Interview with Bishop

[Moksha]

Vort and Ryanah, if this authority figure asking for clinical details were a school principal or a police officer instead of an LDS Bishop, would your answers about asking for details be the same? Surely you would not suspect the principal or the officer of getting erotic gratification from hearing these details. Perhaps they were only engaged with getting the young lady 'right' with school district policy or the local legal code.

[Vort]

Vort and Ryanah, if this authority figure asking for clinical details were a school principal or a police officer instead of an LDS Bishop, would your answers about asking for details be the same?

Of course not. Neither the school principal nor the police officer has the duty or authority to determine moral worthiness. If they so much as asked "Are you having sex with your boyfriend?", I'd say they were way out of line.

But of course, such is not the case with the bishop, as I am sure you will agree.

[Moksha]

But of course, such is not the case with the bishop, as I am sure you will agree.

So is there any point where a Bishop's line of questioning might cross from the ecclesiastical to the prurient? Is so, how could that point be recognized?

[BenRaines]

If he asks "So tell me about the last time you did X? How was that?

If he asks if you have done X after explaining that it is a violation of the Law of Chastity that is appropriate. If he asks for details of X I think it not.

Ben Raines

[ryanh]

Vort and Ryanah, if this authority figure asking for clinical details were a school principal or a police officer instead of an LDS Bishop, would your answers about asking for details be the same? Surely you would not suspect the principal or the officer of getting erotic gratification from hearing these details. Perhaps they were only engaged with getting the young lady 'right' with school district policy or the local legal code.

Please don't waste my time like this. Not even close to being comparable situations. Where did you even get "clinical details" from? No wonder people are having a hard time not judging the bishop - all sorts of garbage is apparently being inferred.

[AmyKate88]

I sincerely hope this isn't so.

But I had an impression that maybe the boyfriend admitted to some sexual deviance but didn't go into detail on "who", and he was concerned you were party to it. That or maybe some story is floating around the ward, something started by some jealous person.

I hope not!!!

[sixpacktr]

[mnn727]

I did not read all the posts but let me share what I have experienced both as interviewer and interviewee.

A convert of two years may not have a full understanding of what the Law of Chastity entails. If you have not heard it yet there are many misunderstandings about what is ok and what is not between two non married people.

Ifthe Bishop felt that was a problem he could have said "The Law of Chastity means you don't ......., but ....... is ok. Do you live the Law of Chastity? rather that asking her to descibe what she does with her boyfriend.

[Seminarysnoozer]

I had similar interviews before I was married and felt the same way, to the point of trying to avoid interviews with the bishop. But, now that I have children of my own, I am thankful for our Bishops in depth questions so there is no confusion as to what is living the law of chastity and not. Especially in our world today with the Bill Clinton definition of sex and the like, I think, unfortunately, the bishop has to be specific with those questions.

[Seminarysnoozer]

Ifthe Bishop felt that was a problem he could have said "The Law of Chastity means you don't ......., but ....... is ok. Do you live the Law of Chastity? rather that asking her to descibe what she does with her boyfriend.

I agree.

[candyprpl]

I did not read all the posts but let me share what I have experienced both as interviewer and interviewee.

A convert of two years may not have a full understanding of what the Law of Chastity entails. If you have not heard it yet there are many misunderstandings about what is ok and what is not between two non married people.

I have been asked questions as a youth about what I thought living the Law of Chastity meant and then had some other things added on by Bishop that I had not covered.

I believe that it is too easy of a question to just ask, "Are you living the Law of Chastity?". Better question is "What do you understand the Law of Chastity to mean? If a very brief answer then ask them to further explain, as a Bishop teach, help them to understand it fully. Then ask "Are you living the Law of Chastity?".

How can you answer yes or no to a law you do not fully understand?

With morality being challenged every day and good kids failing to live the Law of Chastity I think there is a long way to go to instructing what is ok and what isn't and then making sure it is understood.

Ben Raines

Ben you are exactly right!

