Mormon bishops' interview policy opens the door for abuse?

[ksfisher]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

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

This is your opinion of bishops? 

[Gray]

14 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

This is your opinion of bishops? 

This is my description of two processes that happen during interviews. One happens every time, the other happens with unknown frequency.

1) Child alone with adult member of ward in windowless room: this is an accurate description of all youth interviews. This is unintentionally prepping kids to be groomed by predators by removing normal boundaries.

2) Child being asked sexual questions during these interviews: this is a form of sexual harassment.

 

Edited February 9, 2018 by Gray

[USU78]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

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

Ridiculous slander.

Seriously, I guffawed and did a Dr Pepper spit-take as I read this.  So many ridiculousnesses, where to begin?

1.  Gray infers that every worthiness interview involves extensive cross-examination on sexual matters.  It doesn't.  I'd CFR him, but why bother?  He cannot produce any evidence.  Even if this happens occasionally, it is the exception and, should others get wind of it, there is hell to pay.  Gray's claim is not limited to the occasional instance.  Gray's claim must be presumed to apply to every worthiness interview.  That is slander, and, since it is quite rare that a Bishop is a public figure, Gray cannot hide behind laws protecting the feckless press.

2.  Asking about whether masturbation or anything else is going on is not ritualized sexual harassment.  This isn't a workplace.  Bishops aren't bosses.  The questions are relevant to worthiness to enter the temple and do baptisms.  The questions are relevant to worthiness to do public priesthood ritual service.  Matters sexual are irrelevant to almost every workplace.  If someone desires to act the role of priest, he takes on the burden of demonstrating periodically his worthiness to do so.  Those served by the priest are entitled to be served by a worthy priest.

3.  Gray infers that every worthiness interview is an act of grooming.   It isn't.  I'd CFR him, but why bother?  He cannot produce any evidence.  Even if this happens occasionally, it is the exception and, should others get wind of it, there is hell to pay.  Gray's claim is not limited to the occasional instance.  Gray's claim must be presumed to apply to every worthiness interview.  That is slander, and, since it is quite rare that a Bishop is a public figure, Gray cannot hide behind laws protecting the feckless press.

4.  Gray infers that every worthiness interview is unhealthy.   It isn't.  I'd CFR him, but why bother?  He cannot produce any evidence.  Even if this happens occasionally, it is the exception and, should others get wind of it, there is hell to pay.  Gray's claim is not limited to the occasional instance.  Gray's claim must be presumed to apply to every worthiness interview.  That is slander, and, since it is quite rare that a Bishop is a public figure, Gray cannot hide behind laws protecting the feckless press.

5.  Gray infers it is not infantalizing to keep 12-17 year olds from having one-on-one contact with Bishops or other Church authorities.  The hypocrisy of this assertion is startling.  Statistically, 12-17 year olds are far more likely to be roughed up or sexually assaulted by their fathers or teachers than any other class of persons.  Abuse by priests is a relatively rare thing, including among our RC cousins, far less common than by fathers or teachers.  https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/forgotten-study-abuse-in-school-100-times-worse-than-by-priests

Just ridiculous.

[Gray]

31 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Ridiculous slander.

Seriously, I guffawed and did a Dr Pepper spit-take as I read this.  So many ridiculousnesses, where to begin?

1.  Gray infers that every worthiness interview involves extensive cross-examination on sexual matters.  It doesn't.  I'd CFR him, but why bother?  He cannot produce any evidence.  Even if this happens occasionally, it is the exception and, should others get wind of it, there is hell to pay.  Gray's claim is not limited to the occasional instance.  Gray's claim must be presumed to apply to every worthiness interview.  That is slander, and, since it is quite rare that a Bishop is a public figure, Gray cannot hide behind laws protecting the feckless press.

2.  Asking about whether masturbation or anything else is going on is not ritualized sexual harassment.  This isn't a workplace.  Bishops aren't bosses.  The questions are relevant to worthiness to enter the temple and do baptisms.  The questions are relevant to worthiness to do public priesthood ritual service.  Matters sexual are irrelevant to almost every workplace.  If someone desires to act the role of priest, he takes on the burden of demonstrating periodically his worthiness to do so.  Those served by the priest are entitled to be served by a worthy priest.

3.  Gray infers that every worthiness interview is an act of grooming.   It isn't.  I'd CFR him, but why bother?  He cannot produce any evidence.  Even if this happens occasionally, it is the exception and, should others get wind of it, there is hell to pay.  Gray's claim is not limited to the occasional instance.  Gray's claim must be presumed to apply to every worthiness interview.  That is slander, and, since it is quite rare that a Bishop is a public figure, Gray cannot hide behind laws protecting the feckless press.

