John Dehlin Attempting To Change Bishop's Interviews

[pogi]

If the (false) choice is between (1) clergy sexual abuse and (2) unchecked M, I'll take Door #2, Monty!

 

Is there a risk?  Sure.  Don't mean to make you paranoid, but there is a far greater risk that a family member or close family friend will sexually abuse your child.  So, if your intent is to prevent all risk, then your child will never have any alone time with anybody.  You will need to permanently be stuck to his/her side.  That will be one socially inept and messed up child in the end.  Can never go to a friends house without you there, etc., etc., etc. 

 

Yes, you can hold your child's hand and coddle them through every step of life and absolutely prevent any chance of molestation.  But, what kind of kid are you going to end up with?

 

If you are concerned about your bishop asking inappropriate questions, ask him in advance what questions he will ask.  Talk to him about what questions you are not comfortable with.  Explain to him how you have taught the law of chastity to your children.  That way he knows that he can ask general questions such as "do you keep the law of chastity as taught by your parents?"  If he knows that you have eyes on him, he ain't gonna try anything even if he wants to.  

Edited May 1, 2014 by pogi

[mormonnewb]

Again with the snideness from atop the Rameumptom.  Do you really have such bitter disdain for your [alleged] coreligionists?

Once again, I've been discovered. I'm not actually a Mormon. I simply pose as one because I really like wearing long undergarments (particularly now that summer is near) and at $3/pair, it was too much of a bargain to pass up. Sure, it costs me 10% of my income, but do you have any idea what Calvin Klein boxer briefs cost in the mall?

And that's not to mention all the "props" I get when I go back to the "hood" as a Mormon. You should see the look of pride on my aunt's face when she says, "You joined that racist church?" It makes "faking" three hours of worship each week worth it.

[pogi]

Once again, I've been discovered. I'm not actually a Mormon. I simply pose as one because I really like wearing long undergarments (particularly now that summer is near) and at $3/pair, it was too much of a bargain to pass up. Sure, it costs me 10% of my income, but do you have any idea what Calvin Klein boxer briefs cost in the mall?

And that's not to mention all the "props" I get when I go back to the "hood" as a Mormon. You should see the look of pride on my aunt's face when she says, "You joined that racist church?" It makes "faking" three hours of worship each week worth it.

 

[toon]

Just out of curiosity, I googled it to see if I could find any studies that report it.  The first page was a discussion board for porn addiction.  The poster had this very concern.  He reports that he was born hetero and is worried that he is turning gay due to porn use.  I doubt this kid is the only one this has happened to.  I am sure that President Kimball based that statement off of young men's reports such as this one. 

 

 

I'm pretty sure that most people would not consider a post on a discussion board a study.

[ALarson]

I didn't ask him about his personal sexual proclivities or experiences.

 

It's not an apt comparison. And yes, his questions to me were inappropriate. Which is why I will continue to ignore them.

I apologize if I offended you.  I just had never been exposed to anything even remotely like a group masturbation session (never even heard it hinted at) and I was BIC and raised in a very active Mormon family.  You stated that I was naive for not knowing about these, thus my questions to you.  Again, I'm sorry for any offense.

Edited May 2, 2014 by ALarson

[bluebell]

I apologize if I offended you.  I just had never been exposed to anything even remotely like a group masturbation session (never even heard it hinted at) and I was BIC and raised in a very active Mormon family.  You stated that I was naive for not knowing about these, thus my questions to you.  Again, I'm sorry for any offense.

 

I've never heard of them as pertaining to LDS youth, but i have heard of them in general, sadly from a Christmas catalog for Abercrombie and Fitch which detailed the practice.  They have rather gross slang names for them, and they sometimes involve girls as well (though i'm guessing that's a lot less frequent and/or involving college age kids).

[The Nehor]

I've never heard of them as pertaining to LDS youth, but i have heard of them in general, sadly from a Christmas catalog for Abercrombie and Fitch which detailed the practice.  They have rather gross slang names for them, and they sometimes involve girls as well (though i'm guessing that's a lot less frequent and/or involving college age kids).

