John Dehlin Attempting To Change Bishop's Interviews

[Gary@rics]

Mercyngrace, I'm so sorry to hear about your experience.  That's the sort of thing that shouldn't be happening: confidential interviews turning into burning shame and near-public humiliation.

 

I was asked directly when I was a young man and it was pretty unsettling.

 

The original post also mentioned how adult women might feel socially compromised or at sexual risk in the current confession setting.  I know a woman who felt deeply shamed when her confession eventually turned into a group of mostly strange men querying and casting judgment on her.  Their ostensible compassion and concern only made it creepier to her that all these men were discussing her sexual behavior.  There was a disturbing nakedness in it that did not add to "broken heart and contrite spirit."  Instead she felt "creeped out."  It was a pivotal moment in her religious life.

 

I personally think Dehlin is tackling a difficult topic that merits open discussion, including the heart wrenching stories that we might not want to hear.  If we can discuss these dilemmas openly then maybe we can come up with a better way to manage this difficult part of religious practice.  If his planned podcast results in new policies that protect people better, give bishops better guidance, and make confession an unburdening rather traumatizing or crushing, then I'm all in favor.

[Scott Lloyd]

CFR on the necessity for confession to a judge in Israel.  I'm not skeptical.  I believe it's part of our doctrine.  I just would like to know where it comes from.

I don't know if you will be satisfied with this, but here is a chapter from the Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual that is used in college-level Institute classes in the Church. It discusses matters such as this.

[Scott Lloyd]

Mercyngrace, I'm so sorry to hear about your experience.  That's the sort of thing that shouldn't be happening: confidential interviews turning into burning shame and near-public humiliation.

 

I was asked directly when I was a young man and it was pretty unsettling.

 

The original post also mentioned how adult women might feel socially compromised or at sexual risk in the current confession setting.  I know a woman who felt deeply shamed when her confession eventually turned into a group of mostly strange men querying and casting judgment on her.  Their ostensible compassion and concern only made it creepier to her that all these men were discussing her sexual behavior.  There was a disturbing nakedness in it that did not add to "broken heart and contrite spirit."  Instead she felt "creeped out."  It was a pivotal moment in her religious life.

 

I personally think Dehlin is tackling a difficult topic that merits open discussion, including the heart wrenching stories that we might not want to hear.  If we can discuss these dilemmas openly then maybe we can come up with a better way to manage this difficult part of religious practice.  If his planned podcast results in new policies that protect people better, give bishops better guidance, and make confession an unburdening rather traumatizing or crushing, then I'm all in favor.

Of all people, Dehlin would be among the last people I would trust to tackle a matter like this with the sensitivity and wisdom it warrants.

[why me]

I think that bishops need to stay clear of masturbation questions and also sexual questions that may be deemed personal. The most a bishop should do is perhaps ask a general question about sexual purity and leave it at that. If the person answers yes to breaking such a commandment, then the bishop can take some action but the bishop shouldn't ask for details. There is too much sexual perversion these days for a bishop to get too personal.

[why me]

LDS and Catholic confession are very different.  Catholic priests don't schedule confession appointments nor do they have a list of worthiness questions in hand in the confessional.  During confession, the parishioner only speaks what happens to be on his or her mind.  It can also be completely anonymous, if desired.  There's no requirement to go to your own parish priest.  

However mortal sins should be confessed to a priest and these confessions are usually explcit and detailed. And the chances are that the priest just may recognize the voice of the confessor. A good confession is a good confession.

[why me]

Of all people, Dehlin would be among the last people I would trust to tackle a matter like this with the sensitivity and wisdom it warrants.

I think that john spends much time on issues that he may bring forth. He picks and chooses rather carefully in order to stay relevant within the lds internet mormons.

[mormonnewb]

I don't know if you will be satisfied with this, but here is a chapter from the Doctrine and Covenants Student Manual that is used in college-level Institute classes in the Church. It discusses matters such as this.