[Saguaro]

I have no problem with a Bishop going into detail about what is or is not appropriate. What bugs me about this instance is that he asked her to describe in detail what she and her boyfriend are doing physically. No one should have to offer that kind of detail as long as the Bishop helps them to understand exactly what is acceptable and what is not acceptable. After they arrive at an understanding the Bishop should simply say something like, "so, do you have any questions or have anything you need to talk about?".

Prying for details just seems creepy to me. It's as if he's assuming she's guilty from the start. I knows others will disagree with me, and I respect that, but this is how I feel.

[candyprpl]

Maybe he used the wrong questions -- like Ben said maybe a better question would have been, "What do you understand the Law of Chastity to be? The answer from this kind of question would have led to a more appropriate discussion and one that wouldn't have seemed creepy but helpful.

[Carl62]

What I don't understand about all of this is that if this is just a casual conversation and not a formal meeting in the bishop's office (and that still wouldn't excuse innapropriate questioning), then why would one have to stand there and be forced to answer such questions? Who's holding the gun to their heads saying that they need to be made to feel uncomfortable with inappropriate (and yes, and they were innapropriate!) questions? Just excuse yourself from the conversation. There it is. Simple as that. I don't understand this whole thing of putting bishop's up on this near Christ-like pedestal where they can do or say just about anything they want and it's looked on as being o.k. because they are a judge in Israel and therefore can "do no wrong". I believe in honoring and sustaining the bishop in his calling, but some of this reminds me of a conversation I had with a friend when I was at Utah State who said that "he knows people who would go head first off a bridge tomorrow if their bishops were to ask them to". I don't mean to burst anybody's bubble, but a bishop is human and yes, falls short from the glory of God just like everybody else on the face of this earth. So I guess this is why I get a bit leary when people start putting the bishop in the same sentence as the Savior when making the comparison between the two because a bishop can be prone to being innapropriate just like anybody else and yes, even with questioning members of his ward.

Edited October 23, 2009 by Carl62

[Vort]

I have no problem with a Bishop going into detail about what is or is not appropriate. What bugs me about this instance is that he asked her to describe in detail what she and her boyfriend are doing physically. No one should have to offer that kind of detail as long as the Bishop helps them to understand exactly what is acceptable and what is not acceptable.

At first blush, I agree. However, on second thought, she should be doing nothing with her boyfriend that she would be embarrassed to discuss with her bishop. If she is, she needs to discuss it. So I'm not sure I see anything wrong.

Remember, she is not required to go to her bishop. He is there for her benefit. If you go to the doctor to make sure you're healthy, you shouldn't get bent out of shape when he insists on sticking his finger into places you'd rather he didn't go.

[jadams_4040]

I've been a convert for 2 years now (first in the family, now my brother is also a member), and I must admit I am still getting used to some facets of the Church... It's quite the transition!

One thing that I am learning about is the role of the bishop. I have never really looked up to male authority figures because of family experience, and so a bishop as a kind of 'father figure' in a singles ward has been an interesting experience for me. A lot of my friends meet with him constantly and go into great detail about their lives with him, but for me, I am just more reserved. Still friendly - he is an awesome bishop and we have fun jousting about politics - but I definitely am a private person.

Anyway, about a month ago I had a 'getting to know you' meeting with my bishop, and got asked some interesting questions. I have been dating my boyfriend for four months, and he's also in my ward, so naturally my bishop asked me about him and how our relationship was. After some light-hearted conversation, he started asking me about the Law of Chastity (dum dum DUMMM). He asked me if we were keeping that law, which of course is an affirmative, but then he went into great detail about asking what we were and were not doing, and asking me to describe what all we do physically (which is not much).

While I know he had the best intentions, I couldn't help but feel extremely uncomfortable. I do not share that kind of info regularly, and I definitely did not want to share it with my new bishop. I felt like I was wrong to have felt so bewildered, and so I didn't ask my boyfriend if he had the same questions, or really talk to anyone about it. But I still can't shake the feeling.