 

They are much more common outside LDS culture.....mostly because they tend to happen when the participants are quite drunk.

[Mystery Meat]

Sorry, I don't believe that. Any guy (young or old) that even desires to look at gay porn and then is turned on by gay porn, already has strong gay tendencies. It's not the other way around. A heterosexual is not going to be "turned gay" because he looks at gay porn.

 

You are wrong. In fact, it is a well known fact among those who study porn use that heterosexual men who look at a porn in some cases start to develop a taste for porn that does not align with their sexual orientation.

 

http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/ask-us-iam-attracted-to-gay-transsexual

[Disciple?]

There is no logical reason why the church should be opposed to changing Bishop's interviews. The only reasoning I can see is that Bishop's are inspired so it is not needed. That argument holds little weight when there are clear cut examples of prior abuse -- some examples have been shared on this forum. It is important that we recognize abuse is ubiquitious even among members of our church. Therefore, it is wise to eradicate any possibilities of abuse. These interviews have had a pernicious effect on the moral of the church as a whole; not to mention how they affect individuals who are abused through them. To protect the name of the church and our little ones, change ought to be enacted.

[Mystery Meat]

You are wrong. In fact, it is a well known fact among those who study porn use that heterosexual men who look at a porn in some cases start to develop a taste for porn that does not align with their sexual orientation.

 

http://www.yourbrainonporn.com/ask-us-iam-attracted-to-gay-transsexual

 

I just want to add that if you spend some time and read through the article at the bottom of this page (after all the links) you will read testimonials of straight men who became attracted to gay porn (one of whom started fantasizing about sex with men and admitted to acting on those inclinations).

[The Nehor]

There is no logical reason why the church should be opposed to changing Bishop's interviews. The only reasoning I can see is that Bishop's are inspired so it is not needed. That argument holds little weight when there are clear cut examples of prior abuse -- some examples have been shared on this forum. It is important that we recognize abuse is ubiquitious even among members of our church. Therefore, it is wise to eradicate any possibilities of abuse. These interviews have had a pernicious effect on the moral of the church as a whole; not to mention how they affect individuals who are abused through them. To protect the name of the church and our little ones, change ought to be enacted.

 

I have heard lots of anecdotal cases of abuse but nothing that convinces me anything needs to change.

 

So that's the purpose of the bishop interview, to see if I'm touching MY kids?

 

I do not want to aim at you but based on current knowledge about child abuse the odds of a parent abusing their child are geometrically higher then a bishop doing so.

[mormonnewb]

 

I have heard lots of anecdotal cases of abuse but nothing that convinces me anything needs to change.

 

We should put this on a t-shirt or perhaps, make it our equivalent of a WWJD bracelet.  For a church that believes in continuing revelation, we seem to be very wed to "the way it's always been."

 

SOME children will be sexually abused behind closed doors.  Many others will be subjected to inappropriate conversations.  Some innocent and well-meaning bishops will have their reputations destroyed (and might even be falsely jailed).  And the church will pay out MILLIONS in damages (if it hasn't already).  And yet, some will say, "Nothing convinces me anything needs to change."

 

How about simply adding a SECOND member of the bishopric for these interviews?  We do this in regards to men working in the primary and it seems to be working to everyone's benefit.  I just don't see how it's to ANYONE'S benefit to put a man in a room with a CHILD to discuss sex -- EVER.

[The Nehor]

We should put this on a t-shirt or perhaps, make it our equivalent of a WWJD bracelet.  For a church that believes in continuing revelation, we seem to be very wed to "the way it's always been."

 

SOME children will be sexually abused behind closed doors.  Many others will be subjected to inappropriate conversations.  Some innocent and well-meaning bishops will have their reputations destroyed (and might even be falsely jailed).  And the church will pay out MILLIONS in damages (if it hasn't already).  And yet, some will say, "Nothing convinces me anything needs to change."

 

How about simply adding a SECOND member of the bishopric for these interviews?  We do this in regards to men working in the primary and it seems to be working to everyone's benefit.  I just don't see how it's to ANYONE'S benefit to put a man in a room with a CHILD to discuss sex -- EVER.

