Sexually Invasive Priesthood Interviews

[bu11fr0g]

http://www.dovesandserpents.org/wp/2013/08/this-must-stop-a-call-to-end-sexually-invasive-interviews-between-priesthood-leaders-and-minors-in-the-lds-church/

This article and comments on this have noted inappropriate sexual questioning during worthiness interviews. This author calls for the end of one on one interviews with youth.

I have many mixed thoughts especially since I have personally experienced blatant inappropriateness.

[thesometimesaint]

I've never had that displeasure, but sometimes the best response is  a .

[Duncan]

I don't agree that parents should be in the room when the Bishop is asking the questions. That would be a fate worse then death to confess something in front of your parents and the Bishop. it could be even worse if you were sexually abused by one of your parents or some uncle or something. Also, anecdotally, weird too is when I was 16 I blacked out at a dance because my Mum and the missionaries told me not to eat too much dinner because you don't want cramps at a dance. So I didn't eat much and late dropped to the floor whilst dancing. Well, Long story short I was on informal probation for 2 months because "it doesn't look good for a priest to be passing out at a dance on friday and blessing the sacrament on sunday" so I got into huck over that one. My Mum thought it was SOOOOOOOOOO stupid and she told the Bishop as such. That episode scarred me for sure. Never, ever figured out who snitched on me. So, with these interviews what happens if the Bishop and Parent don't agree with each other, what then?

[Storm Rider]

The purpose of regular interviews is not the promote the confession of sin, it is to promote a good relationship and to confirm that all is well with the individual. If the individual, adult or youth, has a problem, this is the time to talk about it.

 

It was my understanding that there are set guidelines for conducting interviews and what is and what is not an appropriate question. I have never been around any leader that I thought was "perverted"; however, I have known a few members that fit that label. This is not to say that some leaders are not perverted; I just have not met them personally.

 

There are ways to make an individual feel comfortable enough to talk about personal problems. However, if an individual does not want to talk about it, he does not have to talk. When we do not confess our sins, we are the ones who carry the load, not the leader.

 

Lastly, this author seems to have been an incredibly tender, sensitive individual. From a single interview, I am led to believe that it was so traumatic that it was "one from which I have largely healed, thanks to excellent counseling and by the grace of God".  A single interview that talked about personal worthiness, sexual sin. Of all the television, movies, books, magazine articles, high school, college, experiences the one thing that left this individual so broken was an interview with his bishop. Maybe my skin is a bit thicker than most, but this comes across as gross exaggeration with an attempt to aggrandize a personal soap box. In our home as a boy, my brother would have said,  "somebody smack the guy, please" or "would you just pull your silly head out!"

[rodheadlee]

Hey it's a big sin to be a guy in your 50's. Just ask any 12 year old.

[Tacenda]

My older sister is inactive since her youth.  I remember one day walking home from church she was visibly shaken after an interview.  And I can't say it was that only that drove her from the church but always wonder if it had something to do with it.

 

I remember getting a icky feeling when I was interviewed in 7th or 8th grade by the bishop's counselor once.  It was very strange to be in the room talking about something so intimate.  And probably abusive.    

[Calm]

This problem can be dealt with by the parent talking with the bishop and child beforehand about what is acceptable, also should help the child look on the bishop as a friend and not a stranger so less intimidated. Then if still uncomfortable, for the young child sit in on interviews until all are comfortable with the alternative.

Asking simple, noninvasive and relatively vague questions that only require a yes or no including an "is there anything you would like to talk to me about?" is a good approach IMO, saving specific comments/details for teaching groups what is and isn't acceptable.

Edited August 25, 2013 by calmoriah

[Questing Beast]

Never experienced one. As a teen I dreaded being asked the "M" question. Never happened. None of my bishopric were specific and stuck to the standard, generally worded question format. I have, of course, heard of the "invasive" interview, but as far as I know none of my children ever experienced one of those either.

 

I agree that any individual who asks specific, probing questions, is way off the beam....

[Tacenda]

One of the 'Doves and Serpents' comments is so disturbing, along with several others. I keep wondering if I wasn't affected and didn't know it.

"I had a similar experience as a twelve or thirteen year old girl. The Bishopric member conducting the interview asked me if I masturbated. At that age, I was unaware that girls could actually do that. He asked me if I knew what he was talking about, and since I didn’t, I told him so. He then explained that it meant touching my vagina. Perhaps there was more to the explanation, but that was all I remembered. That had devastating consequences. I thought that anytime I touched my vagina, I was committing sin. That included in the shower, so I thought. I was afraid to even wash myself, fearful that I would inadvertently commit sin. One time I lost a tampon, and I sobbed as I tried to find it, sure that I was polluting myself. Sure that I was masturbating. I am sorry to say this belief went on for years and years. One time, in college I shaved my bikini line and then prayed and prayed for forgiveness. I promised Heavenly Father I would never do it again. Ever. The shame I felt was terrible. It wasn’t until I was married that I was fully able to let go of my skewed understanding of the word masturbate. All because of a Bishopric interview. My children will not be interviewed without me there. I agree completely with this post. This has to change."

