This American Life

[Calm]

A new poster, MustardSeed, would like to discuss this topic.  I don't know anything else about it, so take her post when she gets the chance to post as the official "opening post" and her as the opening poster; please respect her choice on topic limits if any.

MustardSeed, you can limit the topic if you want to avoid derails.  It helps if you can do it early on, but if something appears later that is a derail in your view, you are the official opening poster, so you can ask them to start their own thread rather than distract from this thread....and someone else, please report it for her if the conversation continues because I don't think she has reporting privileges until 25 posts as well.

https://www.thisamericanlife.org/661/but-thats-what-happened

No need to wait until MustardSeed posts though since we don't know when that will be.

[Tacenda]

I listened last night. I agree with Eric Hawkins that there are thousands of these interviews and that not all are as bad as the ones mentioned. But I also believe there is another aspect to this story and that is the sexual dsyfunction many feel after the guilt they feel with anything they've done wrong in the eyes of the church. In fact one gal mentioned having a bogeyman (probably not her words) on her back while having marital relations and not enjoying it. And if I remember right, there is a book for LDS married couples to help them with these problems, it is so widespread. So another componet to add on to the problems with these interviews and other messages in instruction in church. Below is a short list of many that I found online. Way more than the one I was thinking of. Seriously, this needs to be addressed! 

https://www.amazon.com/What-Your-Parents-Didnt-about/dp/1508608873

https://deseretbook.com/p/they-were-not-ashamed-strengthening-marriage-through-sexual-fulfillment-laura-m-brotherson-51575?variant_id=51521-paperback

https://deseretbook.com/p/knowing-her-intimately?variant_id=146478-paperback

http://www.ldsliving.com/5-Books-That-Will-Strengthen-Your-Marriage/s/78009

http://www.ldsliving.com/How-I-Overcame-Intimacy-Problems-as-an-LDS-Newlywed/s/76176

https://ldsmag.com/article-1-7840/

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1352636/Mormons-discover-the-joy-of-sex-but-only-with-a-spouse.html

 

 

 

[Storm Rider]

My sister discussed having problems with intimacy when she first got married. The Church did not do anything to her; the teachings of the Church did not warp her; what she says is that she was confused about several things. She came to a better understanding and no longer had intimacy problems in her marriage. 

It is nice to blame something else; however, taking responsibility for oneself is the first step to the discovery of our own personal strength. 

[MustardSeed]

Wow thank you Calm.  I have no agenda or need to control the direction of this topic, I just need an anonymous place to put my thoughts and feelings out there in the world.  

For point of reference I’ve been a member my whole life and I am in my 50s now. I have always been active and I carry a temple recommendBut I am also a independent thinker. I find myself to be a little bit different than the standard  In that I tend to be accepting of people who are different than I am. I’m usually the first to welcome folks who come to church smelling or looking different than everyone else.  

I am an avid follower of This American life, the program. Or the podcast. I am fascinated by the topics and honesty of the program. 

This morning after listening to Sunday’s broadcast I was very upset.   I see huge value in hearing “the other side” ‘s point of view in most things so kept an open mind to this topic. 

I am having a flurry of thoughts as very little time right now but top of mind here is where I go.

1. Do I trust the involvement the bishop has right now in my teen aged sons journey?  My son hasn’t been deemed worthy to take sacrament in 2 years.  I worry for him.  My son is an avid rule follower but has had some chastity rule breaking that doesnt involve any other person.  Frankly, I think he is normal.  He is also extremely honest and has high expectations of himself.

2.  I’m a counselor in the young women’s program and I am thinking about having a conversation with a young woman after standards night And offer if anyone has appointment with the bishop at any time and is uncomfortable meeting alone or uncomfortable involving their parents that I would be willing to go with them. I know for a fact that when I was a teenager I would never have wanted my parents sitting in on my bishops interview.

