Leaderboard

Am I the only one who finds this story a bit over the top as it goes on? Seems someone's getting played and maybe not the bishop

Outsider pondering string... 1. What is appropriate in LDS interviews concering the LOC? How many follow-up questions would be appropriate for a spiritual counselor to get a full understanding of what needs to happen? 2. What is the status of the bishop as a counselor? For example, pastors are not licensed counselors or psychologists. We often will have one or more courses in short-term pastoral counseling. Bishops usually would not have even that. So, it is understood going in that they offer spiritual advise based upon the leading of the Holy Spirit, and upon their life experience. That's it. They should be held to the common standards of bishops, not to the professional standards of therapists or counselors or psychologists. 3. As disturbing as some of the questioning may have been, I doubt that a law enforcement investigation will go far. Spiritual leaders have some protection and privacy expectations during confessionals. Granted, this is not a Catholic rite. Nevertheless, it is an established practice in your church. 4. If the interview and temple activity are optional for this age group, and the daughter is angered by it and opposed to it, why press the issue? Attendance at church should be mandatory, but not spiritual work that assumes willingness and devotion. 5. Recording the interview and posting it was a horrific violation against the bishop--whether he was creepy or not. Yet, the daughter, according to the narrative, feels justified. The consequences should be enforced, even if they were not all necessarily what some would recommend. A decision was made. None of the restrictions were abusive. The girl is a teen. If she determines that it was worth then, for her, it was. 6. If there is a feeling among the parents that the bishop was out of line, then talk with him one more time. Then, in accordance with church protocol, report it up the line, and let the counsel of many shed light.

My radar went off when I read the OP. It's currently the "in" thing amongst certain groups to attack the practice of bishops' interviews - and therefore the church - via the internet.

I wanted to both allow you to answer and see how you would answer before I responded. I believe your line of thinking is critical to understanding men and women are different and fulfill different roles - not just in mortality but in eternity. I believe your observation of a particular phrase enlightens in part that difference. It is obvious that in creation, especially in the creation of human life - men and women fulfill different and necessary roles. By the nature of creation a woman gives herself (both physically and spiritually) to the creation of human life as she becomes pregnant with child. Without giving herself in such a manner children could not be created. But at the same time she should not be alone - thus there is also a role of husband and father that the man needs to take upon himself to take or received the woman unto himself to oversee and provide for her being a mother. The problem is that many see the woman giving herself as being subservient to the man that in taking her and her pregnancy unto himself she becomes less than him. It seems most obvious to me that a woman cannot give herself in selfishness. The problem is in understanding the man receiving or taking the woman and child unto himself. This act of receiving is often seen as selfishness in the role of men but the truth could not be farther from this understanding. Taking a woman in pregnancy is and ought to be understood as complementary to the unselfishness of the woman and makes the whole of unselfishness greater than the sum of it parts. But the role of men and women do not suddenly just start when the woman is pregnant but rather is part of the eternal nature of creation which is in the greatness of G-d. Thus it seems to me that priesthood and the man being ordained to priesthood is an element of the eternal order of G-d. The priesthood being the means by which manhood and woman hood is fulfilled. It seems clear to me, concerning righteous and unrighteous dominion that the priesthood is useless to the man that uses priesthood to have unrighteous dominion of women. Likewise the woman cannot fulfill her giving of herself outside of giving herself to a man that does not honor her and the priesthood through which he receives her. As I understand the priesthood - it is the divine order of G-d. What I am not sure is if in this life the priesthood is given unto man only as training and preparation for roles that will be such the same or different in eternity. I am inclined to believe that when we understand the eternal nature of marriage and the eternal roles of giving and receiving as a divine order or G-d - we will understand the priesthood and why men and women have different eternal roles.

In our area (and more and more others, I'm finding on oarenting forums over the last 10 years)... Most families with a stay at home parent are NOT staying home as a luxury. They're staying home because they have to. Because childcare costs more than what they would make. It's $1600 per month per child for McChildcare in our area. "Better" childcare costs $2,000+ per month per child. Even 1 kid means blue collar workers can't afford to work. But 2 or 3? The only people who can afford that are the 6 figure professionals. Q