 

I'm hurt that you would even suggest that I might not be "satisfied" with an answer. Hehe

 

Unless I missed it in this particular article, all of the scriptural support for the necessity of confession to judges seems to come from the BofM and the D&C.  However, I believe that our Catholic brothers and sisters have a similar view about confession.  Does anyone have a OT or NT justification for the necessity of confession?

[why me]

Well, you can be suspicious of me then. Just recently my husband and I made the decision to attend interviews with our children. This decision was made because (1) there were accounts by other parents in the ward that the bishop had gone too far in interviews and (2) I was interviewed by our bishop for an unrelated reason and he crossed several lines with me. It was bad and I left an emotional wreck. He then offered help which I declined.

 

My tears weren't even dry before he was calling around the ward council and both sharing details and ignoring my refusal of assistance. He showed no discretion and no respect for my agency. Sorry. My kids won't go in with him alone. If we have to take this to the SP, we will. 

I would take it to the SP already. No reason to be shy.

[Buzzard]

I'm not sure you can CFR my thoughts (reference: me).

 

In any case, here's a recent example:

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865555591/Charges-dismissed-against-Mormon-bishop-accused-of-not-reporting-sex-abuse.html?pg=all

 

I believe teachers are required to report it, while clergy are not

Based on the article (which may or may not be complete), the young woman was confessing her part in the action as well. The bishop SHOULD have called the hotline, which he admitted, but this was not a scheduled interview where he asked inappropriate questions. 

[AndyDnom]

i was asked about masturbation twice a year, every year , from age 8-18. east coast wards and utah wards.

[thatjimguy]

It sounds to me it depends if you really believe if Bishops are called of God or not.

 

I find it odd the different toleraences LDS society has wether to question a leader or not.

[Buzzard]

CFR on the necessity for confession to a judge in Israel.  I'm not skeptical.  I believe it's part of our doctrine.  I just would like to know where it comes from.

 

 

 Doctrine and Covenants Section 107, verse 72. Sometimes, it's hard, sometimes it's easy...

 

 72 And also to be a judge in Israel, to do the business of the church, to sit in judgment upon transgressors upon testimony as  it shall be laid before him according to the laws, by the assistance of his counselors, whom he has chosen or will choose among the elders of the church.

Edited April 30, 2014 by Buzzard

[mormonnewb]

This is Reason #234,210 that I'm happy that I'll never be called to be a bishop.  I can think of few things that would be more uncomfortable than sitting down with a teenager to discuss his/her "sexual purity."  Under NO circumstances would I have this conversation behind closed doors.  I'd INSIST that the doors (and windows) were open, that at least one parent was present, along with a Notary Public, and that the whole thing was broadcast live on YouTube.

 

The fact that this practice has produced so little mayhem to date is a testament to the quality of men that we call as bishops.  However, I strongly suspect that this practice will have to change in the near future as it is simply far too "creepy" from an optics standpoint alone.

[Buzzard]

This is Reason #234,210 that I'm happy that I'll never be called to be a bishop.  I can think of few things that would be more uncomfortable than sitting down with a teenager to discuss his/her "sexual purity."  Under NO circumstances would I have this conversation behind closed doors.  I'd INSIST that the doors (and windows) were open, that at least one parent was present, along with a Notary Public, and that the whole thing was broadcast live on YouTube.

 

The fact that this practice has produced so little mayhem to date is a testament to the quality of men that we call as bishops.  However, I strongly suspect that this practice will have to change in the near future as it is simply far too "creepy" from an optics standpoint alone.

And just to make matters "more interesting", my father was bishop of a very rural ward, where in the words of my hunting, fishing, jeeping, rock climbing brother, about the only alternative to doing all that was to go down to the river and make out. Most Sundays, my dad held youth interviews from just after church until late at night, with an hour in the evening to eat and assure my mom that he was still alive. 

I lived several hundred miles away, and did not know anyone else in the ward. But when I would come for vacation, he would, to extent appropriate, unburden what he was going through with the youth and for that matter, a fair number of the adults, to try and keep them on the straight and narrow. 