3. It is very disturbing to me when women talk about   Priesthood leaders crossing the line when doing interviews with them. I have heard many of these stories over the years. Wouldn’t be so terribly wrong for priesthood leader to simply ask are you living at the law of chastity, and leave it to the person to resolve that with God on their own?  Bishops our laypeople they are not counselors and most of the time I believe that they are really poorly trained to be interviewers. I’ve never had anybody cross the line with me but I’m told I can be pretty intimidating so I would be surprised if anybody ever would but I have many friends with some pretty heinous stories. Just like in this podcast. I was surprised at the percentage of the results that they received Reporting inappropriate questioning in temple recommend interviews and youth interviews.

4.  I think the Interview with the church representative (I think it is a media guy,I can’t recall ) was absolutely embarrassing.I can only hope that the interview was cut and pasted.

5.  It appears as though the questioning about the law of chastity began in the 1970s around the president Kimball/I would say President Packer era. I don’t know what else to say about this but I do have a lot of feelings about President Packer on a personal level. They aren’t good.

6.  It was very interesting to hear about the women talk about how sex as a married woman is confusing and not as satisfying as they believe it would have been had they been raised either at home or in the church with the healthier view of sexuality. Action is more than interesting it was just really really sad. Really really sad and depressing.

7. I’m not particularly interested in the bishop who got excommunicated recently over the stuff I’m talking about. I think anyone who carries a torch tends to have a bit of imbalance and perhaps I do as well.  But I know nothing about him and wish him well. I just know that I feel really icky after having heard the point of view I the podcast and I know it hit something deep inside of me that I already believe personally and now I just can’t ignore it because it affects my children, my grandchildren, my sisters in the gospel the young women I Have charge over presently. And last but not least, it affects me.

Thank you for listening, I feel lighter already.  No one can fix this for me but at least I can speak. 

[MustardSeed]

I will be more careful to proofread next time.  I understand I cannot edit for a while. 

[Calm]

33 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

And if I remember right, there is a book for LDS married couples to help them with these problems, it is so widespread. So another componet to add on to the problems with these interviews and other messages in instruction in church. Below is a short list of many that I found online. Way more than the one I was thinking of. Seriously, this needs to be addressed! 

If number of books are indicative of how bad a problem is, the nonLDS world has us beat by a massive amount.

-----

I like what Bluedreams has said about church culture in the past, think she has a realistic view of things...which given her speciality she should.

MustardSeed, if you don't know already, Bluedreams is a therapist in an LDS dense area who works in this field.  She has posted quite a bit on this and related topics.  Unfortunately the board's search function only searchs the past year, but if interested, probably would be worth it to site google her name and some specific term to pull up older posts as well.  The search function here can search by author, so very useful for the past year's posts.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Calm

[cinepro]

I got a kick out of this article that was in Sunstone a while back. 

When Virgins Collide

Might be a little more graphic than what you'll find in "LDS Living":

Quote

I know what you’re thinking. You’re wondering what on earth possesses me to air the intimate corners of my life in so public a place. I’ve chosen to do so because I expect that my experience is not uncommon. The topic is on my mind because I have children who walk the straight and narrow and are now approaching a marriageable age. I know that they think as I thought: that since they understand the mechanics of procreation, they know all they need to know about sex. But I also know from discussion with them that they don’t understand the pleasure principle, at least as it relates to women. I think ahead to the time each becomes engaged. How will I broach the subject?

I realize that for most couples in the Western world the idea of receiving sex advice once they are already engaged is akin to telling a child how to use a spoon after he’s wolfed down his oatmeal. But faithful Latter-day Saints are not like most people. We’d sooner starve than eat before the prayer is said.

But once those few magic words over an altar change “No! No!” into “Go! Go!” physical passion ought to become a gospel principle that is freely and openly supported and discussed by our people. We often claim that sacred is not secret. If we believe this, we must, as parents, be sure that our children are prepared to not only engage in, but also enjoy, the intimacies of married life.

I’ve heard it said that you don’t have to teach a hungry person how to eat, but hunger has never been declared a sin second only to murder. As a parent who has been there, done that, I will make sure my children are better prepared for sex than my husband and I were when we married. If that means sitting down with them and their intendeds and drawing a diagram, then I guess that is what I’ll do.

