John Dehlin Attempting To Change Bishop's Interviews

[Pahoran]

Again, CFR that this is a discontinued practice.

(And I have read this entire thread.)

 

Post # 14, for example.

 

There really isn't much doubt that Mister Dehlin is trying to create a cause for which he can be the white knight.

 

It's what he does.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

Edited May 1, 2014 by Pahoran

[why me]

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.

 

 

How many teenagers would feel comfortable about talking about masturbation or any other form of sexual impurity in front of their parents? And to have the doors opened so that someone can overhear the conversation. In the past, the bishop was a trusted figure. Someone that one can confide in as a representative of god. But now because we have so many pervert stories out there in society, a bishop is no longer a trusted figure. I think that we can have the sex abuse scandals and the child sex molesters for that. The thing is most churches have a confession mechanism in place.

 

These days, if I were a bishop, I would just ask about any problems keeping the commandments in a general sense and if the answer is yes I would then ask if the person can work on overcoming the sin. But of course, I would need to deny a temple recommend etc.

[why me]

Post # 14, for example.

 

There really isn't much doubt that Mister Dehlin is trying to create a cause for which he can be the white knight.

 

It's what he does.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

And to regain relevancy. However, many people are concerned about this issue. He is not the first one to do so but he may be the first one who is a public mormon within the church to do so. The last I heard he wanted to change the lds' church gay rights stance. I have no idea if he is still involved in that or if it every went anywhere. So, now it is the bishop interviews. What will be next is the question.

[why me]

It is unfortunate that perversion has reached such levels that it may now be necessary to change such interviews. Society, thanks to its pornification and sexualization is oversexed and perverted in many ways. So, parents may no longer trust a bishop to handle these chasity issues with their children. And I cannot blame them. It is just the sign of the times. The real issue is the perversion that is now apart of our socieities and why it is happening at such an alarming rate. And what is different today than years ago. BB

 

The internet has not helped at all. In fact just the opposite as one can watch people having sex. Nor the oever sexualization of adverts  etc. Back in the day, it was playboy but we have come a long way since then.

Edited May 1, 2014 by why me

[Danzo]

I think it is in the Church's best interest to instruct Bishops never to ask youth about sexual matters.  It is incredibly inappropriate and, if it hasn't already, will result in some sort of lawsuit or accusation against a Bishop.

 

These issues should only be discussed between a parent and their child, IMO.

Are you suggesting the law of chastity be repealed?

[why me]

Unfortunately, John has lost some credibility with the crowd that used to support him. When one is flip flopping all over the place the person is bound to flip flop like a pancake on someone's head. And this is what he has done when he abandoned his mormonstories chapters and conferences because they were getting out of control. So, we have little issues that he is championing: gay rights, bishop interviews, etc. Since he is active, I think that he wants to mold the church into something that he can be active with. So, these issues may just trouble his activity. Change them and he is happier being a mormon. We see this in his first podcasts when he had guests to help him with his issues in the church. We can hear this in his questioning process with the guests.

 

So, this is john. He has issues with the church...he attempts to change them to his own liking so he can be more comfortable being an active member. However, he should take it out of the me, John and into a more collective motivation. But I don't think that he can do this. He seems to need to be in the center.

 

Edited May 1, 2014 by why me

[sethpayne]

Are you suggesting the law of chastity be repealed?

 

Yes.  Of course.  That is precisely what I am suggesting.  You nailed it.

[MichelleD]

Post # 14, for example.

 

There really isn't much doubt that Mister Dehlin is trying to create a cause for which he can be the white knight.

 

It's what he does.

 

Regards,

Pahoran

You post that these interviews have been discontinued and the only reference you can provide is another post containing someone else's opinion?

If that's all you have it's a huge FAIL.

[mormonnewb]

It is unfortunate that perversion has reached such levels that it may now be necessary to change such interviews. Society, thanks to its pornification and sexualization is oversexed and perverted in many ways. So, parents may no longer trust a bishop to handle these chasity issues with their children. And I cannot blame them. It is just the sign of the times. The real issue is the perversion that is now apart of our socieities and why it is happening at such an alarming rate. And what is different today than years ago. BB

 

The internet has not helped at all. In fact just the opposite as one can watch people having sex. Nor the oever sexualization of adverts  etc. Back in the day, it was playboy but we have come a long way since then.

