This American Life

[MustardSeed]

14 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

I don't think having concerns / questions are a problem at all-- if we don't think on things, we can never improve.  I'm just advocating that we should have a thoughtful approach to improving, rather than knee jerk reactions which can also cause a lot of harm.

For example, that dude who was excommunicated-- he wanted to go to the extreme of banishing all church adults from talking to youth about Law of Chasity / sex. That's a complete knee-jerk reactions and  I don't think that's a healthy solution, as there are folks that have benefited from these instructions and aren't comfortable talking to their parents (such as myself).

Now "chewing gum" analogies can just go in the trash can <= and you'll find the vast vast vast majority of folks agreeing with that.

Your offering to your YW -- I think that's great.  Get people help and support they need.

I've noticed in recent years Law of Chasity talks also include lots of talk about the Atonement.  Which is a great things, both for those that have made mistakes and those that have had mistakes made too them.

Teaching approbate boundaries to people (wether the other person be a bishop, parent, peer, etc) <<-- always a HUGE thing wherever and whoever you are (religious or not).  But I find a lot of people leaving that out of these type of discussions, and that does bother me.  

Thank you.

it takes a little time for a newbie to adjust and understand everyone’s agenda and needs.  I’ll get there.  Thank you for your thoughtful response and allowing me to express my feelIngs, both on the topic and on your input. 

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

 

I think we have a pretty clear idea of the direction of this thread here on out.....  and it ain't toward the church's side of the equation. 

 

People of faith come to this thread  because at times, their trust in church policies and procedures, may be tested. They don’t feel their questions or experiences can be spoken or addressed through official channels. Being able to acknowledge that mistakes and imperfections exist in the church (as the brethren have acknowledged) does not mean a person is against the church or taking a side against the church.

Bishops can and have hurt people. Teachers can teach doctrinely unsound things. The church has made improvements because they recognize there have been problems.

Where else can a faithful member go to ask real questions and express pain caused by the institution? 

I addressed my issues with my new Bishop and Stake Presidency. They had no idea how to deal with it and never reached out again. This board can help people work through these issues but it’s important to let people express their painful experiences and work through their questions. It does not mean they lack faith or don’t have a testimony. 

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/utah-north-multi-stake-conference-broadcast?lang=eng&_r=1

“But I am concerned when I hear of sincere people asking honest questions about our history, doctrine, or practices and then being treated as though they were faithless. This is not the Lord’s way. Peter said, “Be ready always to give an answer to every man [or woman] that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.” ^[5]

Edited November 13, 2018 by bsjkki

[MustardSeed]

Thank you. 

[Calm]

6 hours 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.  

I think it is part of church culture, no training needed.  But there might be some training to avoid language for legal reasons that might bleed over into other situations rendering people in public positions overly cautious.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

If everyone doesn’t mind,I shouldn’t have brought up my son.  

You can ask mods to edit your posts (might take some time) or edit them when you reach 25.  If you want to speed up the process of getting to 25, the Three Word thread in Social can help.

Edited November 13, 2018 by Calm

[The Nehor]

18 minutes ago, Calm said:

I think it is part of church culture, no training needed.  But there might be some training to avoid language for legal reasons that might bleed over into other situations rendering people in public positions overly cautious.

I guarantee you that the PR department works with the Legal department and gets trained by someone to make sure their statements are not taken as admissions that could be used against the church legally.

[Calm]

12 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I guarantee you that the PR department works with the Legal department and gets trained by someone to make sure their statements are not taken as admissions that could be used against the church legally.

It is certainly possible that legal has instructed it this way, but it sounds like Hawkins took it to a more proactive stance than reactive (could have just not said something legally problematic, instead chose defending or justifying an action which wouldn't be needed for legal reasons from the description...not sure that is accurate as didn't watch it and probably won't).

Edited November 13, 2018 by Calm

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

 

I think we have a pretty clear idea of the direction of this thread here on out.....  and it ain't toward the church's side of the equation. 

 

One thing I can't figure out is why there is a "church's side of the equation" to this, and why this is the hill the Church wants to die on this year.

Regular Bishop's interviews are simply a cultural tradition.  The podcast claims that regular youth interviews with questions about chastity became a thing in the 1970s as a result of the sexual revolution. 

When Joseph Smith had the First Vision, it's not like Jesus said "Oh, and when you restore the Church, there will be people called 'Bishops' leading congregations and it's critical they regularly meet with the teenagers and ask them questions about sex." 