 

Edited November 13, 2018 by cinepro

[Jane_Doe]

Welcome to the forum @MustardSeed! 

57 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I am an avid follower of This American life, the program. Or the podcast. I am fascinated by the topics and honesty of the program. 

This morning after listening to Sunday’s broadcast I was very upset.   I see huge value in hearing “the other side” ‘s point of view in most things so kept an open mind to this topic. 

I am not familiar with the "This American Life" program, so I'll focus my comments on the topic/questions you bring up, rather than the program itself.

57 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

1. Do I trust the involvement the bishop has right now in my teen aged sons journey?  My son hasn’t been deemed worthy to take sacrament in 2 years.  I worry for him.  My son is an avid rule follower but has had some chastity rule breaking that doesnt involve any other person.  Frankly, I think he is normal.  He is also extremely honest and has high expectations of himself.

I'm glad to hear about your son's honesty!  I don't know the specifics of your son's story (nor is it any of my business), so I'll keep my answer generic.

It is normal to have problems.  That doesn't mean that problems aren't still problems.

If you are concerned about your son's conversations with the Bishop (or any other person), you have the right to be present in the room for the conversation or have the door open (assuming your son's cool with it).  You of course talk to your son about what's going on, either his conversations with the Bishop, or any help he'd like what's going on.  And of course you should teach your son approbate sexual boundaries for interacting with anyone, and what to do if those boundaries are crossed.

You by no means need to sit there helpless wondering what's going on or "can I trust the Bishop".  The way is there for you to be involved, and being involved with your son's life is a good thing.

57 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

2.  I’m a counselor in the young women’s program and I am thinking about having a conversation with a young woman after standards night And offer if anyone has appointment with the bishop at any time and is uncomfortable meeting alone or uncomfortable involving their parents that I would be willing to go with them. I know for a fact that when I was a teenager I would never have wanted my parents sitting in on my bishops interview.

*Thumbs up*

57 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

3. It is very disturbing to me when women talk about   Priesthood leaders crossing the line when doing interviews with them.

I'm going to be blunt here: any adult can cross the line with a child.  The most likely people to cross that line are a parent, followed by a sibling, followed by other relatives.  Peers, teachers, coaches, leaders, are statistically much less likely, but it does still happen.  And the rates are SCARY high: in fact if you have two YW in a room, chances are at least one of them will be mistreated that way before her 18 birthday.  My own history a horror story involving a teacher.

So, what do we do about this?  Teach your children what is appropriate boundaries and what to do if someone violates them.  That it's NEVER their fault, and they should get help [here].   This hold true is the offender is a parent, other family member, teacher, leader, peer, etc.  

We can't protect our children from every possible threat.  But we can arm them with the knowledge of what's ok and how to get help.

57 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I have heard many of these stories over the years. Wouldn’t be so terribly wrong for priesthood leader to simply ask are you living at the law of chastity, and leave it to the person to resolve that with God on their own?  Bishops our laypeople they are not counselors and most of the time I believe that they are really poorly trained to be interviewers. I’ve never had anybody cross the line with me but I’m told I can be pretty intimidating so I would be surprised if anybody ever would but I have many friends with some pretty heinous stories. Just like in this podcast. I was surprised at the percentage of the results that they received Reporting inappropriate questioning in temple recommend interviews and youth interviews.

When some is in a really big hole, they need help getting out.  Guidance, accountability, assurance, and other help are part of a bishop's job.  It would be unethical for him to not offer help.  Of course a person doesn't have to take the help, but the offer should be there.  And frankly: for a lot of teenagers the bishop is a much less scary person to talk to compared to their parents.  

And again, if there's something inappropriate going on, treat as you would any other situation.  

57 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

6.  It was very interesting to hear about the women talk about how sex as a married woman is confusing and not as satisfying as they believe it would have been had they been raised either at home or in the church with the healthier view of sexuality. Action is more than interesting it was just really really sad. Really really sad and depressing.

