- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Quote:
“I think the church could do a better job of training in areas such as this.”
I agree, but I also think individual leaders need to do a better job of listening, reading, and humbly accepting in areas such as this. It’s amazing the difference between those who do and those who don’t.
Sometimes it just sucks to be human and have to deal with other humans.
mormonheretic wrote: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.
I served my mission in Russia and virtually every women that was baptized had had an abortion. In fact, I was rather surprised when I ran into one who hadn’t. Such was the Russian life. They were always interviewed by the Mission President but I never saw one get denied baptism because of it.Old-Timer wrote:I agree, but I also think individual leaders need to do a better job of listening, reading, and humbly accepting in areas such as this. It’s amazing the difference between those who do and those who don’t.
Sometimes it just sucks to be human and have to deal with other humans.
Truer words have never been spoken. Maybe the listening, reading, accepting part is what the training should be about instead of leaving it up to the local leader to just figure it out in time, hopefully, God-willing, etc.
Old-Timer wrote:I agree totally with Hawk and Valoel.
mr_musicman, you said:
“I will then inform the BP that should he ask anything else, I will pursue legal action/criminal actions against him as my sons legal guardian.”
Do you want my honest, blunt assessment of that statement? If not, don’t read further. I mean it; I am going to be very blunt.
My gut reaction is that such an approach is about as wrong as it can possibly be. 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.
Please understand, I agree TOTALLY that any discussion of masturbation or specific sexual activity shoud be out of bounds in such an interview, but your proposed action, imho, is just as bad as the questioning to which you object. That simply is not the way to go about it if you actually want a good resolution.
I don’t mean to offend you, but I really can’t ignore what I think is an inherently destructive plan. If your BIshop is a wonderfully humble and understanding man, it might beno big deal; if he isn’t (even if he is a good, sincere man), there’s a tremendous chance for heartache and unnecessary pain – and it won’t be primarily his fault if you are the aggressor.
No you are right, humility and meekness are two things that I really do need to work on. I am probably still suffering the effects of my own humility and meekness being used forcefully against me by my supposed holy and inspired church leaders. I would hope that when the time comes, my BP and I could have a heartfelt and respectful conversation. While I do believe in humility and meekness when taking personal counsel, I also think that it is appropriate to vehemently defend my children against those that would abuse their power as a priesthood leader. Hopefully, it would never come to making any kind of legal threat. However, I’m not against throwing specific leader to the wolves of the public/media opinion for actions that are damaging children.
mormonheretic wrote:Bruce, Do you masturbate? Do you engage in oral sex?
These are simple questions–yes or no, right?
The problem doesn’t come with these questions, the problem comes when you answer yes to these questions. Rather than referring them to a counselor or parent, they then ask to know the specific details. Seriously, like who, where, when, what, how many times, righ or left hand. A general question that asks, “Are you morally clean as you understand it?” is an appropriate question. If the say, no, then the BP should not be the one to deal with the specifics.
hawkgrrrl wrote: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
Unfortunately, part of the reason I ended up here was how horrible an experience it was to have to give details of things I had done many years before. Things that I had resolved in my life, I still see no point in it. I agree with hawkgrrrl here. The specifics should not be required. But they are required, should you confess to something, the specific details are not just between you and your BP but anyone else that get’s involved in the repentance process. Thankfully, teenagers usually only have to deal with the BP. My own experience was harrowing. I had to write it, say it and explain it all the way to TSM himself, yes the details. It is humiliating and there was no purpose. That is why I have such strong feelings about this. I simply want to protect my children from predatory leaders. Sorry, I guess I’m a little off topic here. If you couldn’t tell, this is my main beef with the church at the moment. But, I’m trying to overlook and keep going.
I dont like this idea of 12year olds being asked if they masturbate at all – I think it is completely inappropriate and exposing the child to it before it is needed. I remember being 14/15 and not knowing what masturbation was. I understand needing to know if they are worthy to hold the priesthood – but surely “are you morally clean” would cover that? If the child knows what masturbation is, then they would just answer yes or no depending on the answer…as if they know what masturbation is, they would know it was connected with being morally clean. If the child doesnt know, then it doesnt matter…as they dont know…and therefore you are not exposing the child to information he really doesnt need to know at a young age.
What happened to keeping children’s innocence?
NotSure2008 wrote:What happened to keeping children’s innocence?
I’d say… the Internet and TV. Sure we can still block, filter, monitor and protect our children in the walls of our home, but most kids in general now a days are exposed to way more than when we were young. My kids get told lots of things by kids at school, and when they hear stuff they don’t know, it is so easy to google it.
I am trying to have these conversations early with the kids so they get it from me, rather than others…including the bishop.
Mayve its just a sign of the times then….children needing to know these things earlier….makes sense actually, as I didnt find out directly from my parents first hand..I had to go and ask once I heard the term elsewhere..and even at 14/15 my Mum wasnt happy answering the question, or certainly felt uncomfortable. Just as a side note, I noticed some of you talking about the question of asking women if they have ever had an abortion? I never got asked that question? (or dont remember being asked it anyhow!) or have they changed it since?
NotSure2008 wrote:Just as a side note, I noticed some of you talking about the question of asking women if they have ever had an abortion? I never got asked that question? (or dont remember being asked it anyhow!) or have they changed it since?
I never asked that question once, nor was instructed to. Of course, I was only counselor in bishopric and high councilor, never a bishop or anything like that.