When John the Baptist restored the Aaronic Priesthood, he didn't say " “Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of asking teenagers invasive and probing questions about what they did on the hayride Saturday previous…"

Since the Church doesn't do training on the subject, the current situation has evolved from tradition and each individual Bishop's ability to intuit how these interviews should go.  Many (most?) seem to do a great job (I certainly never had a Bishop ask me anything that me uncomfortable), but some obviously don't.  The PR guy should have at least had the cajones to tell the Church they're quickly losing the narrative on this and they need to do more than take a defensive position.  If he didn't know it before the interview, I'm sure he realizes it now after the episode has been released.

 

Edited November 13, 2018 by cinepro

[The Nehor]

If I was the PR guy I would have politely declined to be interviewed and only say that individual interviews are not for public consumption or something to that effect.

Then again I like to think I have a bit of my soul left which disqualifies me from PR work.

[MustardSeed]

Just now, The Nehor said:

If I was the PR guy I would have politely declined to be interviewed and only say that individual interviews are not for public consumption or something to that effect.

Then again I like to think I have a bit of my soul left which disqualifies me from PR work.

The narrator did indicate that it is highly unusual to land an interview. 

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

The narrator did indicate that it is highly unusual to land an interview. 

Honestly there's not much he can say of help here.  The "I'm sorry you were hurt" doesn't make anyone's pain go away.  And it's not a podcast where the other side of things (people who've had good experiences with bishops) are being shown.  

[MustardSeed]

11 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Honestly there's not much he can say of help here.  The "I'm sorry you were hurt" doesn't make anyone's pain go away.  And it's not a podcast where the other side of things (people who've had good experiences with bishops) are being shown.  

I’ve only had good experiences with bishops. That said, if I could, I would validate her thoughts and feelings. 

[Tacenda]

5 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I'm not sure what to say about this thread. I relate. Bishops make huge mistakes. I could listen to the podcast but really don't want to. It will bring me all sorts of anxiety. I feel sorry for your son. I hope he stays active as an adult but the shame cycle leads a lot of youth right out the door. Therapy helped my son but his life has been effected by his struggles with these things. It messed up his schooling and led to an anxiety disorder that he struggles with. He did come back to church and was sealed in the Temple but it was a rough go. A few kind and loving Bishops who helped him in a loving way made all  the difference. The ones that yelled at him and used shaming techniques caused further troubles. In my opinion, the "M" word should not be discussed with Bishops. I don't view it as a sin that warrants confession. In my experience, Bishops do more harm than good in helping young men with this issue and make them feel like sexual deviants when they are very normal. I've seen it cause a downward spiral in the lives of young men over and over again. I've seen those who view it as personal struggle to overcome do much better.  Sometimes making something a "big deal" instead of a "small deal" can be counterproductive. And...I will use the term Bishops very generally here. I think it is appropriate. Some may do really well with these issues and others don't. Since we never know what to expect...My default is to assume the worst and then make an informed decision about Bishops limitations before seeking their help. 

Bishops are not counselors and do not know how to effectively deal with these issues or deal with sexual assault and rape victims.

 The church has made a lot of progress with how it addresses sexual matters and many of the old "analogies" have been denounced. The church took Moroni 9:9 out of the Personal Progress book. There has been progress. They have published new guidelines for Bishop interviews and will allow a parent to be present if requested by the interviewee. I think this is a good standard since youth should be allowed to seek counsel with a Bishop when they don't want their parents involved. Hang in there. It is rough. I still have a testimony after realizing Bishop roulette is a real and very dangerous things to the mental health and well being to many members of the church. 

This!!

[Jane_Doe]

1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I’ve only had good experiences with bishops. That said, if I could, I would validate her thoughts and feelings. 

Ah.  Just from my experience being told "I'm sorry" from a random stranger... it's not really validating.  But other people are different and have different experiences.  

[strappinglad]

I probably told this before but, meh. I had an investigator who was drinking 66 cups of coffee a day when told about the WoW. He resolved to quit. He dropped to 33 cups the first week and to zero by the second. He did say he had quite a headache for a while. I wonder if a Bishop would ever be justified in saying when drinking a cup of coffee might go from a small deal to a big deal . If I had a cup every morning and so informed my Bishop ,is that a small deal still?. How about once a week , or once a month , or once a year when on vacation? Maybe the Bishop shouldn't probe beyond asking whether or not I keep the WoW , but what if I admit to my habits? Do we need a type of penance like the Catholics do wherein we just say so many ' Our Fathers' and we are good to go? I mean the RCC is not known for inducing guilt in people ,right?