It was a testament to his hard work and relying on the spirit that he kept the casualty rate as low as he did. 

Edited April 30, 2014 by Buzzard

[Mystery Meat]

This is Reason #234,210 that I'm happy that I'll never be called to be a bishop.  I can think of few things that would be more uncomfortable than sitting down with a teenager to discuss his/her "sexual purity."  Under NO circumstances would I have this conversation behind closed doors.  I'd INSIST that the doors (and windows) were open, that at least one parent was present, along with a Notary Public, and that the whole thing was broadcast live on YouTube.

 

The fact that this practice has produced so little mayhem to date is a testament to the quality of men that we call as bishops.  However, I strongly suspect that this practice will have to change in the near future as it is simply far too "creepy" from an optics standpoint alone.

 

I don't disagree at all. It would be awkward, and from purely a perception standpoint it does seem a little off, even though I don't think it is. It's just the twisted nature of the world we live in that makes it seem that way.

 

As an aside, at various times in my life I swear I have been a season ticket holder to the bishops office. I have never had a bishop who asked me questions that were too probing. I always volunteered a basic amount of information to get certain points across. But there comes a point where if a bishop asks a question, "Do you live the law of chastity?" and I answer, "no," I think it has proven useful for me to answer a few basic questions (again I have never been asked for a lot of detail, just some generals so he know what the issue is). The bishop is then able to give me good, sound, and strong moral counsel about how to resolve issues and addictions. Saying you don't live the law of chastity could mean pornography, masturbation, grouping, stimulation, oral sex and/or actual sex. I think a sinner (such as myself) needs specific counsel on dealing with specific sins and MOST IMPORTANTLY,  overcoming them and becoming more like Christ. 

 

So if the world gets to the point where Bishops can only ask a general "Do you live the law of chastity?" and the confessor says, "no" and then the bishop can only say well you should live it then, we will be failing the sinner. As someone who has been there, we need Bishops who can give specific pinpoint advice. Otherwise, its like a doctor asking, "Are you healthy?" and the patient saying, "no," and thats the end of it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yeah, I was asked if I whacked it. I think the only thing that makes me think it is not a big deal is how my bishop of my youth always wanted to bring it up and my SP and MP seemed confused when I brought it up. I mean I spent a lot of years thinking I was going to hell because of it. Only to find out it seems to be a total non issue these days. I think had my parents been more involved I think things would be a bit more different. Keep in mind I am not blaming anyone. I don't even have hard feeling towards my old bishop. I think he honestly meant well.

[cinepro]

An activity that had once been a fun and happy experience turned shameful and quiet.

Just to be clear, you're talking about the campout, right?

[Gray]

Based on the article (which may or may not be complete), the young woman was confessing her part in the action as well. The bishop SHOULD have called the hotline, which he admitted, but this was not a scheduled interview where he asked inappropriate questions. 

 

The context of my posting this example, was you CFRing me after I said:

 

A possibility, but I think bishops sometimes focus on trying to rehabilitate the abuser rather than going to the police. Better to tell a teacher

 

Regardless of what the policy is, it does happen that Bishops don't report this stuff, and legally they don't have to (apparently depending on the state)

[mercyngrace]

I would take it to the SP already. No reason to be shy.

Actually, one of his counselors suggested the same thing and I considered it but the SP is already aware of some of the issues others have had. My feeling is that he's letting our bishop learn from this experience and presuming no one is going to leave the church over his immaturity. Hopefully, he's right on that.  

 

Just to be clear, the boundaries he crossed were not moral violations just a facet of immaturity and self-importance. He was asking questions that were none of his business, making judgments about matters which he had no insight or knowledge, etc. and being condescending. Then violating my agency and confidence after the fact.

 

A good friend of mine teaches her kids the TR questions and says "This is what the bishop is allowed to ask you. Nothing more. Nothing less."

