Am I wrong in my thinking?

[skippy740]

I could see patting my daughter's rear end. Inappropriate? I don't know. Maybe. But how far we must have fallen as a people to want to turn someone into the authorities because he patted his daughter on the rear end.

If it wasn't his daughter, then that strikes me as kind of weird. But since the girl clearly was not offended, it's probably safe to say the observer should not have been offended, either.

But the observer WAS bothered/offended.

We can't get messed up in these "shoulds and shouldn'ts". It is what it is and what was felt by the observer was what was felt.

Just because the girl didn't show offense doesn't justify anything to me.

How far have we come as a society to just 'shrug' off a feeling that one should do something... but doesn't do it?

Didn't President Monson just give a talk about ignoring the promptings of the Spirit... and promised never to ignore them again?

[Vort]

I believe this advice is incorrect. Just because the girl did not show any outward expression of offense or even if she didn't actually feel offended does not mean that all is well. Sexual predators are masters at manipulating their victims and making them feel like inappropriate behavior is OK.

Don't you think that jumping to the "sexual predator" conclusion is rather hasty?

[Guest]

Wow. It's amazing how someone who swats someone else on the buttocks (like we see all the time in NFL games) would cause people to have the instinctive reaction of "Sexual Predator Alert". It's a glaring indicator of a highly sexualized society.

If your daughter does not know the difference between appropriate and inappropriate behavior, you need to have a talk with her. If this is not your daughter, then you need to go talk to the girl or the parents just to verify that they're aware of it and have them deal with it themselves. If you're too chicken to do it, then leave it alone.

Thinking the worst of people as the default position is a very sad way to live your life.

[Vort]

I don't think it is appropriate for a parent to touch a teen or child's butt. If they are out of diapers and don't need help wiping anymore anything covered by a swimsuit is off limits.

I disagree. I see nothing wrong with patting your adult child's rear end. I do see plenty wrong with people getting bent out of shape if someone does so.

[Guest]

I disagree. I see nothing wrong with patting your adult child's rear end. I do see plenty wrong with people getting bent out of shape if someone does so.

Okay people... Who has the book on appropriate/inappropriate? Is this like, a kindergarten subject or something?

Because, I have a kid. And I swat his butt once in a while. It's a "good job, kid!" gesture I learned from my American husband. In the Philippines, your butt gets swatted when you're being an idiot.

But I guess in church, I'm a sexual predator.

[Vort]

But the observer WAS bothered/offended.

We can't get messed up in these "shoulds and shouldn'ts". It is what it is and what was felt by the observer was what was felt.

Then we have people calling CPS on the parent who scolds his child or swats his bottom.

Just because the girl didn't show offense doesn't justify anything to me.

The fact is that we have practically no information. The only thing we are told is "adult man swats teen girl on bottom, she is not offended, they converse". What is a swat (or "smack", or whatever term was used)? Did he wind up and hit her so that it left a hand-shaped imprint? Or did he pat her buttock? Was it a "pat-pat", or did he get a lot of finger action and squeezing in there? Patting a bottom need not be sexual, any more than kissing someone need be sexual.

I think it's dangerous to cry "sexual predator!" to anything and everything that some bluenose might think is inappropriate.

How far have we come as a society to just 'shrug' off a feeling that one should do something... but doesn't do it?

Didn't President Monson just give a talk about ignoring the promptings of the Spirit... and promised never to ignore them again?

How bad is it to assume that whatever you might feel must be a prompting of the Spirit? If it's a spiritual prompting, then yes, act on it. But this didn't sound like a spiritual prompting to me. It sounded like someone found a butt-patting to be crass and tasteless. And maybe it was. But crass and tasteless do not equal sexually predatory, and an instance of less-than-perfect judgment does not justify calling the cops on someone.

[Guest]

and an instance of less-than-perfect judgment does not justify calling the cops on someone.

And in my opinion... the bishop...

[rameumptom]

The counsel in the D&C is to first bring up such an incident quietly between you and the person. Let the person know that you felt the event was inappropriate for the Church building. Then let it rest, unless he does it again. If he does, then take it to the bishop.

[Finrock]

Don't you think that jumping to the "sexual predator" conclusion is rather hasty?

Is it your belief that I have concluded that this person is a sexual predator? If it is, then you are incorrect. I am saying that a high priest slapping the butt of a teenage girl who might not be their daughter is strange enough to warrant another consideration because sexual abuse is a real possibility. This is especially true given what we know about how sexual predators operate.

What if the girl secretly detests each time this high priest comes around and slaps her butt but she doesn't want to make a scene or cause offense or is afraid? Perhaps she is praying that someone will say something to make the inappropriate touching stop.

