Rob Porter, and Mormonism's #MeToo Moment

[Duncan]

10 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not surprised they could find 20 people. That doesn't give us an indication of how common it is. The big problem as Jana Reiss mentioned in her article on the topic is how many Bishops aren't even aware of the Church training videos and so forth. While she just hinted at it, I halfway wonder if they shouldn't call the new Bishop a few months before he's made Bishop and have classes (even if only online) training them. Otherwise new Bishops are learning by getting thrown in the deep end.

I think the Church hasn't gotten much better over the past decades. I think that particularly under Pres. Monson this has been a big push for training. However part of the problem also is that you have people who have to use their best judgement. Most people are not, I suspect, prepared to discover what lurks under the veneer of their ward.

Something I have noticed is counselours are rarely called to be the Bishop or Stake President. The last two SP's here weren't in the Stake Presidency prior and my last 4 Bishops weren't in the bishopric prior to getting called so it's what you say, they are thrown into the deep end. I think trust is an issue, some people just don't feel comfortable telling their problems to their leaders, for whatever reason and the problem continues

[clarkgoble]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

Something I have noticed is counselours are rarely called to be the Bishop or Stake President. The last two SP's here weren't in the Stake Presidency prior and my last 4 Bishops weren't in the bishopric prior to getting called so it's what you say, they are thrown into the deep end. I think trust is an issue, some people just don't feel comfortable telling their problems to their leaders, for whatever reason and the problem continues

Yeah I've noticed that too - although I think that's in part due to a recognition that it's a huge calling even for counselors. After 5 - 6 years they deserve a break, not a worse calling. However as you note that means people getting a trial by fire. I have to imagine even the most well meaning Bishop makes many errors that first year.

There are things the Church could do to help matters. A Slack channel or something equivalent just for Bishops and counselors would be wonderful - so that they can counsel among themselves and ask questions of people perhaps trained just for such a service. (That'd especially be nice for Bishops in areas with low Mormon density) There's tons of great ideas from business and education that would help - not to mention how well modern technology enables social communication. Such channels can be private. 

[hope_for_things]

1 hour ago, clarkgoble said:

I'm not surprised they could find 20 people. That doesn't give us an indication of how common it is. The big problem as Jana Reiss mentioned in her article on the topic is how many Bishops aren't even aware of the Church training videos and so forth. While she just hinted at it, I halfway wonder if they shouldn't call the new Bishop a few months before he's made Bishop and have classes (even if only online) training them. Otherwise new Bishops are learning by getting thrown in the deep end.

I think the Church hasn't gotten much better over the past decades. I think that particularly under Pres. Monson this has been a big push for training. However part of the problem also is that you have people who have to use their best judgement. Most people are not, I suspect, prepared to discover what lurks under the veneer of their ward.

I really like the idea about a training period in transition to a new bishop.  We need some outside the box thinking to solve these problems.  

[hope_for_things]

23 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yeah I've noticed that too - although I think that's in part due to a recognition that it's a huge calling even for counselors. After 5 - 6 years they deserve a break, not a worse calling. However as you note that means people getting a trial by fire. I have to imagine even the most well meaning Bishop makes many errors that first year.

There are things the Church could do to help matters. A Slack channel or something equivalent just for Bishops and counselors would be wonderful - so that they can counsel among themselves and ask questions of people perhaps trained just for such a service. (That'd especially be nice for Bishops in areas with low Mormon density) There's tons of great ideas from business and education that would help - not to mention how well modern technology enables social communication. Such channels can be private. 

Scope creep is a problem.  It seems that really narrowing the work bishops do and the kind of counseling they ought to provide to very narrow parameters would seriously help.  They could call experts in finances and legal matters and even family and couples issues, there are likely people with some level of professional expertise on all these subjects in every stake.  

Meeting with the Bishop could be limited to spiritual advice specifically. 

[Calm]

47 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Yeah I've noticed that too - although I think that's in part due to a recognition that it's a huge calling even for counselors. After 5 - 6 years they deserve a break, not a worse calling. However as you note that means people getting a trial by fire. I have to imagine even the most well meaning Bishop makes many errors that first year.

There are things the Church could do to help matters. A Slack channel or something equivalent just for Bishops and counselors would be wonderful - so that they can counsel among themselves and ask questions of people perhaps trained just for such a service. (That'd especially be nice for Bishops in areas with low Mormon density) There's tons of great ideas from business and education that would help - not to mention how well modern technology enables social communication. Such channels can be private. 