4.  Gray infers that every worthiness interview is unhealthy.   It isn't.  I'd CFR him, but why bother?  He cannot produce any evidence.  Even if this happens occasionally, it is the exception and, should others get wind of it, there is hell to pay.  Gray's claim is not limited to the occasional instance.  Gray's claim must be presumed to apply to every worthiness interview.  That is slander, and, since it is quite rare that a Bishop is a public figure, Gray cannot hide behind laws protecting the feckless press.

5.  Gray infers it is not infantalizing to keep 12-17 year olds from having one-on-one contact with Bishops or other Church authorities.  The hypocrisy of this assertion is startling.  Statistically, 12-17 year olds are far more likely to be roughed up or sexually assaulted by their fathers or teachers than any other class of persons.  Abuse by priests is a relatively rare thing, including among our RC cousins, far less common than by fathers or teachers.  https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/forgotten-study-abuse-in-school-100-times-worse-than-by-priests

Just ridiculous.

A quick glance reveals your repose is full of emoting and nastiness and strawmen. I'll just respond with this:

 

This is my description of two processes that happen during interviews. One happens every time, the other happens with unknown frequency.

1) Child alone with adult member of ward in windowless room: this is an accurate description of all youth interviews. This is unintentionally prepping kids to be groomed by predators by removing normal boundaries.

2) Child being asked sexual questions during these interviews: this is a form of sexual harassment.

[USU78]

1 minute ago, Gray said:

This is my description of two processes that happen during interviews. One happens every time, the other happens with unknown frequency.

1) Child alone with adult member of ward in windowless room: this is an accurate description of all youth interviews. This is unintentionally prepping kids to be groomed by predators by removing normal boundaries.

2) Child being asked sexual questions during these interviews: this is a form of sexual harassment.

Every one-on-one interaction with an adult male is, in your view, an act of grooming.  Hyperbolic, tendentious, and libelous nonsense.

Every question regarding sexual worthiness to engage in priestly functions is sexual harassment.  Ditto.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

9 minutes ago, Gray said:

1) Child alone with adult member of ward in windowless room: this is an accurate description of all youth interviews. This is unintentionally prepping kids to be groomed by predators by removing normal boundaries.

Asking "Do you obey the law of chastity" or saying "sexual sins are serious" a form of sexual harassment?

If that is how our culture thinks then no wonder why Aziz Ansari was accused of assault. 

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Every one-on-one interaction with an adult male is, in your view, an act of grooming.  Hyperbolic, tendentious, and libelous nonsense.

Here's what I actually said: " This is unintentionally prepping kids to be groomed by predators by removing normal boundaries." Maybe you'd prefer if I had said something actually offensive, so you could enjoy getting more angry about it? Otherwise why distort what I said? What's your interest in it?

 

Quote

Every question regarding sexual worthiness to engage in priestly functions is sexual harassment.  Ditto.

Ask a coworker for details about her sexual activities or masturbation, and see what happens. That's sexual harassment.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

1 minute ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Asking "Do you obey the law of chastity" or saying "sexual sins are serious" a form of sexual harassment?

 

No. Asking a child if he/she masturbates or has sex, or asking for details about these activities is a form of sexual harassment.

[USU78]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

Here's what I actually said: " This is unintentionally prepping kids to be groomed by predators by removing normal boundaries." Maybe you'd prefer if I had said something actually offensive, so you could enjoy getting more angry about it? Otherwise why distort what I said? What's your interest in it?

 

Ask a coworker for details about her sexual activities or masturbation, and see what happens. That's sexual harassment.

My interest is this:  you're engaging in gross mischaracterization of the worthiness interview.  You mischaracterize the participants.  You mischarachterize the subject matter.  And without evidence.

The one-on-one encounter during a worthiness interview you sinisterize like the author of a pulp bodice-ripper.  I suspect you know very well it's a slander.

And, please spare us, matters of sexual behavior are irrelevant to the workplace.  The Bishop's not your boss.  They are relevant to a worthiness interview.  The Bishop is your confessor.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

20 minutes ago, Gray said:

No. Asking a child if he/she masturbates or has sex, or asking for details about these activities is a form of sexual harassment.

and I agree Bishops shouldn't ask about the specifics, I said it on page one of the thread. I doubt the majority of Bishops ask teenagers if they masturbate, the few Bishops that do only ask the guys. You are creating a bogeyman Gray.  

The solution is to reform Bishop interviews. There is a better chance for reformation than to completely end Bishop interviews. Wouldn't you agree Gray?

Edited February 9, 2018 by SamuelTheLamanite

[Gray]

19 minutes ago, USU78 said:

My interest is this:  you're engaging in gross mischaracterization of the worthiness interview.  You mischaracterize the participants.  You mischarachterize the subject matter.  And without evidence.