The potential consequences of inaction are so dire and so devastating that I believe that it is worth offending an adult when you see something potentially off, just to be sure that a child is not being harmed. So often when it comes to sexual abuse the children are being abused right under the noses of those who could have protected them if people only knew what signs to look for and/or they had the courage to speak up. I certainly believe that it is wrong to ridicule those who attempt to sincerely report what they believe to be inappropriate behavior towards a child or minor.

Regards,

Finrock

[Roseslipper]

unfortunatly in todays world it is better to look into it and do what you think is right. Better to take action and find out and do something so if it turns out the op was wrong so let it be, but what if they were right?? Bad things happen way to much out of the church and in the church. We are suppose to be our brother's keeper!! If so, then Do It!!!

[skippy740]

I take it that some of you aren't serving in the Primary.

Things have changed.

Primary classes are supposed to have two teachers. Why? Protect the innocent and prevent the guilty.

Working with the youth is no different.

Even in doing home teaching, men shouldn't be visiting sisters alone.

There are established Church protocols... and these don't even involve touching.

Yes, we are all working from what we believe we are reading from the OP.

In my mind there are 4 options:

1) You report... and it's nothing.

2) You report... and you prevent something from happening again in the future.

3) You don't report... and it's still nothing.

4) You don't report... and you could've prevented something from happening.

IMO, #4 is the worst. I'd feel better with #1, but if it leads to #2... at least I helped to protect the minor.

What a parent does with their own children is their business. But even then, I wouldn't be swatting my kid's behind in public... unless it was with an object - like a hymnbook or scriptures or something and it was a light tap.

[skippy740]

I take a young 10-year old boy to scouts. According to BSA rules, I should NEVER be alone with him. But according to LDS standards (that I was told), it was okay.

So I had agreed.

But then I found out that I would be taking his 12 year old sister to young women's... who meet at the same time.

I agreed to do it with the following conditions:

1) If the 10 year old boy isn't going, I can't take her alone. It's not appropriate.

2) She will sit in the back seat.

Am I a sexual deviant? No. But I know where to draw the line between being of service and looking like things are inappropriate. And this line is still too fine for me... but I deal with it right now.

The last thing I want is someone to accuse me of anything.

[Vort]

unfortunatly in todays world it is better to look into it and do what you think is right. Better to take action and find out and do something so if it turns out the op was wrong so let it be, but what if they were right?? Bad things happen way to much out of the church and in the church. We are suppose to be our brother's keeper!! If so, then Do It!!!

Being your brother's keeper means helping him and looking out for his best welfare, not calling CPS every time you disapprove of his parenting.

If you witness abuse, do something about it. If you feel led by the Spirit, follow. But releasing the hounds on everyone who crosses your privately defined line in the sand does not make us a better or even safer society.

When I was growing up, young women called men "creepy" when they ogled them or made inappropriate remarks. Today, "creepy" just means "I don't find him attractive". Which by definition means that I and most other men over 40 years old are creepy.

[Roseslipper]

lol vort laughing at your definition of creepy and men over 40 yrs old......I am over 40 yrs old myself!! and do think that we need to work more on being our brother's keeper!! or sister's keeper!!! or childrens's or youth!!! OP you are not wrong in your thinking, if that was my child I would be glad that you were looking out for her. We have heard to many times things going wrong with in our families, neighbors, church's. Better to protect. and if you dont want to go to the person u are questioning, then go to the Bishop let him do the research. Better to be on the safe side for that person, or person's. Easier to nip a problem in the begining, then later on. And that's in any area. As sister's, visting teachers we are suppose to report anything we should. I haven't been married but I'd assume Home teacher's are suppose too as well. We are to protect we are Warriors!!! Aren't we????

[selek]

You know, for all the guff I take about being harsh and judgemental, a lot of the posters in this thread make me look like a raw piker by comparison.

I gotta wonder if jumping to conclusions, running people down, and competition-level gossiping aren't the only exercise program officially allowed in the Peyton Place 1st Ward.

Some random complaintant gets his knickers in a knot because of an interaction between two people he wouldn't recognize on the street- and to hear you tell it, this wardhouse is a potential repeat of the McMartin Preschool debacle.

Spare me the histrionics, let alone the mad torch-bearing rush to get the Bishop to "do something about this."

"It made me uncomfortable". "It was inappropriate behavior." "It was sexual harrassment".

Two words: Horse pockey.

Paul Harvey (in his later years) was terrified of germs and disease- to the point that shaking hands made him uncomfortable.

The average Sunday shake-hands-in-the-hallway would have sent him into twitching paroxysms.