If there is a website for ward clerks and others to help share experiences with tech, it makes sense to have such channels for other aspects of callings.

They could still be required to be relatively confidential, no names or ages obviously, no specifics in terms of age or number of children, what kind of jobs, etc.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Calm

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, hope_for_things said:

Scope creep is a problem.  It seems that really narrowing the work bishops do and the kind of counseling they ought to provide to very narrow parameters would seriously help.  They could call experts in finances and legal matters and even family and couples issues, there are likely people with some level of professional expertise on all these subjects in every stake.  

Meeting with the Bishop could be limited to spiritual advice specifically. 

It's tricky though since many people don't want marriage counseling or the like. A lot of what the Bishop is trying to do is motivate people (typically men) who don't want to do what they should. Don't want to go into any details on a public forum but I can think of various people I've home taught over the years like that. I can even think of one case where we were all sure there was abuse and the Bishop called the police but nothing happened. What do you do then?

It'd be nice if sending off a referral could solve the problem but frequently it won't. And you still have a stewardship over them.

2 hours ago, Calm said:

If there is a website for ward clerks and others to help share experiences with tech, it makes sense to have such channels for other aspects of callings.

They could still be required to be relatively confidential, no names or ages obviously, no specifics in terms of age or number of children, what kind of jobs, etc.

Real time chat is much better than a website is comments. Especially if confidential.

 

[sheilauk]

I have a friend who was in an emotionally abusive relationship.   She went to our bishop who was very supportive of her.  He organised counselling,  spoke to her husband and told my friend that he would support whatever decision she made about the marriage.  Her husband was furious with the Bishop as he felt the Bishop should have told my friend to, in effect, obey him!  When she finally felt ready to divorce her husband (there really was no pressure on her from anyone to stay married, quite the reverse really,  we all recognised the abuse going on, but it's a huge life change so it does take time to adjust even to the idea), the Bishop and stake president were supportive of her (in every way) and very critical of her husband.   Her husband totally refused to listen to their counsel as it was things he did not want to hear.   He thought they should tell her to drop the divorce. They definitely helped her feel ok with her decisions and helped her through it.  Often, we only hear of those times when things went badly. 

[rchorse]

Many like to criticize the handbooks and church leaders who follow them closely as being too rigid and legalistic. But if all priesthood leaders followed the counsel in the handbooks on this issue, I don't think there would be nearly as many problems. 

From Handbook 1 (17.3.2): "Members who have abused others are subject to Church discipline. They should not be given Church callings and may not have a temple recommend until they have repented and all Church discipline has been resolved...In instances of abuse, the first responsibility of the Church is to help those who have been abused and to protect those who may be vulnerable to future abuse. Victims of sexual abuse (including rape) often suffer serious trauma and feelings of guilt. Victims of the evil acts of others are not guilty of sin. Church leaders should be sensitive to such victims and give caring attention to help them overcome the destructive effects of abuse."

This section of Handbook 1 also outlines many resources, including a hotline to call, available to bishops and stake presidents who are unsure how to handle a situation.

Regarding bishops testifying on behalf of defendants in abuse cases, Handbook 1 (17.1.26) states: "...Church leaders should avoid testifying in civil or criminal cases reviewing the conduct of members over whom they preside."

I'm skeptical that very many bishops would testify as a character witness for defendants in an abuse trial. If they do it without being compelled by a subpoena, they do it in clear violation of church policy. 

In my experience, the counsel found in the handbooks is inspired, and those bishops and stake presidents who think they know better tend to cause problems for themselves and/or others. 

[rongo]

I wonder how many victims of abuse are or will be critical of bishops' counsel in retrospect, even though they counseled them to leave them and go to the police? I've done that, and they've gone back to their husbands or haven't followed that counsel. I wonder how many will still, in their minds, blame me later for "not having done enough" to make them leave and prosecute their husbands?

I can see that happening. Will I be #MeToo'd, as well?

[hope_for_things]

Now Rob Porter is claiming the picture of his Ex-Wife with a black eye was not caused by him, but was the result of a fall on a vacation.  

http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/373689-rob-porter-claimed-ex-wifes-black-eye-was-due-to-a-fall-report?__twitter_impression=true

[rongo]

He's not "now" claiming that; that is what he claimed before all of this hit the fan. This is old news.