ETA: Very few women are allowed to view the handbooks and policies, that so many men have access to.

Edited August 25, 2013 by Tacenda

[Storm Rider]

One of the 'Doves and Serpents' comments is so disturbing, along with several others. I keep wondering if I wasn't affected and didn't know it.

"I had a similar experience as a twelve or thirteen year old girl. The Bishopric member conducting the interview asked me if I masturbated. At that age, I was unaware that girls could actually do that. He asked me if I knew what he was talking about, and since I didn’t, I told him so. He then explained that it meant touching my vagina. Perhaps there was more to the explanation, but that was all I remembered. That had devastating consequences. I thought that anytime I touched my vagina, I was committing sin. That included in the shower, so I thought. I was afraid to even wash myself, fearful that I would inadvertently commit sin. One time I lost a tampon, and I sobbed as I tried to find it, sure that I was polluting myself. Sure that I was masturbating. I am sorry to say this belief went on for years and years. One time, in college I shaved my bikini line and then prayed and prayed for forgiveness. I promised Heavenly Father I would never do it again. Ever. The shame I felt was terrible. It wasn’t until I was married that I was fully able to let go of my skewed understanding of the word masturbate. All because of a Bishopric interview. My children will not be interviewed without me there. I agree completely with this post. This has to change. - See more at: http://www.dovesandserpents.org/wp/2013/08/this-must-stop-a-call-to-end-sexually-invasive-interviews-between-priesthood-leaders-and-minors-in-the-lds-church/#sthash.x72I9W7k.dpuf"

This information is disheartening as well, read below on this site, 0% of women are allowed to read the policies regarding these interviews in the church handbook! My daughters are grown now, but I wish I'd understood what was going on in their interviews beforehand!

*Deleted the site because of temple stuff.

 

I apologize for being the pig in the group, but I really dislike these types of comments from anonymous individuals. It is very difficult for me to believe what is stated as being real. With as much literature that is available for preteens and teens regarding sexuality, I really have a hard time laying the blame on an interview. How about, "I chose never to read anything about masturbation in my entire life and I stayed completely ignorant of all things sexual until my marriage."  I also chose to remain ignorant because I was so traumatized by a church leader talking to me about masturbation.   

 

Guys, do you really believe this drivel? I am really sorry, but if people became so damaged by hearing about anything sexual in a single church interview, then every child that has ever lived on a farm, every individual that lives around animals, and everyone that is sexual, seen a naked body has been seriously damaged and in need of years and years of "counseling" and divine intervention to save us from something that is so natural that we don't need a guidebook.

 

Seriously, you really believe these people exist and they accurately relayed their story? I guess I am a pig that has no faith in the human race and have a thick skin. I just don't believe that humans are so weak and that when something happens that we don't understand we at least go to a dictionary and look up the bloody definition.

[BlueDreams]

I apologize for being the pig in the group, but I really dislike these types of comments from anonymous individuals. It is very difficult for me to believe what is stated as being real. With as much literature that is available for preteens and teens regarding sexuality, I really have a hard time laying the blame on an interview. How about, "I chose never to read anything about masturbation in my entire life and I stayed completely ignorant of all things sexual until my marriage."  I also chose to remain ignorant because I was so traumatized by a church leader talking to me about masturbation.   

 

Guys, do you really believe this drivel? I am really sorry, but if people became so damaged by hearing about anything sexual in a single church interview, then every child that has ever lived on a farm, every individual that lives around animals, and everyone that is sexual, seen a naked body has been seriously damaged and in need of years and years of "counseling" and divine intervention to save us from something that is so natural that we don't need a guidebook.

 

Personally I can't remember any odd interviews. I hardly remember any of them at all. They worked to try and keep the interview as comfortable as possible. No closed doors and the only time they'd throw in commentary was if I personally asked a question about it. I only remember one bishop as a teen asking me something that I considered uncomfortable in an interview (not for a temple recommend) and it had nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with family. I never felt traumatized by it though. I always took it as a difficult situation that he had little understanding about and wanted something, anything more solid to go on. 

 

The only uncomfortable questions I ever remember were with my bishops/stake presidents when I was prepping for a mission. But again, I didn't find it traumatic either...just surprising for it's bluntness that usually wasn't there for these interviews. No matter what question she found invasive, I have a hard time imagining that I could have anxiety/OCD tendencies stem from them. It reminds me of cases of anorexia being triggered by a life-event such as moving....something that I consider minuscule, but they found extremely difficult to process. There's more to it than a basic question.

