Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Mormon bishops' interview policy opens the door for abuse?


Recommended Posts

Posted
12 hours ago, smac97 said:

Elder Oaks clearly has a "legal mind," and it shows in his writing.  But I don't think his legal training and experience reflect the totality of his perspective on the Gospel, either.

In any event, I'm not sure what's bothersome about Elder Oaks' writings.  I find his writings to be formal and eloquent and reasoned.  He also relies heavily on the things of the Spirit.

I agree, this is an important point, background influences our thinking, but doesn't represent the sum total, that would be too reductionist.  

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

First, as an apostle, he is presenting more than "one person's perspective on things."  He is a "special witness" of Jesus Christ.

Second, he's not simply spouting off.  His article is long.  And thoughtful.  And nuanced.  And replete with scriptural citations and lucid reasoning.

Third, your summary dismissal of his remarks are devoid of scriptural citations and lucid reasoning.  

So appeals to authority are what I'm rejecting as an a priori assumption.  The Bible, an Apostle, etc.  From my perspective we would place all these things on equal footing and discuss, pros and cons, reasonable approaches.  

But I'm not really that interested in taking Elder Oaks talk and dissecting it point by point. 

12 hours ago, smac97 said:

I don't think he is simply giving his "opinion."

I also couldn't disagree more that "all opinions are on equal footing."  Some opinions are more informed than others.  Some opinions are founded on better reasoning than others.  And on and on and on.

If we were talking about mere matters of taste, you might have a point.  Regarding the "Five Guys vs. In-n-Out" debate, you are probably correct.  All opinions are on equal footing.  De gustibus non est disputandum and all that.

But if you are trying to suggest that the personal, unexplained, opinion of some anonymous online guy is on equal footing with the eminently reasoned and profoundly scriptural counsel proffered by Elder Oaks . . . well, I guess we'll have to disagree about that.

I'm exaggerating a little to try and make my point that these appeals to authority aren't persuasive to me.  But at some level of course someone's expertise and experience play into how we look at the things they say.  We all have to trust expert opinions in different facets of life.  But I'm hoping you can understand that for me personally, the authority of church leaders isn't nearly as important to me as it seems to be to you.  

Posted
Quote

Mormon bishops' interview policy opens the door for abuse?

Amazing mindset......You still think in this day & age, bishop (who is not a relative or trained expert) can ask sexually explicit questions to teenagers.

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

That's the guy.

Thanks...not a very common name, but definitely possible there is more than one in 'Mormon' news.  The projects are different enough, I was slightly wondering.

Edited by Calm
Posted
59 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

If I ever take moralistic finger wagging from Fox News seriously please have me committed to a mental health facility. TIA

The same story is coming from many different news outlets, not just from a lone local Fox News affiliate. You presumed wrong.

Posted
2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If I ever take moralistic finger wagging from Fox News seriously please have me committed to a mental health facility. TIA

This is an affiliate station, not Fox News.

It's like blaming NBC for something that KSL-TV in Salt Lake City did.

 

Posted
1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

Wow, this to a T! I hope the leaders of the church share this world wide. Or speak again in the upcoming general conference of this problem. Also, read the stories... http://protectldschildren.org/read-the-stories/

 

Well...Tanner had it right..where has this been???  Why not more addressed and/or adhered to?  I like this...and I am first to acknowledge that many of our elderly past apostles and presidencies have not impressed me as of late...yet this is spot on.

Posted
21 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This is an affiliate station, not Fox News.

It's like blaming NBC for something that KSL-TV in Salt Lake City did.

 

I am not blaming them for the article but their choice on what to report on seems similar. I am comfortable with lumping them together for this purpose.

The big media companies are buying up the local stations and many are forcing their affiliates to show certain news stories or whatever. I find this disquieting. Understandable considering journalism’s current economic struggles but I do not like it.

Posted
23 hours ago, Bobbieaware said:

The same story is coming from many different news outlets, not just from a lone local Fox News affiliate. You presumed wrong.

I did not mean to suggest this was the only station. Just that I discount this one’s condescending story.

Posted
13 hours ago, Jeanne said:

Well...Tanner had it right..where has this been???  Why not more addressed and/or adhered to?  I like this...and I am first to acknowledge that many of our elderly past apostles and presidencies have not impressed me as of late...yet this is spot on.

and he's Canadian I might add, lived in Alberta though:rolleyes: but hey we'll take it!

Posted
7 minutes ago, Duncan said:

and he's Canadian I might add, lived in Alberta though:rolleyes: but hey we'll take it!

I get the feeling Canadians don't mince words or don't hold back when they know it's got to be said. :)

Posted (edited)
23 hours ago, Tacenda said:

Wow, this to a T! I hope the leaders of the church share this world wide. Or speak again in the upcoming general conference of this problem. Also, read the stories... http://protectldschildren.org/read-the-stories/

 

Yup. In my youth especially, a number of bishops and SPs overstepped. My father, as I recall, once told an interviewer where to go when asked questions about intimate marital relations. Back in the 60s. About the time of this address. It was a vindication of sorts.