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, rongo said:

He's not "now" claiming that; that is what he claimed before all of this hit the fan. This is old news.

and the WH did nothing and hired him anyways? Where was his Bishop in all of this?

[bsjkki]

7 minutes ago, rongo said:

I wonder how many victims of abuse are or will be critical of bishops' counsel in retrospect, even though they counseled them to leave them and go to the police? I've done that, and they've gone back to their husbands or haven't followed that counsel. I wonder how many will still, in their minds, blame me later for "not having done enough" to make them leave and prosecute their husbands?

I can see that happening. Will I be #MeToo'd, as well?

I think this is a valid concern. Being a Bishop puts someone in a very vulnerable position. They have so many one on one conversations that can be interpreted differently by both parties involved. Think about with your kids when you ask them what you just said...how many times have they missed half of it? Also, people remember negative experiences much easier than all the positive. Plus, they can tell the world the details of  the perceived conversation while Bishops are supposed to stay mum. Perception is reality. Many times, as a Bishop, you are expected to be a mind reader...it's hard to make good decisions when you don't have all the facts. "Follow the spirit" is somehow supposed to make you omniscient. These are dangerous expectations. It is better for a Bishop to bring in the professionals and I  think members should be trained to not expect 'counseling' from a Bishop. I once saw a parent dragging their teenager into 'see the Bishop' about her disrespectful behavior. The Bishop cannot replace parenting. 

Is this  type of thing common? I've not sought counseling through my Bishop before. 

[rongo]

1 minute ago, Duncan said:

and the WH did nothing and hired him anyways?

That doesn't surprise me.

Where was his Bishop in all of this?

His bishop in DC? That was also in the past. He's already divorced from the two ex-wives; the abuse didn't just happen. What these bishops did or didn't do for them has nothing to do with him in the Trump White House. Ancient history. 

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

I once saw a parent dragging their teenager into 'see the Bishop' about her disrespectful behavior. The Bishop cannot replace parenting. 

Is this  type of thing common? I've not sought counseling through my Bishop before. 

Unfortunately, yes. "Bishop, Johnny has been habitually lying and being disrespectful to me. Talk to him."

Quote

I think this is a valid concern. Being a Bishop puts someone in a very vulnerable position. They have so many one on one conversations that can be interpreted differently by both parties involved. Think about with your kids when you ask them what you just said...how many times have they missed half of it? Also, people remember negative experiences much easier than all the positive. Plus, they can tell the world the details of  the perceived conversation while Bishops are supposed to stay mum. Perception is reality.

All very true.

Quote

Many times, as a Bishop, you are expected to be a mind reader...it's hard to make good decisions when you don't have all the facts. "Follow the spirit" is somehow supposed to make you omniscient. These are dangerous expectations.

I think "following the Spirit" is, in the main, very adequate and effective. But, nobody is perfect in discerning. 

Quote

It is better for a Bishop to bring in the professionals and I  think members should be trained to not expect 'counseling' from a Bishop.

People are enamored with Professional Counseling™ as *the* silver bullet which the bishop should always immediately defer and refer to, but the reality is that Professional Counseling™, too, has its breakdowns and inadequacies. Personally, I think that overall, the counseling from the 30,000-40,000 bishops has a better track record than Professional Counseling™ --- exponentially so when talking about LDS Family Services counseling. In a lot of these cases, nobody is going to be able to do much for people whose psyches and lives are an absolute wreck, but all do the best that they can. That's all the bishops or Professional Counseling™ can do, anyway. The "benefit" in referring people to Professional Counseling™ is that the can is kicked away from the bishop and the Church, and it's then SEP (Someone Else's Problem, for those familiar with the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy reference).* Then, the bishop and the Church have cover when it goes south, because, hey, the person was referred to Professional Counseling™.

*In one of the later books, an effective cloaking device to hide things in plain sight is an SEP field, since people studiously avoid looking at Someone Else's Problem. 