For the record, child abuse has been around much longer than the Internet. And it is NOT getting worse. It's actually getting MUCH better. In fact, children have NEVER been subjected to less abuse (at least, in the Western world).  And the reason is because we've learned to be more watchful of potentially dangerous situations and avoid them.

 

Take, for instance, the problems that our Catholic friends had with their clergy.  Almost without exception, those dreadful instances occurred long BEFORE Al Gore invented the Internet.  It wasn't the filth of the Internet that started the abuse.  However, it was partially due to the power of the Internet that they've been largely curtailed as victims were able to connect and bring their grievances.

And since this is a common theme of yours, can you please enlighten me as to the approximate dates of the "moral" era that we have moved away from? I'd really like to know WHEN "perversion" was not prevalent.

Edited May 1, 2014 by mormonnewb

[Pahoran]

You post that these interviews have been discontinued and the only reference you can provide is another post containing someone else's opinion?

If that's all you have it's a huge FAIL.

He wasn't the only one.

The fact is that Bishops were instructed not to ask explicit questions, or add anything to the Temple Recommend questions, at least 20 years ago.

This is a non-controversial fact. The only people who don't know it are the terminally uninformed.

If there are still vestiges of such things, surviving in pockets here and there, they do not constitute a legitimate "cause."

Regards,

Pahoran

[Calm]

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.

Bishops can be called of God, but that doesn't save them from temptation certainly and like other humans they let temptation overwhelm them at times. Being called isn't being told the Lord is going to protect you from he bad stuff, in fact I've heard counsel that there will be greater temptation due to wickedness trying to find a hold on those whith greater spiritual influence. Edited May 1, 2014 by calmoriah

[Storm Rider]

So what a Bishop should now do is should a teenager bring up a sexual topic he must:

• First, call the CIA, DHS, INTERPOL, FBI, local Sheriff's Department, local Police Department, Parents, Grandparents to warn them that a sexual topic may be discussed by the teenager and his spiritual counselor and biship
• Second, each persona and group notified PLUS the teenager must sign a legal waiver that the Bishop is not liable for anything that the teenager may choose to discuss of a sexual nature
• Third, said discussion should take place with representatives of each party either present in the room or listening through speaker phone.
• Fourth, if Bishop should choose to talk or ask any question, the panel of "concerned parties" must review and approve of each and every work, phrase, and sentence.  Said communication may be edited at will by any of the parties
• Fifth, should any further potential conversation take place the Bishop must notify each concerned party prior to allowing any form of communication to take place.

Lastly, I guess the teenager and bishop can discuss repentance through talks about such minor spiritual issues over the pulpit.  Yes, we live in a swell world and I say my prayers every night for such ilk as the ever faithful Brother Dehlin.

[Calm]

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.

Given that this conversatio is in the public view and people are sharing details, it appears that it is less about the question being asked and more the locale and maybe age. (not jus 'Mola here)

I have a child who will likely never be having a bishop's interview in her life in probability, health reasons. It is not that the bishops are untrustworthy, she just doesn't feel like she has control over the situation. Having been forced at times by my parents and being made physically ill as well as being led to feel even more isolated from these individuals, not less by some such things even when nothing bad went on, my child will be given the permission to do an interview with whom and where she wants..

My child and others are one thing (only a few others...one big is honesty and compassion) I won't take the attitude if the Lord has seen fit to call this man, I will sustain him and will in many things say yes unless strong guidance received which has really never happened. When it comes to my own stewardship of family (extended) my inspirations will guide my choice for me and my family in the service of our Lord.

Edited May 1, 2014 by calmoriah

[Bikeemikey]

He wasn't the only one.

The fact is that Bishops were instructed not to ask explicit questions, or add anything to the Temple Recommend questions, at least 20 years ago.

This is a non-controversial fact. The only people who don't know it are the terminally uninformed.