Frankly: many household (LDS and non) have extremely unhealthy views of sexuality.  Some households don't care if their kid sleeps around- some even pave the way for it.  Some so actively discourage abuse of sexual misconduct that it comes across as condemning all sexuality.  And so many other ways.  

Those are sad facts, but we can't change the world.  Instead, we can only influence our tiny sphere.   So for me, I'm a big advocator of sexuality for bonding a married couple together.  Sex itself isn't bad-- it's a great thing.  But it needs to be used right: within the bonds of a respectful marriage.

57 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

7. I’m not particularly interested in the bishop who got excommunicated recently over the stuff I’m talking about. I think anyone who carries a torch tends to have a bit of imbalance and perhaps I do as well.  But I know nothing about him and wish him well. I just know that I feel really icky after having heard the point of view I the podcast and I know it hit something deep inside of me that I already believe personally and now I just can’t ignore it because it affects my children, my grandchildren, my sisters in the gospel the young women I Have charge over presently. And last but not least, it affects me.

 

The man who was excommunicated was excommunicated because he crusaded against the LDS church on many thing and refused to listen.  And frankly, as a person who was horribly sexually abused as a kid, I'm disgusted/infuriated at the "it's all about protecting the kids" facade.  If you really want to protect a child, ARM THEM.  Arm them with the knowledge, the resources, and the support network to get help-- and yes that support network should include a good bishop*.  Don't cut off that network and resources by forbidding any adult to talk to them about sex and it's appropriate use.  Don't leave kids that ARE hurt stranded because they might get hurt.   

 

*Of course if the perpetrator in question is a bishop, he's not a good bishop.   Just like if perpetrator in question is a parent, they're not a good parent.  

Edited November 13, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Jane_Doe]

Ok, I did go and listen to some of this particular podcast.  This one podcast is EXTREMELY biased and does not tell the full/balanced story.   Not going to speak to the larger series.  

Edited November 13, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[Calm]

MustardSeed, if you are not aware of this (it is relatively new), this could be a good resource for your YW or anyone else you are concerned about:

https://www.lds.org/get-help/abuse?lang=eng

[cinepro]

3 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Ok, I did go and listen to some of this particular podcast.  This one podcast is EXTREMELY biased and does not tell the full/balanced story.   Not going to speak to the larger series.  

In case you're not familiar with it, "This American Life" isn't journalism.  It's an NPR show that tells stories, usually centered around a theme.  The stories usually have a producer or subject that directs the narrative. 

Complaining (or observing) that "This American Life" doesn't tell the "full/balanced story" is like complaining that an article in People magazine wasn't hard-hitting enough.

Edited November 13, 2018 by cinepro

[MustardSeed]

5 minutes ago, cinepro said:

In case you're not familiar with it, "This American Life" isn't journalism.  It's an NPR show that tells stories, usually centered around a theme.  The stories usually have a producer or subject that directs the narrative. 

Complaining (or observing) that "This American Life" doesn't tell the "full/balanced story" is like complaining that an article in People magazine wasn't hard-hitting enough.

I concur. I thought her point of view was worthy of my attention.  I’ve been open and curious about every story on the show.  It seems I would be “defensive” if I had refused to consider hers only because she has rejected my religion.  I think she had legit concerns. 

[Jane_Doe]

26 minutes ago, cinepro said:

In case you're not familiar with it, "This American Life" isn't journalism.  It's an NPR show that tells stories, usually centered around a theme.  The stories usually have a producer or subject that directs the narrative. 

Complaining (or observing) that "This American Life" doesn't tell the "full/balanced story" is like complaining that an article in People magazine wasn't hard-hitting enough.

Ah, I was not aware, thank you.  I defaulted into thinking that this was supposed to be a here's-a-well-rounded-view-of-things piece, rather than here's-one-perspective/story thing.  

Edited November 13, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

Ah, I was not aware, thank you.  I defaulted into thinking that this was supposed to be a here's-a-well-rounded-view-of-things piece, rather than here's-one-perspective/story thing.  