 

What I find missing in both accounts is their own interpretation of it. Because the culture, how they were raised, and what they thought of any sexual discourse is also written into this dialogue, with or without their recognition. Why didn't she look into masturbation? Probably because she grew up with that sort of discussion limited as well. She could have easily felt "dirty" looking up anything to do with sex. That may seem an exaggeration, but I've seen and heard of people like that. Who have been given a list of don'ts without fully understanding what those don'ts even are and no real understanding of what the do's should entail. I consider myself pretty open with sexual discourse and up until a few years ago, I had a hang up that I never recognized until later discussion with a frieni because of a lack of understanding on a basic definition. So, no, I don't find it far-fetched. But I do find the actions they suggest excessive and presenting another group of problems... like the child never opening up period about possible problems or sins because their parent is always there. (I may open up to my bishop....but my bishop and my mother at the same time? Forget about it.) They'd feel even more need to lie or hide things that if the parent wasn't there they may have been able to talk about and avoid more serious problems.

 

  

 

With luv,

BD

[Garden Girl]

One of the 'Doves and Serpents' comments is so disturbing, along with several others. I keep wondering if I wasn't affected and didn't know it.

ETA: Very few women are allowed to view the handbooks and policies, that so many men have access to.

 

 

Oh of course Tacenda... that must be it... I had a temple recommend interview when I was a youth (59 years ago) for baptisims... it was neither traumatic nor invasive in the least.  The story you quoted (I bet you just loved posting that one) was an example, if really true... of a bishop that was abusive and more than out of line and the girl at 12 or 13 should have gone immediately to her parents.  I can't imagine a bishop behaving as described, and if so, needed to be removed and even charges brought.  I'm sorry if the girl suffered so because she did not trust her parents enough to go to them... she could have saved herself years of pain and hurt. 

Parents should be teaching their children that NO ONE, no matter who it is, has the right to touch them inappropriately (and explain to them just what that means) and that if anyone tries to, or does, they are to come to them and TELL... And parents need to trust their children and not dismiss something just because someone is a bishop or a relative or a neighbor... they need to listen to their children and then follow through in a measured, firm investigation to determine just what happened. 

My temple recommend interview at 13... and for the past 17 years that I've been reactivated have been nothing but good opportunities to meet with my bishop and stake leader to express any concerns and/or receive counsel....

Edit to add... my inactivity had nothing to do with interviews... or the Church in general...

 

GG

 

Edited August 25, 2013 by Garden Girl

[BlueDreams]

GG,

 

Just so you know, the story didn't mention that she was touched inappropriately. She was asked a question about masturbation in an interview (though i'd still find that inappropriate in an interview with a 12 yr old girl), asked what it was, and was given an inadequate explanation of what it was that she then held onto for years. 

 

With luv,

BD

[Tacenda]

I'll delete my post GG, if it's not appropiate, but good men looking the other way shouldn't be tolerated in our church, and hopefully the policies will be restructered, that's all. I know that the majority don't have a problem, but you know the adage, if just one person can be saved from years of torment, shouldn't it be changed?

[Garden Girl]

GG,

 

Just so you know, the story didn't mention that she was touched inappropriately. She was asked a question about masturbation in an interview (though i'd still find that inappropriate in an interview with a 12 yr old girl), asked what it was, and was given an inadequate explanation of what it was that she then held onto for years. 

 

With luv,

BD

 

Thanks BD... I read it too quickly and thought that he touched her while explaining... well that is better, but I find it even more troubling that she was so traumitized by something that was verbal... and I agree, that was inappropriate also... she still should have told her parents because he needed to be stopped from such detailed questions/explanations. 

 

GG+

[Rivers]

It is my understanding that the M word is not discussed at all I the church handbook.

[Garden Girl]

I'll delete my post GG, if it's not appropiate, but good men looking the other way shouldn't be tolerated in our church, and hopefully the policies will be restructered, that's all. I know that the majority don't have a problem, but you know the adage, if just one person can be saved from years of torment, shouldn't it be changed?

Tacenda...

No need... and did my post say anything about "looking the other way?"   On the contrary... my point was that when something is inappropriate, someone should tell... that's the only way abuse, physical or verbal, can be stopped...

 

GG

[Traela]

Parents absolutely should not be present during interviews. However, perhaps the RS or YW president could sit in.

[BlueDreams]

Thanks BD... I read it too quickly and thought that he touched her while explaining... well that is better, but I find it even more troubling that she was so traumitized by something that was verbal... and I agree, that was inappropriate also... she still should have told her parents because he needed to be stopped from such detailed questions/explanations. 