If there are still vestiges of such things, surviving in pockets here and there, they do not constitute a legitimate "cause."

Regards,

Pahoran

So let me try and figure your position out...

20 years ago or so the church said "stop asking sexually explicit questions".

Now today it is evident based on my own experience and then experience of many I know, as well as many who post of this forum that this direction has not been followed.

However, the reality that bishops are either disregarding the aforementioned counsel or don't know about it is not "cause" to reopen the very topic the church thought warranted explicit instruction on in the past?

Also, it shows a profound ignorance of the experiences of members of the church to suggest that only those who are "terminally uninformed" would not know about this.

If I was a young person when the pronouncement came out 20 years ago, and I lived in one of many wards where leadership failed to implement the announcement, how would I have known that the bishop was violating the direction of the church. Such questions would have been considered the norm and likely accepted, even though they caused discomfort.

Do you expect that bishops who engage in these interviewing techniques will first preface the question with, "I'm really not meant to ask this, but", or read the letter over the pulpit then ignore it?

Local ward members experience the institutional direction of the church through the bishop. We are also highly trusting of our priesthood leaders. In most instances it is assumed the way they act is the right way to act, extreme examples aside.

So it appears your stance is bishops ignoring the counsel of the church does not qualify as "cause" and members who don't know things only ever told to bishops are "terminally ignorant".

Thanks for being such a caring fellow.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Bikeemikey

[Senator]

Given that the bishop must deal with the matter of priesthood worthiness, it seems appropriate to ask if a young man has a problem with this.  But since no such worthiness issue exists for young women, there is no reason to ask, even if the bishop feels he should at least mention it as something that is an unworthy activity.

 

Women are holders of the priesthood, and do exercise the same. So, there is reason for them to be asked similarly.

Edited May 1, 2014 by Senator

[MichelleD]

He wasn't the only one.The fact is that Bishops were instructed not to ask explicit questions, or add anything to the Temple Recommend questions, at least 20 years ago.This is a non-controversial fact. The only people who don't know it are the terminally uninformed.If there are still vestiges of such things, surviving in pockets here and there, they do not constitute a legitimate "cause."Regards,Pahoran

You stated that these interviews are a "discontinued practice" and that is simply not true and you cannot provide any references. You did not state that bishops have been instructed to stop asking sexually explicit questions.

But now can you at least give the reference for these instructions given 20 years ago?

[ALarson]

So what a Bishop should now do is should a teenager bring up a sexual topic ....

I think this is the question that should be discussed.  Bishops are in a tough spot if they are asked questions about sexual topics and they are alone with a woman or youth.  I have to believe that this would happen more with women who are struggling in a relationship than it would with a teenager.  

 

I do believe that the Bishop should not bring up the topic other than to ask in general terms (living Law of Chastity question).

 

But if questions are asked, maybe the Bishop should ask if they are comfortable discussing this with one of their leaders present or one of their parents (if it is a youth)?  I think having another adult present is a good rule to follow.  This is already implemented with males teaching primary so why not with the leaders too? 

Edited May 1, 2014 by ALarson

[ALarson]

So let me try and figure your position out...

20 years ago or so the church said "stop asking sexually explicit questions".

 

I know that Pahoran has been asked for a reference for this, but do you know of one?  

 

If this is true, why haven't the leaders enforced it?  

[Tacenda]

I think this is the question that should be discussed.  Bishops are in a tough spot if they are asked questions about sexual topics and they are alone with a woman or youth.  I have to believe that this would happen more with women who are struggling in a relationship than it would with a teenager.  

 

I do believe that the Bishop should not bring up the topic other than to ask in general terms (living Law of Chastity question).

 

But if questions are asked, maybe the Bishop should ask if they are comfortable discussing this with one of their leaders present or one of their parents (if it is a youth)?  I think having another adult present is a good rule to follow.  This is already implemented with males teaching primary so why not with the leaders too? 