That being said, they obviously reached out to the Church for input, and they got the Director of Media Relations for the Church (Eric Hawkins).  He did a yeoman's job trying to make the Church not look awful, but there's not much defense for what was being reported in the interviews.

But it goes off the rails at 43:55 where the interviewer makes a very reasonable point that in order for things to get better (and perhaps some degree of comfort to be given to those who were mentally scarred in a Bishop's interview), the Church needs to admit that stuff was being discussed in a way that it shouldn't have been.  But Hawkins, in the best tradition of PR representatives, can't allow himself to admit that anything "wrong" ever happened.  He even offers a hypothetical where the interviewer would find some resolution by...going in and having an interview with a Bishop.  We've just heard 30 minutes of cringe-inducing stories about Bishop's interviews, and the Church PR guy says that the best course of action is for her to go talk to a Bishop so he could "sit down and counsel with you to make sure you understood."  Yes, Eric Hawkins, I'm sure the problem is that it was the young women who just didn't understand what was going on in these interviews, and they should go in for more interviews so they can be told how they should have felt.

He also tries to deflect by saying "what I can't do is go back and change your experience, your perception, your feelings you had at that time."

No dude, what you can do is say "Hey, the questions your Bishop asked you were too invasive and inappropriate, and we know that because of the psychological effect they had on you.  No one should ever feel that way during a Bishop's interview, and if they do, the Bishop has done something wrong. It was also inappropriate for him to come and sit closer to you and put his hand on your knee when asking the questions.  And it happened not just to you but to many other women, too many other women, even if the vast majority of Bishop's interviews didn't involve overly invasive questions.  So on behalf of the Church, we're sorry, and we're taking actions to make sure these interviews are positive experiences for young men and women going forward."

But I guess I would make a terrible PR guy.

 

 

Edited November 13, 2018 by cinepro

[Tacenda]

39 minutes ago, cinepro said:

That being said, they obviously reached out to the Church for input, and they got the Director of Media Relations for the Church (Eric Hawkins).  He did a yeoman's job trying to make the Church not look awful, but there's not much defense for what was being reported in the interviews.

But it goes off the rails at 43:55 where the interviewer makes a very reasonable point that in order for things to get better (and perhaps some degree of comfort to be given to those who were mentally scarred in a Bishop's interview), the Church needs to admit that stuff was being discussed in a way that it shouldn't have been.  But Hawkins, in the best tradition of PR representatives, can't allow himself to admit that anything "wrong" ever happened.  He even offers a hypothetical where the interviewer would find some resolution by...going in and having an interview with a Bishop.  We've just heard 30 minutes of cringe-inducing stories about Bishop's interviews, and the Church PR guy says that the best course of action is for her to go talk to a Bishop so he could "sit down and counsel with you to make sure you understood."  Yes, Eric Hawkins, I'm sure the problem is that it was the young women who just didn't understand what was going on in these interviews, and they should go in for more interviews so they can be told how they should have felt.

He also tries to deflect by saying "what I can't do is go back and change your experience, your perception, your feelings you had at that time."

No dude, what you can do is say "Hey, the questions your Bishop asked you were too invasive and inappropriate, and we know that because of the psychological effect they had on you.  No one should ever feel that way during a Bishop's interview, and if they do, the Bishop has done something wrong. It was also inappropriate for him to come and sit closer to you and put his hand on your knee when asking the questions.  And it happened not just to you but to many other women, too many other women, even if the vast majority of Bishop's interviews didn't involve overly invasive questions.  So on behalf of the Church, we're sorry, and we're taking actions to make sure these interviews are positive experiences for young men and women going forward."

But I guess I would make a terrible PR guy.

 

 

Wow, thanks for pointing this out, I must have fazed out during this, I listened but not as closely. It's time the church apologizes. It only makes them look worse. And like I saw someone else mention on another board. Youth and adults that go in for these interviews have to admit fault, why not the church apologise for all of these inappropriate interviews or having set up something that can turn bad? Of course, do we get an apology for other wrongs, nope!