Edited February 14, 2018 by rongo

[HappyJackWagon]

14 hours ago, Duncan said:

Something I have noticed is counselours are rarely called to be the Bishop or Stake President. The last two SP's here weren't in the Stake Presidency prior and my last 4 Bishops weren't in the bishopric prior to getting called so it's what you say, they are thrown into the deep end. I think trust is an issue, some people just don't feel comfortable telling their problems to their leaders, for whatever reason and the problem continues

Anyone called to the position is thrown into the deep end. I've only known a couple of bishops who didn't have any experience in bishoprics prior to being called and frankly, they have been the ones that seem to struggle the most. They've never seen how a bishopric works so they don't know how to organize or manage the processes as well. But most bishops, I suspect, have been in previous bishoprics. I was called as bishop at 35 and had already been in 3 bishoprics, but at the time I was called I wasn't in one. So I don't know that that is a great measure. I would imagine it is much more common for stake presidencies to have zero experience in a stake presidency, but they tend to have longer tenure as a complete presidency so they have more time to grow together.

I keep hearing the call for greater training. Sure, training is fine, but the bigger issue is the cultural expectation that people go to a bishop to help them deal with their marital problems, or abuse, or financial distress etc instead of going to professional experts in these fields. So train bishops better. A minimal increase will be a vast improvement over virtually no training, but FIX the cultural expectations around the role of bishops in dealing with these things.

[rongo]

14 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I keep hearing the call for greater training. Sure, training is fine, but the bigger issue is the cultural expectation that people go to a bishop to help them deal with their marital problems, or abuse, or financial distress etc instead of going to professional experts in these fields. So train bishops better. A minimal increase will be a vast improvement over virtually no training, but FIX the cultural expectations around the role of bishops in dealing with these things.

What people mean by Training™ is simply "refer immediately to Professional Counseling™."  In other words, the English sentence, "The Church needs to give bishops more and better training" should be translated in Counselingese as "Bishops should immediately and without thought refer people for counseling whenever they have a problem of any kind."

Edited February 14, 2018 by rongo

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Anyone called to the position is thrown into the deep end. I've only known a couple of bishops who didn't have any experience in bishoprics prior to being called and frankly, they have been the ones that seem to struggle the most. They've never seen how a bishopric works so they don't know how to organize or manage the processes as well. But most bishops, I suspect, have been in previous bishoprics. I was called as bishop at 35 and had already been in 3 bishoprics, but at the time I was called I wasn't in one. So I don't know that that is a great measure. I would imagine it is much more common for stake presidencies to have zero experience in a stake presidency, but they tend to have longer tenure as a complete presidency so they have more time to grow together.

I keep hearing the call for greater training. Sure, training is fine, but the bigger issue is the cultural expectation that people go to a bishop to help them deal with their marital problems, or abuse, or financial distress etc instead of going to professional experts in these fields. So train bishops better. A minimal increase will be a vast improvement over virtually no training, but FIX the cultural expectations around the role of bishops in dealing with these things.

I agree with all of that, my last 4 Bishops weren't in the Bishopric prior to being the Bishop and my current and previous SP weren't in the Stake Presidency prior to being SP. My current Bishop and his one counselor have never been in a Bishopric prior to this, my brother is the other counselour but he was in two branch presidencies like 20 years ago, but still.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Duncan

[Duncan]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

That doesn't surprise me.

 

 

His bishop in DC? That was also in the past. He's already divorced from the two ex-wives; the abuse didn't just happen. What these bishops did or didn't do for them has nothing to do with him in the Trump White House. Ancient history. 

if it was ancient history why did he quit or get fired or whatever and why didn't the WH say this isn't new and it happened on vacation and it wasn't any abuse, if they want fake news to stop being spread around they should stop spreading it around, just say at those briefings what the real story is. If I were a Bishop and I had a guy who had 2 ex wives who claim abuse and he's mid 30's and apparently there was a 3rd woman, according to the CNN interview with Anderson Cooper, he's leaving a trail here and I might have a sit down interview with him, but maybe that happened, who knows. 

[rongo]

6 minutes ago, Duncan said:

if it was ancient history why did he quit or get fired or whatever and why didn't the WH say this isn't new and it happened on vacation and it wasn't any abuse, if they want fake news to stop being spread around they should stop spreading it around, just say at those briefings what the real story is. If I were a Bishop and I had a guy who had 2 ex wives who claim abuse and he's mid 30's and apparently there was a 3rd woman, according to the CNN interview with Anderson Cooper, he's leaving a trail here and I might have a sit down interview with him, but maybe that happened, who knows. 