I think the question of the "Law of Chastity" could be asked and then that's it, just as it is in the temple interview.  And then if the youth or adult feels right about it and needs to get it off their minds, heart whatever, then the door has been opened to them.  But bringing up a subject that may have never even entered a youth's mind having to do with masturbation or porn, is sexual abuse.  An innocent mind has just been muddied, and curiosity begun.  It bothers me that these subjects are brought up to a young person, as if they should know all about it.  Yes, you might say they may have been sheltered, but let them be.  Don't bring it up and shatter that beautiful world of innocence.  I totally believe that the reason porn is so high in the LDS church is because of this concentration of it.  Let it go, let it go......concentrate on areas that need our attention.  Ask the youth if they helped someone that day, build up their self esteem, teach them Christ like attributes.  The minute you make masturbation a problem, it will be a problem, just like porn.        

[Madmardigan]

I am in the YM's and yesterday I was talking to the bishop about some of the kids.  He told me that for the priests he asks when the last time they did "M" and when was the last time they looked at pornography.  I have no issue with it. 

 

I was asked those exact questions growing up and in college and never felt violated.  Of course, my experience is different than others.

 

Its not a matter of if the Young Men do this.  I would say the majority do one or both.  And a lot of these boys won't want to go to their parents about it but do have an easier time going to the bishop.  Some parents never have the "talk" with their kids or just say "don't do it".  Nobody really explains it in more detail because some people feel awkward doing it.  My parents never talked about it with me growing up. 

 

A lot of these kids need to be talked to bluntly about these things and need good explanations on the "whys".  This is not an issue to be avoided because it may be awkward. 

 

As for the Young Women, I have no idea.  I didn't ask him about it and didn't feel it was my place to ask.

[Gray]

There is nothing in the handbook that says to ask the question or to get into gory details. I think what happens is bishops who were asked about it growing up tend to ask it when they become bishops, assuming it is the thing to do. Others never ask it it. 

 

Roll the dice...

[ERMD]

Youth need a limited use recommend to go to the temple.

One of the temple recommend questions is, "Do you live the Law of Chastity?"

Many youth ask, "What does that mean?"

 

For those who think a bishop should not approach such subjects, how do you propose he respond?

 

Additionally, pornography use amongst youth is rampant, both male and female (sexting, for example).  Masturbation almost always accompanies viewing of pornography, particularly in young men.  A young man should be free from the practice of masturbation prior to being able to submit mission paper work.

 

This being the case, what do you propose a bishop should do?

[Tacenda]

Youth need a limited use recommend to go to the temple.

One of the temple recommend questions is, "Do you live the Law of Chastity?"

Many youth ask, "What does that mean?"

 

For those who think a bishop should not approach such subjects, how do you propose he respond?

 

Additionally, pornography use amongst youth is rampant, both male and female (sexting, for example).  Masturbation almost always accompanies viewing of pornography, particularly in young men.  A young man should be free from the practice of masturbation prior to being able to submit mission paper work.

 

This being the case, what do you propose a bishop should do?

Have a class to teach their parents to talk with them?  Has this been done?  Make it a mandatory lesson in church correlation.  I don't know, but it's not a bishop's place.  Sorry, but he isn't the father of the ward that some make him out to be.  It needs to start in the home.  Once again the church is sitting in between, the middle man.  As if the parent can't handle it.  Or as if the youth can't go to the Lord and confess. 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

A young man should be free from the practice of masturbation prior to being able to submit mission paper work.

 

I'm not doubting what you say and have heard similar things from time to time. Do you know if this is officially spelled out anywhere?

Edited May 1, 2014 by SeekingUnderstanding

[ERMD]

Have a class to teach their parents to talk with them?  Has this been done?  Make it a mandatory lesson in church correlation.  I don't know, but it's not a bishop's place.  Sorry, but he isn't the father of the ward that some make him out to be.  It needs to start in the home.  Once again the church is sitting in between, the middle man.  As if the parent can't handle it.  Or as if the youth can't go to the Lord and confess. 

So, in preparation for a youth temple trip, I'm sitting in my office, ask this question, and the 12, 13, or 14 year old responds as above.  You say I stop the interview, tell them to ask their parents, and then have him/her get back with me.

 

Got it.