 

How about when it is a teen who feels lost and ashamed because of something they did? They feel like they have failed utterly. Their parents are harsh with them and they are afraid to talk to them. They know they need to repent but do not see how. They set up an appointment with the Bishop. Don't you think the teen would appreciate a counselor in the Bishopric NOT being there to witness this?

 

It is important to note that it is already a Church rule that the Bishop cannot be alone in the building with a female interviewee. As a Ward Secretary and Ward Clerk I would occasionally be asked to come to the building on a weekday night. Usually I would wait in the clerk's office and do administrative work and stay out of sight to avoid embarassing whoever was being interviewed/counseled.

[Pahoran]

More importantly, we might want to rethink our scouting and YM programs. I was not raised in this Church, or any church for that matter. My friends and I did not have the advantages of sound moral teachings and yet, the idea of a group M session was NEVER raised -- not even once. In fact, I can think of no faster way to be thrown out of the "crew" than to even HINT at the concept. It is shocking that this has occurred enough in our Church to warrant one of the Brethren to address it. I'm starting to wonder what I've got my family into here.

Really?

Well, I've never actually heard of such a thing happening either. (And MichelleD, before you fire off a CFR, you're just going to have to take my word for that.) In any of the wards and branches I've been a member of, or visited. In three countries.

I don't think such a practice is very widespread, or indeed if it ever was.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Yirgacheffe]

More importantly, we might want to rethink our scouting and YM programs. I was not raised in this Church, or any church for that matter. My friends and I did not have the advantages of sound moral teachings and yet, the idea of a group M session was NEVER raised -- not even once. In fact, I can think of no faster way to be thrown out of the "crew" than to even HINT at the concept. It is shocking that this has occurred enough in our Church to warrant one of the Brethren to address it. I'm starting to wonder what I've got my family into here.

The same for me, no church growing up for me or my friends and the idea of a group M session was beyond imagination. My siblings and I had a lot of sleep overs with friends during our childhood, not a single instance of this and I have not had anyone ever hint at the idea, not that it's a conversation that would come up with anyone other than a close friend. I find it almost inconceivable that it is such a problem that church leaders would advise against letting kids sleep over at their friends homes.

[why me]

I don't think that it's just the members who are trying to take the Church "mainstream." Unless it is the members who are responsible for the Church's recent press releases. In fact, one COULD argue that our foray into the SSM debate was an attempt to earn some "Christian cred" with the EVs.

It didn't work. I don't think any EVs saw it that way. If I remember correctly, it were the catholic church that asked for mormon help in california. I think that most conservative moral churches were opposed to SSM. California became a natural ground of allies and alliances against a common moral trend.

[why me]

The "occasional unfortunate incident" is the abuse of a CHILD. Apparently, I haven't been Mormon long enough to view this merely as "collateral damage" to an important priestly function (I.e., to find out if boys and girls are touching themselves). But I have been a parent long enough to know that MY sons won't be the victims of an "unfortunate incident" because they won't be attending such meetings (at least, not by themselves).

I suppose that your children will be comfortable about speaking about their sexuality with you. I will find it hard to believe that any child would openly speak about what they do when the parents are gone when it is of a sexual nature when their parents are present for the interview. When your child is 15 will you be present for his personal worthiness interview with the bishop? Much better to have a talk about abuse with the child in general and what to look out for. This would include all aspects with people who the child may find themselves alone with: friends' parents, coaches, councelors, teachers, bishops, etc. Would you want to be there also when your child's coach calls him or her into their office? Or a teacher who wishes to speak to your child after school? I have read in the newpapers of many teachers having sex with their students from meeting after school for a student teacher meeting.

 

An educated child about abuse is a smart child when alone with an adult.