[mfbukowski]

5 hours ago, bsjkki said:

People of faith come to this thread  because at times, their trust in church policies and procedures, may be tested. They don’t feel their questions or experiences can be spoken or addressed through official channels. Being able to acknowledge that mistakes and imperfections exist in the church (as the brethren have acknowledged) does not mean a person is against the church or taking a side against the church.

Bishops can and have hurt people. Teachers can teach doctrinely unsound things. The church has made improvements because they recognize there have been problems.

Where else can a faithful member go to ask real questions and express pain caused by the institution? 

I addressed my issues with my new Bishop and Stake Presidency. They had no idea how to deal with it and never reached out again. This board can help people work through these issues but it’s important to let people express their painful experiences and work through their questions. It does not mean they lack faith or don’t have a testimony. 

https://www.lds.org/prophets-and-apostles/unto-all-the-world/utah-north-multi-stake-conference-broadcast?lang=eng&_r=1

“But I am concerned when I hear of sincere people asking honest questions about our history, doctrine, or practices and then being treated as though they were faithless. This is not the Lord’s way. Peter said, “Be ready always to give an answer to every man [or woman] that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you.” ^[5]

I agree.

Was I wrong about the direction of the thread?

[blueglass]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

One thing I can't figure out is why there is a "church's side of the equation" to this, and why this is the hill the Church wants to die on this year.

Regular Bishop's interviews are simply a cultural tradition.  The podcast claims that regular youth interviews with questions about chastity became a thing in the 1970s as a result of the sexual revolution. 

When Joseph Smith had the First Vision, it's not like Jesus said "Oh, and when you restore the Church, there will be people called 'Bishops' leading congregations and it's critical they regularly meet with the teenagers and ask them questions about sex." 

When John the Baptist restored the Aaronic Priesthood, he didn't say " “Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of asking teenagers invasive and probing questions about what they did on the hayride Saturday previous…"

Since the Church doesn't do training on the subject, the current situation has evolved from tradition and each individual Bishop's ability to intuit how these interviews should go.  Many (most?) seem to do a great job (I certainly never had a Bishop ask me anything that me uncomfortable), but some obviously don't.  The PR guy should have at least had the cajones to tell the Church they're quickly losing the narrative on this and they need to do more than take a defensive position.  If he didn't know it before the interview, I'm sure he realizes it now after the episode has been released.

 

I didn't realize This American Life had so many subscribers/listeners (2M/week).  Anyone have a lead on this reference to these sexual interview questions implemented in 1975?  Bishop's interview manual?  Elna says it was the blueprint of a new more thorough interview process which she learned from an LDS historian (Greg Prince?)  they give a credit to him at the end as a contributor.

 

Edited November 14, 2018 by blueglass

[bsjkki]

1 minute ago, blueglass said:

I didn't realize This American Life had so many subscribers/listeners (2M/week).  Anyone have a lead on this reference to these sexual interview questions implemented in 1975?  Bishop's interview manual?  Elna says it was the blueprint of this interview process which she learned from an LDS historian (Greg Prince?)  they give a credit to him at the end as a contributor.

 

I have always wondered about the history of the interview process. It would be great to see this reference.

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, cinepro said:

One thing I can't figure out is why there is a "church's side of the equation" to this, and why this is the hill the Church wants to die on this year.

Regular Bishop's interviews are simply a cultural tradition.  The podcast claims that regular youth interviews with questions about chastity became a thing in the 1970s as a result of the sexual revolution. 

When Joseph Smith had the First Vision, it's not like Jesus said "Oh, and when you restore the Church, there will be people called 'Bishops' leading congregations and it's critical they regularly meet with the teenagers and ask them questions about sex." 

When John the Baptist restored the Aaronic Priesthood, he didn't say " “Upon you my fellow servants, in the name of Messiah, I confer the Priesthood of Aaron, which holds the keys of the ministering of angels, and of the gospel of repentance, and of asking teenagers invasive and probing questions about what they did on the hayride Saturday previous…"

Since the Church doesn't do training on the subject, the current situation has evolved from tradition and each individual Bishop's ability to intuit how these interviews should go.  Many (most?) seem to do a great job (I certainly never had a Bishop ask me anything that me uncomfortable), but some obviously don't.  The PR guy should have at least had the cajones to tell the Church they're quickly losing the narrative on this and they need to do more than take a defensive position.  If he didn't know it before the interview, I'm sure he realizes it now after the episode has been released.