Yup. Some get it wrong even now. A handful.

Yup. Some use their position to dominate and abuse. A handful.

And nobody thinks that's ok.

Yet, in a world where we're all stained by others' malicious abuse of their freedom, inevitably and inexorably, we can and do find healing. 

We cannot be like that woman in Roy,  hiding in the basement, lying on top of her children, replete with butcher knife, sobbing all night till her husband returned. Those children get scars from that kind of fear.

Which scars are worse? Those who hear inappropriate questions in a worthiness interview? Those who are dominated and abused? Those whose mothers' fears are pathological?

I can't judge. But none of those scars is made better by destroying the priest-penitent privilege or infantilizing children by wrapping them in bubble wrap and never permitting them one on one time with anybody.

Edited by USU78
Lost spelling bee
Posted
7 hours ago, Tacenda said:

I get the feeling Canadians don't mince words or don't hold back when they know it's got to be said. :)

we keep our sticks on the ice when we need to^_^

Posted
20 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

Because *their* bishops were allegedly no help, this is a strike against bishops' interviews at all? And they were adult women; not youth. Are you really recommending striking all interviews (including for adults) on the basis of this "strike?"

Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Yup. In my youth especially, a number of bishops and SPs overstepped. My father, as I recall, once told an interviewer where to go when asked questions about intimate marital relations. Back in the 60s. About the time of this address. It was a vindication of sorts.

Yup. Some get it wrong even now. A handful.

Yup. Some use their position to dominate and abuse. A handful.

And nobody thinks that's ok.

Yet, in a world where we're all stained by others' malicious abuse of their freedom, inevitably and inexorably, we can and do find healing. 

We cannot be like that woman in Roy,  hiding in the basement, lying on top of her children, replete with butcher knife, sobbing all night till her husband returned. Those children get scars from that kind of fear.

Which scars are worse? Those who hear inappropriate questions in a worthiness interview? Those who are dominated and abused? Those whose mothers' fears are pathological?

I can't judge. But none of those scars is made better by destroying the priest-penitent privilege or infantylzing children by wrapping them in bubble wrap and never permitting them one on one time with anybody.

Both of your scenarios are unhealthy. Mormons are used to sexual questions in interviews, so we think it's normal/healthy. It's not. A child alone in a windowless room with some guy from the congregation is not normal/healthy.

Edited by Gray
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, rongo said:

Because *their* bishops were allegedly no help, this is a strike against bishops' interviews at all? And they were adult women; not youth. Are you really recommending striking all interviews (including for adults) on the basis of this "strike?"

Yes.  Because abuse was supported, as is alleged here, it clearly is a strike against bishops' interviews.  I'm pointing out a problem occurred within these interviews, obviously.  This is not so much that they were no help of course,  It is that really bad abuse-supporting advice was given.  "No help" would have been hearing the allegations and saying nothing.  But this is a case of supporting abusers.  the allegations were made and the response seems to have been, "well he's a prominent member and we don't want embarrassment for him, plus he's got ambition and the Church will benefit from him".  Which is it seems the bishop did to this poor lady.  I'd want to punch this bishop almost as much as I'd want to punch Porter, if all of this is true and I have no reason to doubt any of it.    

Edited by stemelbow
Posted
1 hour ago, rongo said:

Because *their* bishops were allegedly no help, this is a strike against bishops' interviews at all? And they were adult women; not youth. Are you really recommending striking all interviews (including for adults) on the basis of this "strike?"

Sorry for chiming in again, but I get passionate about this stuff.

the linked article has the Church spokesman saying, "There is a zero tolerance for abuse of any kind".  I'd think seeing as abuse happened, if true, and seeing as the bishops saw abuse of some kind as ok, there is a big problem with interviews.  Zero tolerance would suggest, if abuse happened and leaders treated it as tolerable, then we must make some enormous or drastic changes right away.  

 

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Gray said:

Both of your scenarios are unhealthy. Mormons are used to sexual questions in interviews, so we think it's normal/healthy. It's not. A child alone in a windowless room with some guy from the congregation is not normal/healthy.

One more vote for bubble wrap and infantilization. 

And while we're at it:  Good Lord, such puritanical nonsense.  City boyz and girlz sure have some weird hangups.  Jonathan Edwards would be so proud.

 

Edited by USU78
Posted
25 minutes ago, USU78 said:

One more vote for bubble wrap and infantilization. 

And while we're at it:  Good Lord, such puritanical nonsense.  City boyz and girlz sure have some weird hangups.  Jonathan Edwards would be so proud.

 

 

Ritualized sexual harassment and prepping kids to be groomed by predators is not healthy, and objecting to it is not infantalization.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...