When I was homeless I lived on 99cent whoppers. (Dates me. When was the last time they had that special on?) It was the healthiest thing I could get: High calorie, long burning fat, protein, glucose for my brain (bun = uber processed awesomeness), and even vegetables. Plus salt. I may have been on a losing streak, but I wasn't a fool. When suddenly homeless... I moved to Florida. Weather that won't kill you to sleep out in, bathing & laundry in the Gulf, and the ERs were free for medical treatment. I'm in Chicago, Montreal, Boston... Looking at the homeless population and shudder. Head SOUTH darnit. South! But it does mean needing to keep your salt levels up. Whenever I'm seriously broke (or trying to save money) I go back to that. Sadly, while $1 a day could feed me back when (admit, I usually only ate every couple days)... I have to spend $14 a week on food these days. McDonalds hamburgers just don't stack up to the Whopper ... But they're still a buck. Q

Spending all day outside exploring without adult supervision. We were sent out to play and we came home for lunch and dinner. We had fun. We never thought of danger. I feel so bad for kids now. It's all structured activities or video games. Spontaneous play and exploration seem to be a thing of the past.

When we say Bishops dont receive training is not totally accurate. I cant speak for the whole Church but, it comes down to the Stake Presidents and the training they give to the Bishops. We were always encouraged to make sure door not locked and to leave it partially open and to have someone sitting outside the door. That could be a councilor or parent or even a youth leader. As for interviewing Youth I personally always used a different set of questions depending on their age. I am not crazy about having a Parent in the room with me while interviewing their son or daughter for two reasons. The first being I would be concerned with getting the young man or woman to open up and feel comfortable and the other reason is....I dont want Mom or Dad answering the questions for their son or daughter or trying to dominate the conversation. I have had some very good conversations with the youth when I interviewed them. There were times they told me things and would then ask.....are you going to tell my Parents?? I would reply No i am not....but I think you should. Had a few times where the youth asked if I could get their Parents and bring them into the room. Bishops are human and we make mistakes....these callings are hard enough as it is. You get more crap from members sometimes than what you got going door to door as a Missionary. If you have never been a Bishop you have no idea what its like. The first time I was called I dont think I did a great job at my calling being new and learning what I was suppose to do. I never asked to be called either time, but I am thankfull I was called a second time and I feel like I did a better job the second time around. Total combined years of serving both times was 11 years.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/quiz/2013/jun/05/check-your-privilege-quiz I scored 100, and it was suggested I pay someone to check my privilege for me. Background: A conservative student, who was Jewish, was debating about welfare benefits, during a class at Princeton University. His opponent told him to check his privilege. He responded in an editorial that he was tired of having presidential drones targeting him because he was a white male. Just what privilege was he to apologize for? Was it the handful of kin who were killed during the Holocuast? Was it his grandparents who arrived in this land as penniless immigrants? . . . http://sfcmac.wordpress.com/2014/05/03/princeton-student-responds-to-check-your-privilege/ He stirred quite a debate. Of course, non-Princetonians found it amusing that Ivy Leaguers were debating who was and was not privileged. :-) Anyway...let us know how privileged you turned out to be.

I might contend (thought I'd have to think a bit more about it) that as men are "priests" in this life but anointed to become "priests" of a different nature in the hereafter, so women are priestesses to their husband in this life in like manner as they will be hereafter priestesses of a different nature to their husbands. Hmm....

I don't see dominion in the same way as you are describing presiding. Jesus did the Father's will. Not the other way around. It's as simple as that. All things submit to the Father. Ownership is another way to look at dominion. God owns all His creations. We will not own all of His creations. We will own our creations. Per the scripture you use, I really think "all" has to be understood generally and not specifically. God, our Father, will still continue to create worlds and children without end. These will be under His dominion, but not ours. He will own them. We will not. Reasonably speaking, they could be under our dominion, if there was need, but as that need will not exist, they will not. And in a way we will share in the glory of those -- I agree with you there -- but...well...it's a bit beyond us to really understand, you know what I mean? It's interesting though, isn't it?

Okay...here's my take on it. The doctrinal standard is that the priesthood does per the example set by Jesus: "...he took of the bread and brake and blessed it; and he gave unto the disciples and commanded that they should eat." (3rd Nephi 18:3, emphasis mine). I do not think that, "distributied to each individually" is inherent in the word "gave". But rather, He handed it to them generally, and then they distributed among themselves. Thus it is with our current practice. It would be doctrinally sound for a single priesthood holder (at least a Priest) to break and bless the bread and then to hand it to a congregation member, whereupon it was passed through the entire congregation and then handed back to that priesthood holder. For convenience, those passing the sacrament move it from row to row, however. On the other hand, it would be doctrinally unsound to have the priesthood holder break and bless the bread and then have just any old non-priesthood congregation member walk up and grab it without it being generally "given" it by the priesthood holder first. Reasonably speaking, therefore, it could be doctrinally sound for the priesthood to "give" the sacrament to a sister (or sisters) who then distributed it throughout the congregation. But this would make little sense for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that the practice of how the sacrament is distributed is partially doctrinal, but also partially policy as related to priesthood duties and training.