Edited May 2, 2014 by why me

[why me]

If I could predict the future I would predict that such personal interviews will become history as more sexual predators come along. It is  a sign of the times when people begin to loose their moral compass. The last days will be days of iniquity and we see this now happening as moral compasaes are broken throughout society. I think that what will happen in the future will be going to the temple will be a matter of an examination of conscious when it comes to sexuality. The sex question will be history and left up to each individual to decide if they live a moral life or not.
 

[mormonnewb]

I suppose that your children will be comfortable about speaking about their sexuality with you. I will find it hard to believe that any child would openly speak about what they do when the parents are gone when it is of a sexual nature when their parents are present for the interview. When your child is 15 will you be present for his personal worthiness interview with the bishop? Much better to have a talk about abuse with the child in general and what to look out for. This would include all aspects with people who the child may find themselves alone with: friends' parents, coaches, councelors, teachers, bishops, etc. Would you want to be there also when your child's coach calls him or her into their office? Or a teacher who wishes to speak to your child after school? I have read in the newpapers of many teachers having sex with their students from meeting after school for a student teacher meeting.

 

An educated child about abuse is a smart child when alone with an adult.

How about this for a general rule? "Son, if ANY adult other than a trained medical professional wants to have a private conversation with you about your privates, then you politely (or not so politely) excuse yourself and report the instance to a parent or another authority figure. Now, go back to playing Xbox."

[Duncan]

How about this for a general rule? "Son, if ANY adult other than a trained medical professional wants to have a private conversation with you about your privates, then you politely (or not so politely) excuse yourself and report the instance to a parent or another authority figure. Now, go back to playing Xbox."

 

 

what about a trained psychologist or an addiction therapist?

[canard78]

Per President Kimball, "Sometimes masturbation is the introduction to the more serious sins of exhibitionism and the gross sin of homosexuality."

Per this church manual,

"One example: masturbation is considered by many in the world to be the harmless expression of an instinctive sex drive. Teach your children that the prophets have condemned it as a sin throughout the ages and that they can choose not to do it."

Prophets through the ages?

Where? Joseph Smith? Isaiah? Abraham? Doesn't that manual contradict Scott Lloyd's position that this is not scriptural and instead is a modern revelation.

As for the President Kimball quote, what a complete and utter nonsense. If that were true then there would be far more than 1-2% of people who are gay.

[Pahoran]

Prophets through the ages?

Where? Joseph Smith? Isaiah? Abraham? Doesn't that manual contradict Scott Lloyd's position that this is not scriptural and instead is a modern revelation.

As for the President Kimball quote, what a complete and utter nonsense. If that were true then there would be far more than 1-2% of people who are gay.

Well there we are then. Who needs prophets when we've got "enlightened" canards to guide us?

The trouble with your argument, Canard, is that you are leaping to a hasty conclusion. President Kimball does not say it happens automatically or always.

In fact, he explicitly says "sometimes."

And when it comes to that, once is enough.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Tacenda]

If I could predict the future I would predict that such personal interviews will become history as more sexual predators come along. It is a sign of the times when people begin to loose their moral compass. The last days will be days of iniquity and we see this now happening as moral compasaes are broken throughout society. I think that what will happen in the future will be going to the temple will be a matter of an examination of conscious when it comes to sexuality. The sex question will be history and left up to each individual to decide if they live a moral life or not.

I think there will be less child abuse due to shaming. I read in the newspaper the other day that someone had made warning signs to put in front of convicted sex offenders homes, someone in law enforcement maybe, not sure.

There is a huge crackdown on the abuse compared to before, thousands of years for it to become recycled in generations of families.

Edited May 2, 2014 by Tacenda

[Yirgacheffe]

How about this for a general rule? "Son, if ANY adult other than a trained medical professional wants to have a private conversation with you about your privates, then you politely (or not so politely) excuse yourself and report the instance to a parent or another authority figure. Now, go back to playing Xbox."

 

 

what about a trained psychologist or an addiction therapist?

Wouldn't they fall under "trained medical professional"?

[Tacenda]

Alternatively, we are talking about young people in a downward spiral of sexual sin because we are too timid to allow bishops to fulfill their pastoral role and intervene.

Fine, men interviewing young men. But how about YW leader interviewing young women?