Do you guys have any experiences/tips/advice for experiences with Law of Chastity discussion & bishops? Any help would be greatly appreciated

He needs to know so he can give you temple recomends. callings, e;t;c.. but the most important thing is that you are following the commandments; its the only way yu will receive the companionship of the holy ghost every hour of every day and the eternal blesings.:)

[Carl62]

At first blush, I agree. However, on second thought, she should be doing nothing with her boyfriend that she would be embarrassed to discuss with her bishop. If she is, she needs to discuss it. So I'm not sure I see anything wrong.

If the bishop is asking questions in a way that causes embarrassment to the person, then yes that is inappropriate. Women are a little more modest in wanting to discuss questions like "are hands rubbing anywhere around the genital areas?" or "is there any lying on top of each other?" These kinds of questions can be very "red-faced" embarrassing for most single women to answer, especially to a bishop that they don't know, thus the "getting to know the bishop" meeting she was attending. I assume that she was not required to attend that meeting also. She went with the simple intentions of wanting to get to know her bishop, and not to be barraged with questions like that right out of the starting gate! And don't say that questions like these don't get asked by a bishop because they do. These are questions I've been asked in some of my interviews already! VERY inappropriate questioning for a simple "get to know your bishop" meeting.

[Moksha]

Where did you even get "clinical details" from?

...but then he went into great detail about asking what we were and were not doing, and asking me to describe what all we do physically...

My use of the word clinical would be spot on, if the Bishop were a clinician. In this case however, it was a gentle euphemism.

No wonder people are having a hard time not judging the bishop - all sorts of garbage is apparently being inferred.

No one wants to pick on Bishops. Giving a response to AmyCates accounting and concern is certainly not an indictment of all Bishops.

Your desire to defend Bishops is not addressing her concern with her questioning.

[ferretrunner]

Maybe it's just me.. but my response would have been "With all due respect, it's none of your business." You can teach about the laws of chastity without asking someone for a "blow by blow" (or kiss by kiss) account of their dating practices. I'm sure the bishop would loovveee my response.

[MsQwerty]

The majority of bishops are good, sensible, honorable men. My current bishop is one of the most amazing people I have ever had the honor to know.

But there are always the few who have a creepy side - don't even get me started. QUOTE]

But you did get started! I don't think it was important to know the intimate details of these bishops you say you know/knew. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but we don't have to have proof that our opinion is valid.

You don't have to have 'proof' that your opinion is 'valid'? What an odd thing to say.

As a matter of fact I barely got started. In my many years of church membership, I could tell you dozens of similar stories, but I chose not to. What you got was barely the tip of the iceberg.

No wonder abuse (either physical, mental or spiritual) is still a dirty word in our church, if those who dare to complain have suspicion automatically fall on them or they have people trying to dominate them into silence.

Anyone who has spent any time fully involved in the church knows that bishops are NOT infallible, nor are they unccountable for how they treat the people under their stewardship.

And FYI, if I choose to share any of my own experiences - I will. Each one of those instances I mentioned cause me much heartbreak and spiritual distress - yet I only reported one because of the exact attitude you have displayed - "let's just all shut up and pretend it didn't happen". And seriously, who are you to tell me what I can and cannot share about my experiences?

If I came here and posted about the bishop who tried to start a relationship with me right under his wife's nose and asked for advice, what would you say? Based on your opinion thus far my "proof" shouldn't be shared since it was probably me who was the guilty one who tempted the poor man and we shouldn't talk about such things. Sheesh.

The point is, if someone feels uncomfortable or that inappropriate conversation is going on with the bishop, then they should be able to get some supportive feedback without their own morality being questioned or being told not to talk openly about such things.

Edited October 24, 2009 by MsQwerty
forgot.

[Still_Small_Voice]

As the worlds standards drop many in the church don't even know what the Law of Chastity encompasses.

The unmarried should avoid the following:

• necking: kissing on the neck
• petting: touching private body parts of another person (with or without clothing)
• arousing sexual emotions (in your own body or that of another person)
• fantasizing or dwelling on sexually arousing thoughts

All should avoid the following:

• wearing immodest clothing
• masturbating
• viewing pornography
• homosexual activity
• reading/watching/listening to anything that arouses sexual feelings

I can't enjoy most football games now because advertising is just getting so sexually blatant.