 

I hate to have to resort to teaching my kids that they can't trust the bishop with their concerns but at this point, it seems like a good idea. It's tragic because our last bishop was a saint. Really. Just an amazingly humble human being. And I would trust him with my life and my kids' lives. This one, I feel like I have to ask questions about what happened after every fireside...

[mercyngrace]

This is Reason #234,210 that I'm happy that I'll never be called to be a bishop.  I can think of few things that would be more uncomfortable than sitting down with a teenager to discuss his/her "sexual purity."  Under NO circumstances would I have this conversation behind closed doors.  I'd INSIST that the doors (and windows) were open, that at least one parent was present, along with a Notary Public, and that the whole thing was broadcast live on YouTube.

 

The fact that this practice has produced so little mayhem to date is a testament to the quality of men that we call as bishops.  However, I strongly suspect that this practice will have to change in the near future as it is simply far too "creepy" from an optics standpoint alone.

 

If bishops just stuck to asking "Do you live the law of chastity?", it would be fine. And if kids have questions, they should use the temple language (no sexual relations except to your spouse to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded - something like that). 

 

It's when they start digging into details that issues arise. 

 

IMO, if a bishop wants to explain the standards in detail as a warning against behaviors that can leave to a LOC violation, that's great fireside fodder (with parents invited to add to the discussion). But the law of chastity is simple and clear. 

[Tacenda]

Of all people, Dehlin would be among the last people I would trust to tackle a matter like this with the sensitivity and wisdom it warrants.

He's the only one who dares speak against church policy. And has such a following, that the church might be susceptible to it. Who else would be able to come out against? Someone that cares about his/her standing in the church? I don't think so.

[ALarson]

He's the only one who dares speak against church policy. And has such a following, that the church might be susceptible to it. Who else would be able to come out against? Someone that cares about his/her standing in the church? I don't think so.

I agree and we'll see if he makes a difference.  I do believe that John Dehlin cares a great deal about the members of the church and he must feel that some have been hurt or affected by some of the current Bishop interview practices.  I feel his anger is towards the leaders, not the members.  But, I really don't know him and I do not follow him on facebook, etc.  I might be completely wrong here but this is my impression of him.

[JLHPROF]

This is what strikes me as sad!  No bishop should be talking about this with the youth. 

 

It really is a lawsuit waiting to happen.  An older man asks a teenage girl alone in a room if she masturbates.

At my last job as a manager I wasn't even allowed to have a coaching conversation with a female staff member without another female present.

 

If she is made to feel at all uncomfortable in a discussion about sex and it's the Bishop's word vs. the teenage girl's word there could easily be legal issues.

 

I think it's appropriate for a bishop to speak to "the youth" about a topic of morality such as this, but to question a minor about their sexual activity behind closed doors without a parent present...that's got to break some law.

Edited April 30, 2014 by JLHPROF

[pogi]

CFR on the necessity for confession to a judge in Israel.  I'm not skeptical.  I believe it's part of our doctrine.  I just would like to know where it comes from.

 

It looks like others have given you some scriptural references already.  I found this (apparently it is in the general handbook of instructions, but I can't find it) -  "Sins that require confession to the bishop are breaking the Word of Wisdom, apostasy, breaking the Law of Chastity, and crimes as defined by the local government."

 

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Academic/Course_Pages/legal_systems_very_different_06/papers_05/LDS.htm

[The Nehor]

If bishops just stuck to asking "Do you live the law of chastity?", it would be fine. And if kids have questions, they should use the temple language (no sexual relations except to your spouse to whom you are legally and lawfully wedded - something like that). 

 

It's when they start digging into details that issues arise. 

 

They CAN'T stop there. If you answered that you broke the Law of Chastity the Bishop has to find out what happened. Stopping there is abrogating their responsibility.

 

 

He's the only one who dares speak against church policy. And has such a following, that the church might be susceptible to it. Who else would be able to come out against? Someone that cares about his/her standing in the church? I don't think so.

 

Well, God could come out against it but He hasn't. Somehow I doubt God needs or wants Dehlin's help guiding his church.