 

GG+

 

Yes, I'd agree with that. I would take a guess that like many they hadn't fostered a household where sexual topics could easily be discussed without it feeling uncomfortable in the first place. That it caused her so much extended problems indicates to me that sexual discussion in general was extremely limited for her

 

 

It is my understanding that the M word is not discussed at all I the church handbook.

 

I could see it not. But I could also see a number of bishopric members taking it upon themselves to ask, largely with good motives behind it (just poorly executed). Many children start at an age where the discussion of sexuality and their own discovery of it doesn't meet up. So they're asked a generic question about the LoC, not understanding that masturbation would be apart of keeping the LoC. The bishopric member probably assumes he's helping to clarify the topic for the teen so he/she can answer or address concerns more fully. Or that they're nipping potential problems in the bud by catching them early as opposed to later on if it grew out of proportion and became more addictive in nature. The problem is it's in the wrong context and place. You want a better understanding discuss it in the (still often inadequate) YW/YM LoC lesson. Not in a place alone, on the spot and unexpected, and in reference to their worthiness to go to the temple.  

 

 

With luv,

BD

[Questing Beast]

I think the whole venue of "interviews" ought to be looked at today. A "confessional" approach should be taught, with very young people not even offered such a thing. Adults can "confess", young people ought to be advised and taught, in groups, end stop. The whole mystique of some "authority" or even some "oracular authority" being able to have one on one access with a young person is, in today's world, just asking for endless trouble. This is one, but only a lesser reason, why I would never accept a calling to a bishopric or stake presidency position. I think that the way it's set up is based on a false premise. And that is that someone else will get revelation for someone else. Anyone can have a conversation and have impressions to help another person. That shouldn't be taken so far as to assert revelation that the other person must follow in order to be "obedient" to God. Yet that is exactly what Mormon interviews with our "file leaders" assert: the one in authority counseling with the follower, and giving instructions, advice and even "the mind and will of the Lord" for that personal life. I've never trusted the doctrine and today I think it is clearly manmade....

Edited August 25, 2013 by Questing Beast

[Deborah]

I can honestly say I don't remember any interviews with the Bishop except for a temple recommend to do baptisms. Apparently whatever was said was totally untraumatic.

 

I do think there are super sensitive individuals, but I have to wonder in the case of this writer if there were something she was taught at home that made her ashamed or afraid of sensitive questions. Had my bishop asked about the M word I probably would have looked dumb and asked what's that and then he would have to explain it and would be embarrassed.

 

Plus it doesn't say how old this girl is now so I wonder how long ago it was. I think today there is much more care taken with such interviews.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

http://www.dovesandserpents.org/wp/2013/08/this-must-stop-a-call-to-end-sexually-invasive-interviews-between-priesthood-leaders-and-minors-in-the-lds-church/

This article and comments on this have noted inappropriate sexual questioning during worthiness interviews. This author calls for the end of one on one interviews with youth.

I have many mixed thoughts especially since I have personally experienced blatant inappropriateness.

I have been an advocate of no Bishop meeting alone with young people when such interviews were needed, that the youth would be able to have a Parent or YM / YW rep.

[ERMD]

The article speaks generally so it's hard to address her primary complaint.

The fact that she sees sexual sin as no different from others is surprising.

I have had youth confess to me issues with pornography, masturbation, and worse. The end result was a relief to them manifested in smiles and tears of joy, knowing that they had been relieved of a burden they had been carrying.

ETA: The last thing most of these youth want is for a parent to know. I leave it up to them.

Edited August 25, 2013 by ERMD

[Calm]

"ETA: Very few women are allowed to view the handbooks and policies, that so many men have access to.

One of the handbooks is online now. The other, one can ask the bishop to view. Thereis no policy against allowing members to do so.

[Palerider]

I had an inappropriate interview with a Stake President counselor where he asked me to re-visit in detail any past sexual pecadillos.

Being very familiar with the questions from the handbook I told him there was nothing to discuss, which I could tell sort of irritated him and he pressured me on the issue. I had the the impression come to mind that he wanted to hear stories of a titilating nature.

I am fully aware of the verbiage of how to ask if there are any past misdeeds that need to be confessed that haven't been already.

I reiterated my first statement and he reluctantly went on to something else and I received the temple recommend, as I should have.

The incident bothered me enough that I brought it up with my Bishop and I gave him to understand that the interview was inappropriate and that I wanted something done about it.

The Stake President was informed and according to my Bishop it caused quite a row in the Stake Presidency because "some there" thought that it was appropriate to ask any question that "came to mind" during an interview and they felt quite restricted in having to adhere to the proper verbiage from the handbook.

Having been on both sides of giving interviews I'm completely against a Bishopric member interviewing a minor, especially one of the opposite gender, alone. I think the relief society president would be a good choice to have in that interview, even though it opens another avenue for the possibility of loss of confidentiality (which we all know never happens in the church, right?).

Edited August 25, 2013 by Palerider