Well, that's why this is a news story. He was abusive to two wives in the past, and apparently/allegedly his bishops did nothing when the wives went to them (they have been unable to defend themselves or explain their side, of course). The FBI prevented him from getting a security clearance because he is a potential blackmailing/extortion risk (because of the skeletons in his closet), and when the Daily Mail ran a story on the two wives, he resigned. 

I don't know if his current bishop is meeting with him or not. I would, if I were his bishop, and were just learning about this like everyone else. I have no idea if he is an active Church member, but my guess is that is not. His records may be sitting in a ward and his leaders may not have met him before. 

[ttribe]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

What people mean by Training™ is simply "refer immediately to Professional Counseling™."  In other words, the English sentence, "The Church needs to give bishops more and better training" should be translated in Counselingese as "Bishops should immediately and without thought refer people for counseling whenever they have a problem of any kind."

That's a rather jaded view on the matter.  Hardly seems designed to move the discussion forward.  Perhaps I missed it, but are you suggesting there aren't times when a Bishop should refer an individual to a trained and licensed mental health professional?

Edited February 14, 2018 by ttribe

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, rongo said:

What people mean by Training™ is simply "refer immediately to Professional Counseling™."  In other words, the English sentence, "The Church needs to give bishops more and better training" should be translated in Counselingese as "Bishops should immediately and without thought refer people for counseling whenever they have a problem of any kind."

I don't think that's true although it might be for some bitter people. However I think many are saying that if you don't have training to recognize signs and the ways abusers do things (not just violence towards wives but broader abusers including child sexual abuse) they may be able to pull the wool over your eyes. Not knowing the details of the training videos the Church does provide I can't really say much there. As I mentioned a problem appears to be that some Bishops have never watched these videos and in some cases weren't even aware they were there. Again I've no idea how common that is. It suggests that something is falling down in places though.

There are electronic ways to ensure Bishops and other leaders have watched appropriate training videos and that is to require them done via the internet where the system records if you watched them. That's what Scouts did during my last training bout. There's no reason the Church couldn't do something similar.

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

I don't think that's true although it might be for some bitter people. However I think many are saying that if you don't have training to recognize signs and the ways abusers do things (not just violence towards wives but broader abusers including child sexual abuse) they may be able to pull the wool over your eyes. Not knowing the details of the training videos the Church does provide I can't really say much there. As I mentioned a problem appears to be that some Bishops have never watched these videos and in some cases weren't even aware they were there. Again I've no idea how common that is. It suggests that something is falling down in places though.

There are electronic ways to ensure Bishops and other leaders have watched appropriate training videos and that is to require them done via the internet where the system records if you watched them. That's what Scouts did during my last training bout. There's no reason the Church couldn't do something similar.

Exactly right. I'm required to take numerous compliance courses on a regular basis for my job. My company sees if I've taken the course or not and even knows how long I spent in the course. (Did I flip through the material in 2 minutes or actually read). They also keep records of my scores verifying my understanding of material. It's really not rocket science. It would be very easy for the church to implement a system for reviewing and certifying the material has been received.

[rongo]

42 minutes ago, ttribe said:

That's a rather jaded view on the matter. 

Yes, it is. 

Perhaps I missed it, but are you suggesting there aren't times when a Bishop should refer an individual to a trained and licensed mental health professional?

I'm absolutely suggesting that. I don't think a knee-jerk, automatic reaction to refer anything and everything to "trained and licensed mental health professionals" is the panacea many think it is. I think the belief that bishops can solve all problems is being transferred over to "trained and licensed mental health professionals," except this is supposed to be the enlightened view right now, while counsel from priesthood leaders is supposed to be the knuckle-dragging, uni-browed route. 

[rongo]

21 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

There are electronic ways to ensure Bishops and other leaders have watched appropriate training videos and that is to require them done via the internet where the system records if you watched them. That's what Scouts did during my last training bout. There's no reason the Church couldn't do something similar.

 

3 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

Exactly right. I'm required to take numerous compliance courses on a regular basis for my job. My company sees if I've taken the course or not and even knows how long I spent in the course. (Did I flip through the material in 2 minutes or actually read). They also keep records of my scores verifying my understanding of material. It's really not rocket science. It would be very easy for the church to implement a system for reviewing and certifying the material has been received.

I have to do these for school, too, and of course I've done the Youth Protection trainings. Simply being able to electronically verify that people have viewed online lessons is not a high standard of excellence, nor do online training videos ensure that everything will be great. I think the same infrequent breakdowns will occur with or without such things.