I always read the questions as they were in the book. I remember reading that if a woman had an abortion, it did need to be addressed with the bishop and stake president, but I figured the question about “Any prior actions not resolved with priesthood authorities” type question covered that. Whenever people started delving deep into details, I always ended the interview and scheduled time for the bishop to talk with them about it (total cop out for me, but that was the way I was told to do it).
Heber13 wrote:NotSure2008 wrote:Just as a side note, I noticed some of you talking about the question of asking women if they have ever had an abortion? I never got asked that question? (or dont remember being asked it anyhow!) or have they changed it since?
I never asked that question once, nor was instructed to. Of course, I was only counselor in bishopric and high councilor, never a bishop or anything like that.
I always read the questions as they were in the book. I remember reading that if a woman had an abortion, it did need to be addressed with the bishop and stake president, but I figured the question about “Any prior actions not resolved with priesthood authorities” type question covered that. Whenever people started delving deep into details, I always ended the interview and scheduled time for the bishop to talk with them about it (total cop out for me, but that was the way I was told to do it).
It is one of the Baptismal Interview questions for adult converts. The instructions are that a person that has had one needs the mission president’s clearance before being baptized. Because the ward is only involved in Child of Record baptisms at age 8, you probably would never have had to deal with it. Convert baptisms are under the direction of the mission until the person is confirmed a member of the church and joins the ward. It is not part of any other standard interview questions.
mr_musicman wrote:Heber13 wrote:NotSure2008 wrote:Just as a side note, I noticed some of you talking about the question of asking women if they have ever had an abortion? I never got asked that question? (or dont remember being asked it anyhow!) or have they changed it since?
I never asked that question once, nor was instructed to. Of course, I was only counselor in bishopric and high councilor, never a bishop or anything like that.
I always read the questions as they were in the book. I remember reading that if a woman had an abortion, it did need to be addressed with the bishop and stake president, but I figured the question about “Any prior actions not resolved with priesthood authorities” type question covered that. Whenever people started delving deep into details, I always ended the interview and scheduled time for the bishop to talk with them about it (total cop out for me, but that was the way I was told to do it).
It is one of the Baptismal Interview questions for adult converts. The instructions are that a person that has had one needs the mission president’s clearance before being baptized. Because the ward is only involved in Child of Record baptisms at age 8, you probably would never have had to deal with it. Convert baptisms are under the direction of the mission until the person is confirmed a member of the church and joins the ward. It is not part of any other standard interview questions.
They must have forgotten it with me then..I was 21 when I joined the Church. That or my memory is awful..which at 23 is not a good sign!
😯 The question about abortion is only in the baptism interview question, and it essentially is simply to make sure people who have been taught that an elective abortion is no big deal realize that it is taken seriously in the Church. That’s the basic explanation I’ve heard in every calling I’ve ever had in the last 25 years related to missionary work – and I personally have never heard of someone being denied baptism for having had an abortion. That should not happen and certainly is not the intent of the question – which I actually think is justified given how some people view it so casually. Honestly, I don’t know how I will deal with this in three years when my oldest boy gets to this point. I may insist that I sit in on the interview as I’ve heard some other have done, but I know that will brand me as someone that is difficult. I don’t really want my family to be treated differently just because I think the Bishop might be inappropriate. My wife also thinks masturbation is some horrible sin. I don’t think it is that big of a problem. Perhaps the best approach is to just talk to the kid before he goes into the interview just like you did. I can imagine that your wife let him know how horrible masturbation is and that he should never do it or he would have to go to the bishop and repent. My wife will do the same I’m sure. However, I plan on having a private talk with my son to explain it is not evil but natural. That if he does do it to not let it become an obsession and to keep it private. I’ll then inform him that he does not have to answer any questions about masturbation specifically and to consider himself morally clean if that is all he is doing. Hopefully this will help him to avoid the humiliating process of having to go to an older man (who most likely masturbated himself) and confess something that is so personal and irrelevant.
There seems to be a spectrum of perspectives about masturbation. I have some difficulties with the subject. In the first place, masturbation is a jargonistic term that is not readily meaningful to a young person. I am not sure to this day as a 42-year-old that I believe there is clear communication happening when people discuss it. That may be because there is an element of euphemism involved. Here is a mixed spectrum of possibilities:
Are any of these accurate? Helpful? Why use an obfuscating word?
Touching, caressing, pressing your own body in a way that is pleasurable
- Touching, caressing, pressing the private parts of your own body in a way that is pleasurable
- Behaving/pursuing/thinking sexually alone
- Behaving/pursuing/thinking sexually alone in a way that leads to a sexual climax
- Having an orgasm while you are asleep
- Manipulating your genitals to cause a sexual climax
In the second place, I have some difficulty because I see only a black and white discussion. I believe that my personal capacity to receive and give real Love is affected positively or negatively by my sexual behavior and the conditions under which it is avoided or enacted. At the same time, I recognize our capacity to feel loved can be hindered when others tell us we are sinful or bad. It’s unfortunate that greater wisdom can’t prevail, with teachers and parents saying things like, “Sexuality is a very powerful force in your body. It has the potential to dominate your life. The greatest power you can have is the power to love God and your neighbor more than yourself. I love you. Heaven loves you. We want you to have all power. You’ll do fine.”
In the third place, my personal history doesn’t validate the statements of many that masturbation is natural or necessary or healthy. I feel that part of the road to any riches unsearchable I have found has led through the valley of abstinence, fasting, and an upward gaze. Or maybe I’m just crazy.
Tom
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.