- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
I would want my kids to come to me, if they had concerns about sex.
It’s great when parents have that kind of open communication, but not every parent does. (Mine didn’t.) If the bishop has a good relationship with the teen, the teen may actually be more comfortable talking about sex with the bishop than with the parents. In my case, I think the bishop did a great job talking about sex–much better than my parents. I will admit that these talks were not one-on-one, but rather in a group setting with other 16-18 year old priests, which I think was a less threatening way to do it.
I understand some of you probably didn’t have as good of relationship with your bishop as I had with mine, so you are probably more suspicious (and probably rightly so.) I think if the parent is concerned, then talking with the bishop and laying some ground rules is certainly appropriate. Threatening legal action is over-reacting a bit though, and merely moves the threat from the bishop to the parent, and could very well be unfounded. You don’t know if the bishop was even going to ask inappropriate questions, so threatening legal action is like swatting a fly with a hammer. I think that is not productive, and probably won’t kill the fly either.
We must be talking apples and oranges here…or it’s just my perception. The Bishop just asks a Yes or No question…end of story.
What’s all the hooplah?
Is there some record of bishops expounding on this and messing kids up for life that I’m not aware of? Please direct me to that source.
Bruce, Do you masturbate? Do you engage in oral sex? These are simple questions–yes or no, right?
Bruce in Montana wrote:Is there some record of bishops expounding on this and messing kids up for life that I’m not aware of? Please direct me to that source.
I’m sure others can give their experience. I don’t know of examples posted online but I’m sure if you checked out some post or ex-mo sites you would get alot.
My personal experience: As a teenager, when I was asked the yes/no question I said “no” and was then probed for many details: above the waist/below the waist, etc.etc.
My sister had a horrifying experience (prompted by my parents) before she was even a teenager and she is still in therapy dealing with the ramifications. (she’s now in her 30’s) I know she wasn’t just asked a yes/no question.
Sorry for the emotional response but this one is extremely personal. Sexual shaming has had devastating effects on myself and my siblings in adulthood. In fairness, it was much more parents than bishops (though Dad was the bishop through alot of it)
Bruce in Montana wrote:The Bishop just asks a Yes or No question…end of story.
I agree with Hawkgrrrl’s idea. I think when my son is getting ready for the interview in the next couple years, I’ll first ask the bishop exactly what questions he’ll ask my son, prior to the interview. There should be no reason the bishop is going to hide or lie about his approach so he can surprise my son.
Maybe something like this could happen:
Me: “So what questions do you plan to ask my son?”
Bishop: “The general questions to see if he is ready to receive the priesthood. Do you have a testimony? Do you know what the priesthood is? Are you worthy to receive the priesthood?”
Me: “Are you going to ask him specific questions on worthiness, or just in general let him answer if he feels he’s worthy?”
Bishop: “I need to, as a matter of policy, ask him if he looks at pornography on the internet and if he masturbates.”
Me: “Oooh. We haven’t talk to him at home about that yet. I don’t think he even knows what that is. Our oldest daughter is 16 and doesn’t know what that is. Kind of got made fun of at school last month because her friends laughed that she didn’t even know what it was. Do you really have to talk to him about that specifically?”
Bishop: “I need to know if he is worthy so I have to ask specific questions about it. I hope you understand, if we just ask vague questions, we get vague answers.”
Without going on and on in this made up conversation…I think basically if I can find out what the bishop’s interview will be like, I can prepare my son for it and cover the issues that need to be covered. As his dad, I think its my responsibility to prepare him for that.
I would think a straight forward discussion with the bishop of what it will cover is totally appropriate.
swimordie wrote:Old-Timer wrote:It is wrong from a legal standpoint (since you would have no legal standing whatsoever); it is wrong from an interpersonal standpoint, since it is aggressively confrontational and threatening; it is wrong from a “godly” standpoint, since it is the opposite of humble and meek.