This is an interesting question and brings up some interesting thoughts. From a certain perspective...not. They can become like our Heavenly Mother. From another perspective, yes, we can all become like Heavenly Father. But this is one specific way in which there has to be a literal difference and women will not become just the same as our Father. Gender is eternal. The Father is male. Women will never be male. So women will never be exactly like Heavenly Father. Yes. And no. I will never have dominion over Jesus, for example. God the Father does. We will never have the same dominion as the Father, but we will share in His full Glory. So "all" is an interesting idea in this regard.

As a sister in the Church, I think the other misconception created by this issue is that there is some limitation to one's progress by that separation of roles. In other words, can women really become like our Heavenly Father or not? Can women have all that the Father has like it is promised to anyone entering the Celestial Kingdom? (key word being all) I think the answer to that is that a role doesn't necessarily change the quantity of glory available. And, I think the way around that is to understand that in the Celestial Kingdom everyone is part of the "one" body. 1 Corinthians 12; "18 But now hath God set the members every one of them in the body, as it hath pleased him. 19 And if they were all one member, where were the body? 20 But now are they many members, yet but one body. 21 And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you. 22 Nay, much more those members of the body, which seem to be more feeble, are necessary: 23 And those members of the body, which we think to be less honourable, upon these we bestow more abundant honour; and our uncomely parts have more abundant comeliness. 24 For our comely parts have no need: but God hath tempered the body together, having given more abundant honour to that part which lacked: 25 That there should be no schism in the body; but that the members should have the same care one for another." I don't think there is more honour in one role than another when in the Celestial Kingdom as it is shared as one body without schism. I think one would see herself as the whole while in the Celestial Kingdom and not as an individual, in other words. In this life, we tend to separate the two, which I believe is what you are saying as well.

As much as I might hope that this story is fake. I've lived with a teenager who was determined to destroy our family and any other adult who got in the way of what he wanted. The story is entirely plausible to me.

For confessing sins, the Gospel Principles chapter on repentance spells it out like this:

Typically, you see the bishop to confess "major" sins. All sins are wrong, but ones that involve the Law of Chastity would require you to see the bishop. I would venture to say that if you are breaking a covenant you have made and need help to get back on the right path, then see the bishop. Someone who accidently drank coffee and immediately repented/learned a lesson wouldn't necessarily need to see the bishop about it. Someone who picked up the coffee habit and has been drinking it for a while and now wants to repent/change course, may need to see the bishop for help to get back on the path. You can also see the bishop for just guidance. He is there to help you--not judge you. Even in a situation where you are confessing, he is there to help, not judge. He can help you to see where you may have veered from the path and gently encourage you to change course or begin habits to help you along your path. Don't be afraid of the bishop. Even the most curmodgeonly of men when they are bishops have an overwhelming love and compassion for the people with whom they work.

Bwaaahahahaha! My ex used to make an 8,000 calorie shake for weightlifting. It made my stomach lurch... But here's some/most of the ingredients: Ice cream Peanut butter Whey Black strap molasses Ensure Avocado Macadamia nuts Chocolate or Strawberry Syrup Frozen fruit He'd drink it while eating tuna out of the can. I dared him once to just add the tuna to the blender. Bad choice. He bought it was a brilliant idea, and I spent the next 5 years scrubbing out a fishy blender. Gag. Q

I rolled at that one. I think I know 3 people who would make that statement in all seriousness. I got a 75 - "Unbelievably privileged; check it hourly." I was a bit less than serious with some of the answers, but then so were the questions. Still, I admit to a fair amount of privilege. Private school, a sister who was a debutant, college in Europe, all that kinda thing. Until I went to college, I thought all white people were rich. I was shockec to see a whilte janitor in the dorm, but that's probably because I grew up in DC, where, in our crowd, the white people we knew did very well. The thing is, I remember seeing job ads for 'colored' and 'white' as well as segregated housing. When I was a kid, it didn't matter how much money we had, you couldn't try on clothes in a lot of the DC department stores. We ate in the car at the drive in, not because we wanted to, but because we couldn't eat inside. So, if the laws changed and my parents were able to get a bit of privilige for themselves and their progeny, do you think I'm going to feel guilty about it? Am I going to feel bad because I've been able to give my son even more opportunities? No way. Like the Jewish student in the article, a lot of people 'paid' a high price for me to be where I am. I'm not going to insult them by minimizing their contribution. dhalia - whose life is full of first world problems - and darned happy about it.