[Calm]

Cinepro, I agree with most of what you said except for this part:

Quote

No one should ever feel that way during a Bishop's interview, and if they do, the Bishop has done something wrong.

I would change that to "the Bishop likely has done something wrong", because I do know women who were very prone to misunderstanding and/or feeling guilty when no guilt was implied so I don't put it out of the realm of possibility that there are some cases where the fault was not in the Bishop.

I very much wish there was more training and supervising (in the sense of easy feedback to higherups who can then adjust training, not saying someone should be present) for interviews, I do believe there have been many who have been troubled and hurt and even abused over the years by bishops who said inappropriate things.  And more training might help bishops pick up when people do feel like something inappropriate was said and help them respond better if there was a misunderstanding.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Calm

[MustardSeed]

I found the interview simply cringe worthy. 

[MustardSeed]

Here’s where my imagination takes over.  I imagine PR guy was trained specifically the never apologize for anything, to leave apologies for the powers that be to decide upon.  It was suuuuch an easy place to step up and say you know what, We’re sorry that you were hurt.

Opportunity lost.  

[MustardSeed]

I also want to say, these issues don’t make me want to lead a parade or rile the masses.  They don’t make me mad at God or at the Gospel if Jesus Christ.  They disgust me with politics in the church, people, power.  My imagination also tells me that people who defend the church vehemently are fragile.  Maybe that’s not fair. 

I really don’t judge this woman’s path and I’m glad her story has been told.  What a hideous history.  And other stories ARE too many. 

[The Nehor]

33 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Here’s where my imagination takes over.  I imagine PR guy was trained specifically the never apologize for anything, to leave apologies for the powers that be to decide upon.  It was suuuuch an easy place to step up and say you know what, We’re sorry that you were hurt.

Opportunity lost.  

An apology offered could easily open the church to legal financial liability. Sad but true.

[MustardSeed]

Yeah gross. 

[MustardSeed]

Like I said, politics upset me. And politics are very much a part of our church. 

[smac97]

14 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

1. Do I trust the involvement the bishop has right now in my teen aged sons journey?  My son hasn’t been deemed worthy to take sacrament in 2 years.  I worry for him.  My son is an avid rule follower but has had some chastity rule breaking that doesnt involve any other person.  Frankly, I think he is normal.  He is also extremely honest and has high expectations of himself.

Have you considered approaching the stake president with this concern?  2 years is a very long time.

14 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

2.  I’m a counselor in the young women’s program and I am thinking about having a conversation with a young woman after standards night And offer if anyone has appointment with the bishop at any time and is uncomfortable meeting alone or uncomfortable involving their parents that I would be willing to go with them. I know for a fact that when I was a teenager I would never have wanted my parents sitting in on my bishops interview.

You may want to check with the parents first.  For me, I would object to a counselor in the YW presidency injecting herself into a bishop's interview with my daughter.  

14 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

3. It is very disturbing to me when women talk about   Priesthood leaders crossing the line when doing interviews with them. I have heard many of these stories over the years. Wouldn’t be so terribly wrong for priesthood leader to simply ask are you living at the law of chastity, and leave it to the person to resolve that with God on their own?  

I think the recent clarifications from the Church as to the parameters of bishop's interviews are helpful on this point.

14 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

6.  It was very interesting to hear about the women talk about how sex as a married woman is confusing and not as satisfying as they believe it would have been had they been raised either at home or in the church with the healthier view of sexuality. Action is more than interesting it was just really really sad. Really really sad and depressing.

Not sure what you mean by "healthier view of sexuality."

Thanks,

-Smac

[MustardSeed]

3 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Not sure what you mean by "healthier view of sexuality."

Thanks,

-Smac

Well I guess I could write a book but will just simplify by mentioning that girls were taught culturally that sexual sin compared them to a chewed up piece of gum, for example. I’d say, not healthy.  

The podcast explains it pretty well. 

[MustardSeed]

And yes 2 years is a long time for a child. But I think the bishops hands are tied.  The boy will have to go 2 weeks without slipping and he struggles.