportunity for repentance for their children. This is over-protection of the worst kind. It reminds of people who refuse to love anymore because having an open heart leads to pain; short-sighted, immature, elitist, and prideful.

[Calm]

obviously if it's the parents who are abusive, that would be a possible exception.

But how would one know beforehand? Edited August 18, 2012 by calmoriah

[DH]

And I suspect that was also the end for any private interview or opportunity for repentance for their children. This is over-protection of the worst kind. It reminds of people who refuse to love anymore because having an open heart leads to pain; short-sighted, immature, elitist, and prideful.

Explain that to the Catholic Church. Or, rather, the victims of priestly sex abuse.

Edited August 18, 2012 by DH

[thesometimesaint]

DH:

That one is pretty easy. Teach your children to never let anyone sexually fondle or have sexual intercourse with until they are physically and mentally able to give consent.

[DH]

But how would one know beforehand?

You don't know in advance if a child has been abused by parents. But you do know in advance whether or not you're going to ask them questions about their sexual behaviors.

Telling whether or not a child is being abused is often difficult, whether you're a church leader, a school teacher, a counselor, or a law enforcement officer. Sometimes a child will gather up the courage and want to talk about it. They'll find a trusted adult and try to make known their desire to talk, so it's good when adults are willing to listen to children. But many children are too afraid to talk about abuse, or don't want to cause trouble for the abuser, so we need to keep our eyes open for signs of potential abuse.

But what I'm talking about here is a lot easier. It might cost some money to install windows in the doors to bishops' and stake presidents' offices, but easy enough and well worth the cost. And if parents, or the child, want another adult present, it wouldn't be that hard to accomodate them.

Keep in mind that I'm not saying an extra adult or parent needs to be present at every interview. But if a parents wants to be present, they have a legal right. And if a child requests that a parent be present, that seems reasonable to me, too.

[DH]

DH:

That one is pretty easy. Teach your children to never let anyone sexually fondle or have sexual intercourse with until they are physically and mentally able to give consent.

Yeah, none of the Catholic children's parents ever thought of that.

[thesometimesaint]

DH:

Nothing in this life is guaranteed in this world except that someday we will die. However most of of us take out insurance should that happen anytime soon.

Teach your children what behaviors are acceptable and which ones are not. IE; Every parent I know of teaches their children not to get into a car with anyone they don't personally know. Yet some always do.

[Storm Rider]

Explain that to the Catholic Church. Or, rather, the victims of priestly sex abuse.

You are trying to make the world perfect. Your child walks out the door, goes to the corner, looks both ways, and is still run over and killed. Should you, if you want to be a good parent, take your child by the hand and walk them to each corner they cross in life? Do bad things happen in life? Can a parent prevent every bad thing from happening?

If a parent wanted to come into an interview with their child I would say no. If they insisted, I would say there is no need for an interview and send them to the stake president. I really dislike this type of over-protective, misguided parenting. They cannot save their child from every bad thing in life and it is so unrealistic to try or to create the pretext in the mind of each child that it is possible.

How about teaching them correct principles and let them grow. Will bad things happen? Yes, of course! Things that are broken can be healed also.

[why me]

Yeah, none of the Catholic children's parents ever thought of that.

This is not just a catholic problem. But a general problem. It also affects the jewish orthodox community and many other communities. The abuse of children is a sickness that is reaching all over the globe. Parents of all faiths, beliefs, and hobbies need to be aware.

Edited August 18, 2012 by why me

[DH]

I think you folks are missing my point. I'm not saying we should coddle children, hold their hands all the time, make them wear a helmet and padded clothing while walking down the street, or anything like that. But there is such a thing as taking reasonable precautions. How many of you would argue against telling your children to wear seatbelts, or to look both ways before crossing the street?

How is putting a window in the door of a bishop's office "overprotective?" Or allowing a parent to attend an interview if requested? If the parents (and child) trust the bishop, they can just say "go ahead and have an interview without us," but if they ask to be present, why is that asking too much?

[DH]

This is not just a catholic problem. But a general problem. It also affects the orthodox community and many other communities. The abuse of children is a sickness that is reaching all over the globe.

Understood. I just used them as an example, because they've gotten the most bad press and legal problems.

[why me]

How did child abuse come into these threads. The OP is about outsiders and insiders bullying the church into submission.

Everyone back on topic or the thread will be closed.

[KevinG]

How did child abuse come into these threads. The OP is about outsiders and insiders bullying the church into submission.

Everyone back on topic or the thread will be closed.

As I noted earlier threads like these invariably end up in a list of gripes about things the critics want changed.

I think the heart of the topic is how change works in the church. Understanding continuing revelation, our continued growth (line by line, precept by precept) and the methods of revelation through counsels and at the time the Saints can bear new knowledge is key.

I heard a great analogy once about getting off the train and running ahead because it wasn't going fast enough leaving the station. You may be right about where the train should go but if you don't stay on the train you will end up behind in the long run.

Fundamentally being willing to counsel over instead of dictating your ideas leads to a stronger, more spirit guided growth pattern.

I have a YM leadership issue I want to bring up with the Bishop soon. My plan is to make him aware of the situation, provide my opinion for solutions and then leave the decision in his hands. I always couple any advice to leaders with "It is your calling and I will sustain whatever decision you make". Then I actively sustain those decisions.

[why me]

I think the heart of the topic is how change works in the church. Understanding continuing revelation, our continued growth (line by line, precept by precept) and the methods of revelation through counsels and at the time the Saints can bear new knowledge is key.