I don't know the full meaning. But I think it is significant to put it in terms of "...priestess to her husband", whereas the husband is not referred to in terms of "priest to his wife". If I was going to throw a guess, I'd put it something along the lines of this: Men become priests through ordination to the priesthood. Women become priestesses by marrying their husbands. There is no implication therein as to the power and authority the woman has,- that simply is what it is -- but there is, perhaps, a strong implication that ordination is not, and will not be, the means women become priestesses. Realistically, I also think that the usage of the term priest and priestess in the temple is much more universal than the way we use the term priest in the mortal order of the priesthood. Anyone who reaches the highest kingdom permanently joins the Celestial order and becomes a part of the "priesthood" (meaning an organization of priests and priestesses) of God, with all the attending power, glory, and dominion. Whereas on this earth we are only given authority to act for God, rather than actually holding any power ourselves. The ultimate requirement (as far as ordinances go) for achieving this is marriage, which responsibility is equal to men and women. Without marriage, neither qualify. But men have the additional requirement of being ordained to the priesthood in life to qualify, whereas women join the order when they marry.

So my parents really converted themselves. I tried discussing religion with them, but they never wanted to talk about it. I just made sure they knew my standards when it came to our family and they understood that. Then one day they called and said they were going to start going to our church in another city(where they live) and began discussions with the missionaries. It has been a blessing!

So, who should check their privilege? The disadvantaged student who got a full-ride scholarship, despite signficantly lower grades and test scores, or the one with a A+ GPA, who golfs at 5 below par, is an all-state short stop on his school's baseball team, plays first chair violin for the community ochestra, started his own company, started a non-profit for inner city grade school kids, and who has authored four Newberry Award books, but who barely got in because he checked "the box?"

I think one luxury for me would be the ability to go from at least one payday to another without having to count pennies to makes sure I have enough money to the next payday. That would be a luxury for me.

It's funny how different people's experiences are. I absolutely agree with the second -- SUCH a luxury!! Though at this stage of life for me, I think I'd prefer the luxury of being able to hire a professional organizer to help me get my entire house in order, because then it would be much easier to clean. The first, though...for me, luxury is eating out once a month. I definitely agree. I stay home with my kids, but it's not just because I can. My husband works and earns enough to support our family, but barely. With debt we are paying off, and exorbitant local taxes, we're barely living paycheck to paycheck. (I guess that's not entirely accurate...we're tucking away for a family vacation, but we have nothing leftover for small luxuries -- "good" ice cream, or going out to dinner, or a new skirt, just because, etc.) In some ways, being a stay at home parent doesn't feel like a luxury. It's stressful, financially. But if I were to go to work, we wouldn't be any better off in that department, because we'd have to pay for childcare.

This was posted by LDS Missionaries on facebook and I thought it was relevant. I think to answer your question Bini, the only luxury we really have is our big screen TV and Internet. If they were taken away, I think the kids might be bummed, but we would probably find more productive things to do. This year we finally blocked our son from playing the Xbox and only allow it on the weekend. It hasn't been as effective as I would have hoped. He started spending his time on youtube watching videos of games being played. So we blocked that. Now he just waits around for the weekend to arrive. I take him running with me now which is one good thing and we have also started him on Piano lessons. I think after this summer we might start taking Brazilian Jiu Jitsu together. Spending more time with my youngest is a luxury in and of itself. I think people don't realize that now days being a stay at home mother or father is a luxury in many respects. My future luxury and dream would be to live on the beach and have a place large enough to entertain guests. We also want a small farm.

ROFL.... I think it's a flatline curve: 55 out of a possible 150 Unbelievably privileged; check it hourly. Hmmm... That or I'm more privileged than you. Nyah Nyah boo boo. Q ETA... I do love though, as the resident white-chick in a lot of situations when people tell me that I don't know what it's like to be a minority. While I spent a few years in the States as a child, most of my life has been spent overseas. Asia, Middle East, Near East. Hunny. Not only do I know "what it's like", I grew up in places where I wasn't even allowed to ride on public transportation, shop in many stores/cafés/etc... And of many of those that did allow me/my race into... There was a seperate entrance, limited selection, etc. BUT WAIT... In many places pipe bombs, beatings, lynchings, etc. still happened regularly and THAT is why you don't go out on your own / learn to run fast. So your Granny and I might have a nosh & chat, but you and I are from different planets as far as "have dealt with racism in my life".

Roy Orbison

I take my daughters to the library regularly!

