- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
See the article below. I am not sure I’ve ever seen a demonstration against church policy that contained a lot of faithful members. This really does have us in the midst of a “New Era”.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/30/mormon-youth-interviews-with-bishops-under-scrutiny.html Has the organizer of this or other demonstrations been threatened with discipline? Someone, somewhere said that, but I don’t want to start a rumor.
Our church has never been very receptive to mass agitation on matters of policy. It seems that times are ‘a changin’.
And if the past is an indication of the future, there is a good chance this will be handled in a way that the church does not appear to be buckling to public pressure.
.
SilentDawning wrote:
Has the organizer of this or other demonstrations been threatened with discipline? Someone, somewhere said that, but I don’t want to start a rumor.
Not after the demonstration so far, but Sam Young was all but threatened in January:
Quote:
He then flipped to the definition of apostasy in Handbook 1:“Apostasy refers to members who repeatedly act in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the Church or its leaders.”
SP: Sam, are you an apostate?
ME: No. I’m not speaking out against the Church of its leaders. I’m speaking out against a policy.
SP: You are an apostate.
He ended up reading the definition of apostasy a few more times. It quickly became obvious that there was no debating this issue. I had been officially declared apostate by the official Church representative.
SP: You can’t continue speaking in public about this. We will have to protect the good name of the church.
From other things he’s written, I get the impression that he’s willing to be a martyr and is waiting for the other shoe to drop.
SilentDawning wrote:
And if the past is an indication of the future, there is a good chance this will be handled in a way that the church does not appear to be buckling to public pressure.
I wonder how that would work. Like the priesthood and temple ban, by doing it 10 years after the main agitation is over with? Changing the policies surrounding worthiness interviews so drastically that they don’t resemble the requested changes at all? Functionally equivalent novel changes that are effectively some kind of compromise but don’t look like it?
What the Q15 need is a way to save face while still doing the right thing.
Actually I can see a major problem with this, despite my sympathies. What if there is sexual abuse within the family and the child won’t talk about it with the culprit there? SamBee wrote:
Actually I can see a major problem with this, despite my sympathies. What if there is sexual abuse within the family and the child won’t talk about it with the culprit there?
I agree that’s a concern. It also might be a concern if the youth really does have something to confess and seek the bishop’s help but doesn’t want Mommy and Daddy to know (although speaking to the bishop alone is no guarantee of confidentiality). Off the top of my head I think there are a couple ways around it, but both depend on how controlling the parents are (no proof of this, but I bet abusive parents tend to be on the more controlling side). 1) The second adult does not necessarily have to be a parent. It could be a YM/YW leader, bishop’s counselor, or another trusted adult. 2) It is possible, say on a youth night or during SS, for the youth to meet with the bishop without the parents’ knowledge if the youth really does have something he or she needs to say. Of course there could be hell to pay should the parents find out, and if it’s a case of abuse they are going to find out.
So, yeah, some kids are going to be between a rock and a hard place. Nevertheless, I am supportive of the new policy because the potential good outweighs the potential bad. The real message here, and I think that’s part of the protestors’ desire, is that bishops just stop asking or talking about sex with youth. I think where I love (at least in my ward) we’re already good with this – our bishop does stop at “Do you live the law of chastity?” Even for mission interviews, all three of my sons (the last two had a different bishop and stake president) were not asked about masturbation. However, one of them had an initial interview in his BYU ward and was asked much more than that in the interview there (upon which he stopped the process and restarted at home).
Sam does address this and it is basically what DJ says. This is a bit of a sticky problem as abuse is very often within the family (not just parents). But Sam is pushing for not going into sexual questions for youth. My bishop only a few years ago came down hard on one of my kids because he was masturbating. I told my kid where I stand after he had talked with the bishop and I thought it wasn’t a big deal. I do think the cases of the bishop committing sexual assault in interviews is very rare. But shaming young girls and boys with heavy guilt over what is natural and common causes more issues.
I have been in a bishopric and heard bishops talk among themselves and say that they all ask, “when is the last time you masturbated” at every annual interview. I read the church handbook of instructions in 2010 and the ONLY place it says “masturbation” is under a section that said, “masturbation is not ground to call a church court”.
I did a search on Sam’s blog and he had a kind of scary rendition of his interview with his SP. Apparently his SP brushed aside all the concerns and then quoted the church’s definition of apostasy, The message was that Sam was apostate. Because Apostates are people who openly question church policy. One reason I have so little to say to SP’s or even BP’s for that matter. I have a feeling Sam is cruisin’ for a bruisin’….which is sad.
If I had to have my parents in with any bishop interview when I was a teen, I would have never, ever come clean about my very “active” lifestyle. I would have waited until I was an adult before seeking help, and who knows where I would be now. 
My situation went all the way up to the stake presidency for another disciplinary council.
The SP told me to tell my dad about my situation. I refused (I had my reasons) and the SP told me that I faced excommunication if I did not tell my father.
😯 I then had to choose…tell my dad…or be excommunicated.
I didn’t understand the relationship between me telling my father about where I was with church standing (he wasn’t in any leadership position) and my membership in the church. I still don’t.
I opted to tell my dad.
But I’m telling you, to this day, I wonder what kind of trouble that SP will be in when his time comes.
:think: So, this policy – good and not good.
Maybe it could be tweaked so that if a child/teen initiates the interview, the parents don’t have to be present?
QA, parent presence is not a requirement, it’s an option. Either the kid or the parent can make the request. Now if you’re in the situation where the parent is insisting, which seems more likely IMO, then the situation you mention could still happen. And let’s not forget this is an option for adult women as well – again, what of the woman’s husband is a controlling abuser? He’s going to be there and the woman will still be stuck. Could an electronic meeting be an option? Webex? Chat? hard to know who is on the other end of the line, and if it’s recorded, but technology is there…. SilentDawning wrote:
Could an electronic meeting be an option? Webex? Chat? hard to know who is on the other end of the line, and if it’s recorded, but technology is there….
The church appears to be very squeamish about that technology. For my son’s baptism I had enquired if family that could not be present could Skype to witness it. I was told no. At a later baptism I attended. Some senior missionary grandparents were allowed to “Skype in” but the device was turned away from the ordinance – allowing audio witnessing only.
Roy wrote:
SilentDawning wrote:
Could an electronic meeting be an option? Webex? Chat? hard to know who is on the other end of the line, and if it’s recorded, but technology is there….
The church appears to be very squeamish about that technology. For my son’s baptism I had enquired if family that could not be present could Skype to witness it. I was told no. At a later baptism I attended. Some senior missionary grandparents were allowed to “Skype in” but the device was turned away from the ordinance – allowing audio witnessing only.
I generally find the less you expect and ask of the church the better. In large, bureaucratic organizations where there is a top-down culture, it’s also good not to ask for exceptions unless you have a high tolerance for frustration
We often ask too many questions.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.