[joofob]

He should not ask her for details on what she is doing with her boyfriend as he apparently did. With that said it seems he meant only to ensure she understood the law of chastity. He could have gone about it in better ways then trying to find out the details of what she does with her boyfriend. If he was concerned he should have asked her to explain the law of chastity, clarified anything that was misrepresented or left out and reaffirmed that she lived by the law of chastity.

As for those who claim she should not be embarrassed about anything unless she is breaking the law of chastity... please. That is a totally ignorant generalization of human behavior. Many people are private and do not like to discuss certain things with even those that are close to them. There are lines drawn that in most cases should not be crossed but under certain conditions and circumstances should be. It seems this was not one of those cases, but it is also apparent no harm or malevolence was intended in anyway.

As for comments regarding mission presidents and bishops having revelation on very personal decisions... lol I don't think so. Finding a wife or husband is a decision that should be made between yourself, God and the potential spouse. The bishop has no authority, nor the mission president to receive revelation, but they can certainly give counsel. My mission president always held the view that missionaries should not marry women or men from the mission and he strongly counseled against it. I happened to agree with him, but it was just good counsel.

Congrats Amy on finding the restored Gospel and living it. I am glad you understand that the Bishop had the best intentions even though he may have made a mistake, don't hold it against him

[Justice]

My first thought may not be a good one for you, but I believe in honesty... so here it goes.

I have been in a Bishopric 3 different times. Without putting too fine a point on it, how long has your boyfriend been in the ward and how well does your Bishop know him? He may be probing you based on his past knowledge and experiences with your boyfriend.

If I were you, I would ask the Bishop why he felt it important to ask detailed and specific questions. I believe in being honest and straighforward. If something makes you uncomfortable, you need to speak your mind and ask why.

No harm no foul.

[Vort]

He should not ask her for details on what she is doing with her boyfriend as he apparently did.

By what authority do you make this judgment?

The bishop holds keys of presidency. You do not. So what makes you think you know better than him, a man whom you have never even met?

Smacks of hubris.

As for those who claim she should not be embarrassed about anything unless she is breaking the law of chastity... please. That is a totally ignorant generalization of human behavior.

How so? It's not a "generalization of human behavior" at all.

However you choose to view it, the fact remains that she has nothing to be ashamed of if she has been keeping the law of chastity, however uncomfortable the questions may be.

As I wrote before: If your doctor is giving you a physical, you can expect his finger to intrude into spaces you would rather it not go.

As for comments regarding mission presidents and bishops having revelation on very personal decisions... lol I don't think so.

My mother told me a story that happened many years ago when I was a child. My parents were going through a very difficult financial time. They had not told anyone; however, the Relief Society president brought things to help out our family. My mother, deeply touched, asked her how she knew. Her response: "The Spirit told me that you were having financial problems and were in need."

My mother (not yet having a good understanding of this principle of stewardship in callings) noticed some time later that this good woman was undergoing some trials of her own. My mother prayed and fasted to know what the problem was, so that she could administer relief. Finally, after days of prayer and fasting, she received a gentle but unmistakable response:

"That is not your business."

Moral: Our leaders (including our Priesthood leaders with keys to their callings) are indeed authorized to receive revelation on our behalf regarding personal topics.

[ferretrunner]

For sure! I know that with my experience in YSA that a lot of people in my ward knew a general overview of the law of chastity, but sometimes were surprised when activities they thought innocent were against it!

I think that sometimes, especially when a couple just starts dating, the Bishope just likes to check and make sure that we know the lines. :)

There are other ways to teach, though. For example, in the conversation state something similar to this, "I know you're a convert and among folks your age there's often confusion about the Law of Chastity..." then go on to explain the law. Then ask if she has any questions or concerns about the topic and/or her relationship. Personally, if a bishop starting asking probing questions, I'd be uncomfortable. It's a boundary violation, for me. I won't speak about anyone else. I have some questions about an older male authority figure asking those type of questions of a young woman anyway.