Also, why wouldn’t you have a legal option? Most states have unbelievably strict laws about speaking to/being with a minor in private (my DW is a 2nd grade teacher and can’t initiate a hug with her students)
I agree with Ray that this is not the best option to pursue on a personal level (and I personally wouldn’t do it), but I don’t understand your view, Ray, of there being no legal standing. Just because there isn’t a law specifically stating that a religious clergy can’t speak with a youth alone, doesn’t mean there couldn’t be nearby laws that could challenge that behavior. But I confess I am not a lawyer. Besides that, if nothing else, it would bring awareness of the problem to the attention of the church. It really shouldn’t be going on anyway. Will it take a legal threat to curb this problem? How should we effect church-wide change if so many of us see it as a problem. I doubt that we’re the only ones.Quote:Bruce, Do you masturbate? Do you engage in oral sex?
These are simple questions–yes or no, right?
Yowza. MoHer, you do bring the point home. You buried the needle on my creep-o-meter there.
“Bruce, Do you masturbate? Do you engage in oral sex? These are simple questions–yes or no, right?”
I see your point. The difference is that you have not been put in a position to ascertain my worthiness for such things as baptism, priesthood callings, etc. A bishop has.
These ordinances and callings are contingent on worthiness. Sexual purity is one measure of that. How can a bishop find out if a person is worthy without asking?
A Bishop should NEVER ask something specific of a minor unless he has permission from the parent(s) or guardian(s) to do so. It is fine to ask the question EXACTLY as it is worded in the Temple Recommend interview. “Do you obey the Law of Chastity” essentially covers it perfectly. I agree totally that some parents do a lousy job of talking about sex with their kids, but that responsibility should not be the BIshop’s.
Just for the record, I am most concerned about the way the conversation should occur. I believe fully it should occur in many cases – and, if demands are required to make sure certain questions are not asked, then demands can be made in friendly, non-threatening ways. Personally, I would say something like,
Quote:“Bishop, I just want you to know that I want to be the one who talks with my children about all sexual matters – about details of the Law of Chastity. I support you in your calling, but PLEASE only ask my child if they are obeying the Law of Chastity. PLEASE don’t ask ANY specific questions. That’s my responsibility as a parent, and I honor and respect that responsibility highly. I promise you, I will talk with them about it, so you don’t need to do so.”
If he objected or insisted, I would ask to be allowed to sit in on the interview and, at the appropriate time, talk with my child about any issues the Bishop felt needed to be asked while the BIshop stepped out of the room. I would ask him to tell me what those issues were prior to the beginning of the interview. I then would reiterate my request to ask only the general question once he returned to the room. How much I said to my child while the Bishop was gone would depend totally on the child – and, with my oldest, it probably would have been something like,
Quote:“R_______, Bishop ___________ wants us to talk about some specifics of sex – like porn and masturbation. We’ve talked about these before, and you can talk with me again at any point, so we’ve talked about it now. Let’s talk about other stuff for a few minutes, let him back in and have you answer his question when he asks it. OK?”
Thanks for the acknowledgment Bruce. I remind you that my stake pres asked me the masturbate question, and I found it inappropriate even at the age of 28. As I understand it, The Bishop’s Handbook specifically states that temple recommend interviews are not supposed to ask additional questions, including M*, drinking caffeinated drinks, oral sex, birth control, or other questions that some leaders felt were “worthiness” questions. I know the teen questions aren’t TR interviews, but I think the same standards should apply. It’s fine to ask if they’re living the Law of Chastity, but that’s as invasive as the questions should get, IMO. I like Ray’s approach. Ray, I’m totally stealing your idea! I think that is the perfect, reasonable solution. Honestly, if going by the handbook the offensive questions won’t be asked (I guess).
If you say “no” you don’t keep the law of chastity do you have to give details of who, what, when and where???
After reading through this thread and thinking about it …I agree that “do you live the Law of Chastity” should be good enough as long as the person understands what that is. When I was a young man I believe that is all that was asked.