110. Sickeningly priviledged. I just picked the answers that made me laugh the most.

My children will never know the joy of climbing freely around the car, over seat, under sister/brother, whilst mom and dad cruise it down the freeway joyously seat-belt free. Okay...cynicism a bit there. I do think the car-seat thing has gone a bit far though now-a-days. I do support car-seats and seatbelts, however. :)

I hope the situation IS fake. If it isn't there is a family and a ward with major issues. Unfortunately there are people who like to play off of perceived "peculiarities" of the LDS and try to cause trouble. It is terrible because it gets in the way of honest communication and learning. I have grown from animosity to love towards Mormons in my months here. Not that I'd ever convert- I just have a greater understanding and appreciation for them as individuals and I can't wait for my hubby to find a job in Utah.

Shepard: I'm sorry to say that you've not handled this situation productively at all--even if this girl is just a scheming manipulator (and heaven help you all if she's actually right and the bishop really is a pedophile). Family therapy, my friend. ASAP.

Yet we don't know if the OP is not legit so let's assume that it is and move on.

Of course, there's no proof OP is a troll, but I think we're being taken on a ride :) Like I said, had that feeling from the get-go but felt strongly enough to respond concerning bishops interviewing underage kids on certain sensitive issues.

This gives me serious pause. The fact that an obviously rebellious and instigating teenage girl had virtually no reaction to such a stringent list of consequences tells me that she's not done yet. And that she doesn't care. That does not bode well for her in the future. And honestly, one more incident like this, and I think I'd make her prove the last statement: The OP was shocking to me, but not entirely out of the realm of possibility. The follow-up posts have had me more suspicious, though. I just did a Google search of mormon bishop teenage girl recording interview and after four pages, couldn't find anything. Most hits referred to record-keeping, and those that referring to this topic did so vaguely ("someday some teen boy/girl is going to record the interview...").

Right from the start I figured it was not legit... but, I really was interested in how people would respond to something like this. I think even when these posts are bogus... it gives us all a chance to read and learn. There are a lot of good comments in this thread and I appreciate those that stepped up and gave their input.

Agreed. Bogus.

Pres. Uchtdorf argues that the restoration is ongoing: https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/are-you-sleeping-through-the-restoration?lang=eng

Okay... Still not supporting a lot of your daughter's actions. Also not agreeing with a lot of your bishop's comments. Get the stake president involved pronto.

The restoration is ongoing. All things have not been restored yet. All things must be restored before the end.

These situations are sad all around. All I can say is "...Even so, come, Lord Jesus."- Rev:22:20 Someday we will be free from the world and the sin in it.

It might be common sense...but if a new rookie Bishop is clueless he would probally shut the door...not meaning any harm by it....but he would shut it....this one did it numerous times....

Classy lady; Yeh, that describes most of it, not a good place. A mountain of shame, a small hill of disappointment with my bishop. Out-flanked by a withering frontal assault from my own blood and caught in friendly cross fire from the bishop. But there will be consequences. Applepansy; Scary. She is not primarily a liar, but uses deception to achieve another agenda. Perhaps worse in some ways. What would you have done differently with your son? Estradling75 What was our response when she said the interviews creeped her out? She is an oldest child, we had little experience with teenagers. We did what works with small children, we forced her to do the right thing. All of the parents did this, many with more experience than me. We do listen to our church leaders better than we listen to our youth. Yes, that was the origin of the problem. You're not listening I will make you listen. I guess she knew that sharing it with friends would eventually get back to us magnified. I think you hit the nail on the head. Do we really listen to our youth? Not only bishops need training. Parents need it too.

None of us have heard the audio recording. We don't know if the questions being asked were out of line. Was the Bishop digging deeper into the details because he was a perv? Or did he need to dig a little deeper to decide if some disciplinary action was required. We've always been taught that conversations with the Bishop remain confidential. Most Bishops respect that aspect of their calling. Your daughter betrayed him with her recording and sharing of the audio. If she really was concerned she could have taken it to you as parents. Not share it around the school to get a few laughs. Yeh something wrong with the daughter here. I actually feel for the Bishop here.

There wouldn't be a ward. To be declared a ward instead of a branch there has to be a certain number of people. I highly doubt that a ward would be established if there were 0 men in it. Besides you can't have a ward without Priesthood leadership.

Once you have an addiction you will always have that addiction. What you learn to do is to control it. So it's never in the past.

The biggest problem I have with computer solitaire is that it won't let me cheat. I thought the rules of the game include a proviso that when you get stuck you can pull a card you need and go on from there.