 

I have never in my life been a question about sexual practices and when I was Bishop I never asked anything about that either. If they wanted to confess or come in and talk to me that was a different story. I never brought it up.

That happens is unfortunate and something should be done about it

All that needs to be done is that there needs to be a training saying that Bishops should not do that.

Problem solved.

As a leader of an organization you can't tell what some yahoo in the ranks is going to pull. Whatever happens you need to react to it properly and I think the church is doing that.

What you don't do is go off half-cocked and assume that every Bishop is doing it and molesting kids. That is just ridiculous, but seems to be the position of the critics. Here you go yourself saying that it never happened to you and you've never heard of it.

But of course we will not take that as an anomaly obviously everyone else does it even though it really hasn't happened to many people.

It should never happen to anybody but that to me is common sense. Many humans do not have common sense.

[MustardSeed]

12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I have never in my life been a question about sexual practices and when I was Bishop I never asked anything about that either. If they wanted to confess or come in and talk to me that was a different story. I never brought it up.

That happens is unfortunate and something should be done about it

All that needs to be done is that there needs to be a training saying that Bishops should not do that.

Problem solved.

As a leader of an organization you can't tell what some yahoo in the ranks is going to pull. Whatever happens you need to react to it properly and I think the church is doing that.

What you don't do is go off half-cocked and assume that every Bishop is doing it and molesting kids. That is just ridiculous, but seems to be the position of the critics. Here you go yourself saying that it never happened to you and you've never heard of it.

But of course we will not take that as an anomaly obviously everyone else does it even though it really hasn't happened to many people.

It should never happen to anybody but that to me is common sense. Many humans do not have common sense.

I don’t think anyone, even the narrator of the podcast said or even thinks that every or even most bishops are out of line. 

I think most aren’t.  But I think there are enough questionable situations that there needs to be much better training and regulation. 

I do have at least three girlfriends who in the last 5 years have shared major line crossings in temple recommend questions, sexually prying questions. (Are those your real breasts?  Do silky garments turn you on? This type of nonsense.) Those are just the ones I know about. So it stands that reason that it’s happened to others.  Indeed, not everyone.  But enough to warrant this conversation. 

 

[Jane_Doe]

3 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I don’t think anyone, even the narrator of the podcast said or even thinks that every or even most bishops are out of line. 

It's still important to state, to remember the big picture.

3 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I do have at least three girlfriends who in the last 5 years have shared major line crossings in temple recommend questions, sexually prying questions.  

And they are completely free to say "I find that question inappropriate and will not be answering it" -- in fact that's the right thing to say.   Education is important for bishops, but it's ALSO important for everyone else on the planet.  Cause let's face: inappropriate questions can come from anywhere/anyone.

Edited November 14, 2018 by Jane_Doe

[MustardSeed]

They did, Jane. I don’t get it, really, what’s going on between you and me. 

Edited November 14, 2018 by MustardSeed
Changed I to me

[Calm]

45 minutes ago, blueglass said:

I didn't realize This American Life had so many subscribers/listeners (2M/week).  Anyone have a lead on this reference to these sexual interview questions implemented in 1975?  Bishop's interview manual?  Elna says it was the blueprint of a new more thorough interview process which she learned from an LDS historian (Greg Prince?)  they give a credit to him at the end as a contributor.

 

75 would explain why I don't remember any, as that would have been my last year....I remember interviews for BYU.  I have always assumed they were too blah to remember.

[Jane_Doe]

6 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

They did, Jane. I don’t get it, really, what’s going on between you and me. 

Sorry if I'm being a bit... out of step here.  I've encountered a LOT of folks in these type of conversations are very focused on getting authority figure X to have restrictions/training/checks/etc, but completely skip over the part where a person has the right to say "that's not appropriate" and SHOULD say that when it's warranted.   And for me, that's also a critical part of education and should be a major part of these conversations.  

[let’s roll]

26 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I don’t think anyone, even the narrator of the podcast said or even thinks that every or even most bishops are out of line. 

I think most aren’t.  But I think there are enough questionable situations that there needs to be much better training and regulation. 

I do have at least three girlfriends who in the last 5 years have shared major line crossings in temple recommend questions, sexually prying questions. (Are those your real breasts?  Do silky garments turn you on? This type of nonsense.) Those are just the ones I know about. So it stands that reason that it’s happened to others.  Indeed, not everyone.  But enough to warrant this conversation. 

 

Any woman asked a question of that ilk would not just be justified, but would be doing a great service to all members of the Church by immediately standing up, telling the Bishop, “we’re done here” and immediately reporting the incident to the Stake President.