Quote:If you say “no” you don’t keep the law of chastity do you have to give details of who, what, when and where???
Not if you bring pictures. (Just lightening the tension with a little humor!)
In reality, though, you shouldn’t have to give gory details, but you may be asked enough questions to help the bishop provide appropriate counsel. Stuff like:
– the ‘nature’ of your deeds (generally what was the sinful act–did you really go too far or are you just clueless about sex–people do confess when they didn’t do anything wrong, believe it or not)
– how recently
– if others were involved (not names–but under the premise that you wronged those persons in contributing to their sin as well and you may need to make an effort of restitution to them)
– whether this is a repeat of something you confessed previously
– how frequently the deeds occurred
I believe you can remain somewhat clinical and minimalist in your descriptions (“professional” doesn’t quite seem like the right word). As I understand it, the bishop’s role is to help you determine when you have been forgiven because some people are no longer able to tell either through extreme guilt (in which case the bishop can ease a person’s burden) or through being “past feeling” (in which case the bishop can communicate the severity and suggest a plan of action to restore one’s conscience and subsequently, one’s feelings of worthiness).
Quote:As I understand it, The Bishop’s Handbook specifically states that temple recommend interviews are not supposed to ask additional questions, including M*, drinking caffeinated drinks, oral sex, birth control, or other questions that some leaders felt were “worthiness” questions.
This is true. My parents’ bishop (about 10 years ago) had a lot of personal opinions about drinking cola and having face cards in the home, and he added those questions to the interview. My mother told him, “You’re not allowed to ask me that,” and he admitted that he wasn’t, although he defended his feelings on the subject. My friend’s dad, who was a bishop at the time (with a beard–he’s a college prof), was meeting with the SP who asked him if he read his scriptures every day. He said, “You can’t ask me that. No I don’t. I read all 4 standard works in one day on the 31st of December.” Pure gold!
Thanks, Ray for your version. Very instructive, as were everyone’s comments (This forum is Awesome! 
The one thing that I think is lost in comparing TR interviews is that you are dealing with 11-12 year olds. They don’t have the life skills to handle this alone, and frankly, shouldn’t have to in the first place, imho. Yes, 12 year olds can sin, but do they have any understanding of the complexity of that sin and its consequences. It’s so subjective and dangerous, even trained professionals are scared of this prospect. What of the 28 year old Mormon bishop with no post-secondary education and a black and white view of the world.
I know that’s an extreme example, but I use it to illustrate the complexity and sensitivity of the issue.
Yes, swimordie, I agree with your insights. I do remember being in an awkward position on my mission. I was District Leader (or perhaps Zone Leader–I can’t remember), and had to ask the baptismal interview questions. The most uncomfortable question to women was, “Have you ever had an abortion?” I hated to ask, and would usually preface the question with “This isn’t an accusation, so please don’t feel offended in anyway, but this is a standard question I have to ask everyone….”
Imagine my surprise when a women said, “yes, I’ve had an abortion.” At the time I was freaking out, because I didn’t know what I was supposed to do next. All the guidance I had received was that she needed to be interviewed by the Mission President next. Nobody every told me what to do when someone said “yes” to that question. So, I decided to try to ask about the circumstances of the abortion, how long ago, how many, and I tried to be as sensitive to her as possible. She was really concerned that she wouldn’t be able to get baptized.
I called the president, and he asked me the same questions I asked her. Then, he asked me if I felt it was ok to baptize her. I said I felt it was ok. He agreed, and didn’t even bother to personally interview her. I was pretty surprised. She was relieved to be baptized a few days later.
So, I just want to point out that if it’s like my mission (and I believe it is), bishops don’t get much advice on how to handle sensitive topics like this. Some do a good job, some don’t (and some self-righteously think they can ask additional questions in spite of the fact that they know better.) I think the church could do a better job of training in areas such as this.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.