This holds true for many who believe in how change works in the church but not for those who don't. And I think that this is the problem. And it is also a problem for members who lose sight of this. As I have stated when it comes to young women and the teaching of values I see no wrong with the what the church teaches. I can say the same for young men. As my link shows, young women have tremendous problems today as do young men. And it is sad when young women commit suicide because of social pressure or angst.

http://yle.fi/uutise...uicides/6228169

I hope that the church in finland can help young women see their true strength. And I hope that the church all over the world can do the same: to teach inner beauty and that we are all children of our heavenly parents.

Edited August 19, 2012 by why me

[tyler90az]

I see. Are you a woman? I though you were a man.

There you go again... Not trying to play games with you, just really think about what you typed the last two posts. A critic would have a field day talking to you. I am serious think about the last two posts.

[DH]

How did child abuse come into these threads.

Because of this quote from the article linked to in the original post, which does have something to do with the concerns of women in the Church:

letting women either conduct (or at least be present at) worthiness interviews for teen girls

The OP is about outsiders and insiders bullying the church into submission.

Everyone back on topic or the thread will be closed.

And I did talk about the so-called "bullying" thing prior to the thread's going in the child abuse direction.

I don't see anything in that article remotely like bullying. They're talking about changes they'd like to see. So what? Talking about things and pressuring for change is not the same thing as bullying. Maybe this is just one more example of the Mormon Persecution Complex gone awry.

[Damien the Leper]

Well, I suppose we can just toss the Bible under the bus.

That's not what I meant and you know it. Whoever wrote Timothy obviously didn't understand Paul's actual opinion of women. The pastorals are a mess. If you want Paul's real opinion of women and their place read his authentic letters.

[Storm Rider]

I think you folks are missing my point. I'm not saying we should coddle children, hold their hands all the time, make them wear a helmet and padded clothing while walking down the street, or anything like that. But there is such a thing as taking reasonable precautions. How many of you would argue against telling your children to wear seatbelts, or to look both ways before crossing the street?

How is putting a window in the door of a bishop's office "overprotective?" Or allowing a parent to attend an interview if requested? If the parents (and child) trust the bishop, they can just say "go ahead and have an interview without us," but if they ask to be present, why is that asking too much?

I am not sure that the bishop is doing everything well. On your next temple recommend interview I think I need to be present. Tell me, how effective an interview do you think that would be?

[KevinG]

Maybe this is just one more example of the Mormon Persecution Complex gone awry.

You might want to skip this phrase if you want anyone to take you seriously.

Once you get past the hyperbole of the word bullying (which I thought was too strong) there is still an issue with trying to coerce or change the church through external pressure:

Pressure from the outside as a method of change leads to politicking, lobbying, contention and disorder as the church would be dragged about by every whim of culture and popular thinking. It is the Lord's way to work through counsels. This is a way of teaching each other while retaining the attitude of "not my will Father but Thine".

Counsels and counseling with leaders has a few distinct characteristics:

- disagreements are worked out privately not in public (press releases, letters to the editor, etc.)

- advice is given with the attitude that those called to leadership positions can be trusted to weigh the alternatives and make inspired decisions

- all people involved understand that their ideas no matter how valid may not always be what is best for the group as a whole

- those involved trust each other to make the best decisions and when there are mistakes the Lord will bless us for our efforts nonetheless

- all people involved may receive confirmation of decisions by the power of the Holy Spirit

- leaders can be trusted not to abuse power or they will be removed from their place

If someone has a problem with trust this system is going to be difficult for them to participate in. This is why unrighteous dominion can be so devastating to someones ability to function when they are grown. Respect for agency and counseling with our families is at the heart of learning these critical skills.

[happy]

I don't see anything in that article remotely like bullying. They're talking about changes they'd like to see. So what? Talking about things and pressuring for change is not the same thing as bullying. Maybe this is just one more example of the Mormon Persecution Complex gone awry.

I disagree. Emotional bullying is a genuine strategy and making the Church appear to treat women poorly is a form of emotional bullying. "Oh look, that kid eats boogers! Isn't he disgusting? Let's all laugh at him!"

It is especially bullying when it isn't true. Polls show only roughly 10% of LDS women have any interest in the priesthood, and even within that group, they are not all in pain. But making it look as if all women suffer through some great pain is dishonest. When you use dishonesty to pressure change, that is bullying.

Here is another case of bullying. Blaming the Church for gay suicides. That is an aborant way to bully the church into accepting the homosexual lifestyle. It's ugly, dishonest, and bullying.

The article wa an example, not the only proof.

[why me]

It is especially bullying when it isn't true. Polls show only roughly 10% of LDS women have any interest in the priesthood, and even within that group, they are not all in pain. But making it look as if all women suffer through some great pain is dishonest. When you use dishonesty to pressure change, that is bullying.

There is a tactic which exmormons who post negatives about the lds church apply. It is called the bandwagon effect. In other words, exmormons talk about how angry they are at the church with the implication that most exmormons are angry. The doubting member comes along, expresses his or her doubt and suddenly they are greeted with a barrage of posts about angry exmormons who are upset about this or that. The doubting member on his or her way out of the church develops anger also to be a part of the bandwagon. And yet, the church has not been proven false. No secret book of mormon rough draft has been found, no confession by Joseph Smith that he made it all up. The exmormons base their understanding on conjecture. But why be angry. Now if the book was proven false then I can understand the anger.

To be a faithful internet exmormon one must have gone through stages of anger to be accepted within the group.