So worthiness interviews aren't held one-on-one behind closed doors? Do you have any evidence to support that? Bishops never ask sexual questions in the interviews? Do you have any evidence to support that?

 

Quote

The one-on-one encounter during a worthiness interview you sinisterize like the author of a pulp bodice-ripper.  I suspect you know very well it's a slander.

Where no slander exists, you seem more than happy to invent it. Very dramatic.

 

Quote

And, please spare us, matters of sexual behavior are irrelevant to the workplace.  The Bishop's not your boss.  They are relevant to a worthiness interview.  The Bishop is your confessor.

I suppose you could use that argument (special pleading) to justify all manor of wicked behavior. And maybe there's a difference between voluntary confession and interrogation?

Edited February 9, 2018 by Gray

[Gray]

15 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

and I agree Bishops shouldn't ask about the specifics, I said it on page one of the thread. I doubt the majority of Bishops ask teenagers if they masturbate, the few Bishops that do only ask the guys. You are creating a bogeyman Gray.  

I remember going in for my first interview just before turning 12. My bishop went into great detail about masturbation and grilled me several different ways about it. I didn't know what it was or that anyone could do something like that, so he explained it to me in graphic detail. He also asked me about bestiality and explained that to me too.

I left feeling dirty and gross and upset and wondering why my parents would let this happen to me. Maybe the worst part is is that this bishop wasn't a creeper, as far as I know. He was doing what he thought was his duty. He even mentioned he was bringing these topics up with all the youth, and there were long lines of boys and girls in the hallway waiting for the same ordeal.

It was brought up in most of my interviews growing up (masturbation/sex, not bestiality - that happened only the once). It happens more often than you think.

 

15 minutes ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

The solution is to reform Bishop interviews. There is a better chance for reformation than to completely end Bishop interviews. Wouldn't you agree Gray?

I'm fine with any solution that takes care of my two concerns outlined earlier.

[SamuelTheLamanite]

43 minutes ago, Gray said:

I remember going in for my first interview just before turning 12. My bishop went into great detail about masturbation and grilled me several different ways about it. I didn't know what it was or that anyone could do something like that, so he explained it to me in graphic detail. He also asked me about bestiality and explained that to me too.

Okay, I can't say the same thing when I had my first interview. I doubt most Bishops get into graphic details about masturbation, and the few that do only talk about it with the guys. Gray, most Bishops are not crazy. You had a one in a thousand Bishop,  but to avoid the one in a thousand Bishop the solution is reformation and better training on how to ask.

44 minutes ago, Gray said:

I'm fine with any solution that takes care of my two concerns outlined earlier.

Okay good. Just remember that statistically a teenager is more likely to abuse than a Bishop. When a Bishop says "sexual sins are serious" it has the potential to make a  teenager confess his crime.

[Tacenda]

I'm grateful that the time I went to my singles' ward bishop that he was very kind and didn't probe into territory that would have me being ashamed or embarrassed. He helped me onto a path of returning to activity and then onto a temple marriage. So I know that most of the time, at least I hope most of the time, these interviews can help individuals feel like they can move on and onto a better path. Now don't fall down in shock those of you that only hear negative things about the church from me!

Edited February 9, 2018 by Tacenda

[Jeanne]

15 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'm grateful that the time I went to my singles' ward bishop that he was very kind and didn't probe into territory that would have me being ashamed or embarrassed. He helped me onto a path of returning to activity and then onto a temple marriage. So I know that most of the time, at least I hope most of the time, these interviews can help individuals feel like they can move on and onto a better path. Now don't fall down in shock those of you that only hear negative things about the church from me!

I just got up off the floor..guess I fell...tell me it isn't so!!!

I hear you..I had a good bishop that I wrote to while I was in college because I was concerned about something..we met when I got home.  I believe it is really about the bishop and the way he communicates with love.

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, Jeanne said:

I just got up off the floor..guess I fell...tell me it isn't so!!!

I hear you..I had a good bishop that I wrote to while I was in college because I was concerned about something..we met when I got home.  I believe it is really about the bishop and the way he communicates with love.

You're a hoot Jeanne!! 

[Gray]

6 hours ago, SamuelTheLamanite said:

Okay, I can't say the same thing when I had my first interview. I doubt most Bishops get into graphic details about masturbation, and the few that do only talk about it with the guys. Gray, most Bishops are not crazy. You had a one in a thousand Bishop,  but to avoid the one in a thousand Bishop the solution is reformation and better training on how to ask.

 

I don't think it's 1/1000. It might be more like 1 in 3. I suspect bishops tend to ask if they themselves were asked.

[Calm]

I would be surprised if it were that high.  No one I know in person that I have asked have been asked that I remember.