Shall we all go running to the Bishop for an intervention?

For the record: some of you who are assuming (without any evidence to support the allegation) that this conduct was sexual. To my mind, that says more about the mindset of the accuser than the accused.

Others acknowledge the danger, but are more reticent about screaming "Off with his head!"

Count me among the latter.

The reality is this:

You don't know this man from Adam.

You don't know this girl from Elsie the Milkmaid.

But you're all more than willing to gossip and speculate about them.

Don't we get enough of that crap from Babylon? Must we do it to ourselves?

That this swat was "inappropriate" is simply an opinion, and a rather supercillious one at that.

Not all of us were raised by strict Puritans, nor reared in an era/mindset where any physical contact between male and female was automagically sexual, inappropriate, or dirty.

Circusboy, if you are truly concerned, you should speak to the individuals involved and take action as necessary from there.

It is a triusm that the easy way is most often the wrong way, and the right thing to do is nearly always the hardest.

The easy way to handle this is to tattle to the Bishop, stirring up a potential hornet's nest over something that may well (and most likely is) completely innocent.

The right thing to do is to ask the people involved and sort this out yourself without convening a kangaroo court beforehand.

That having been said, it's nearly always easier to hide behind the Bishop's skirts than to man-up and do it yourself. (Sorry for the mixed metaphor).

Edited May 21, 2013 by selek

[selek]

The counsel in the D&C is to first bring up such an incident quietly between you and the person. Let the person know that you felt the event was inappropriate for the Church building. Then let it rest, unless he does it again. If he does, then take it to the bishop.

Ram, I agree with everything you said, except the last sentence.

No member of a ward has automagical veto authority over another's behavior- and it's not the Bishop's job to sort out every sordid little soap opera in the ward.

I once had a grizzled old crone (sitting in the pew behind my family) lecture me about how it was inappropriate for me to put my arm around my daughters (on the back of the pew).

Her father and husband would never have countenanced such a thing!

I listened politely, thanked her for her opinion, and went right on doing what I and my daughters felt was appropriate- meddlesome biddies notwithstanding.

Should I have been called on the carpet by the Bishop for my recalcitrant and "deviant" behavior?

Edited May 21, 2013 by selek

[skippy740]

Based on your example, you are assuming that this conduct was between family members.

We don't know.

The OP doesn't know.

The question is this: What should the OP do based on what they saw?

I think it's funny that we're told 'not to judge' the situation. Judge not unrighteous judgment!

For the thread, we are giving various perspectives to give the OP a way to work it through... who was the one who witnessed the situation.

We are all given the spirit of discernment about any given situation at any given time. We are helping the OP to think things through and allow them to proceed as they feel best.

[skippy740]

What would you do in THIS situation, if you were Lucy Camden?

Is it just an innocent hug from a congratulating teacher?

We know about teacher/student relationship rules... but was it innocent?

We can look up the rest of the episode to see what happens... but just look at this clip.

What would you do?

Here's the whole episode:

7Th Heaven: Rush To Judgement - Bing Videos

Here's the summary: "7th Heaven" Rush to Judgment (1998) - Plot Summary

Simon get sort of addicted to golf, which causes trouble for him, Ruthie and various glass within their hitting reach. Matt and Lucy are fed up with Mary's adoration for coach Koper, whom they mistrust and dislike because of his condescending attitude towards English pupil Matt, who nevertheless does well on a James Joyce book-report. Mary sides with him when the siblings cry wolf over a hug, but when she suddenly changes her tune after a shoulder massage, even the principal turns on Koper without any proof or actual incident. Eric hounds Lou, who insists the expenses for the nearly unattended Wednesday service can no longer be justified,to see the books. Annie finds $2,500 are missing, but by the time the full truth gets known, both must side with 'thief' Lou and his secretly hard-tested family.

Edited May 21, 2013 by skippy740

[selek]

Based on your example, you are assuming that this conduct was between family members.

I make no such assumptions.

Nor do I assume that the swat was automagically "wrong".

We don't know.

The OP doesn't know.

Precisely my point.

So why run and "tattle to teacher" when you're not even sure what you saw?

As you pointed out in an earlier post, you don't want to be accused.

I am quite certain that the man accused by the OP is no more eager than you in that regard.

The question is this: What should the OP do based on what they saw?

I don't believe the OP has enough information to decide, let alone to go in front of the Bishop and accuse this man.

The only way he will get that information is to confront those actually involved.

I think it's funny that we're told 'not to judge' the situation. Judge not unrighteous judgment!

And that includes leaping to the conclusion that the man's behavior was automagically "inappropriate".

For the thread, we are giving various perspectives to give the OP a way to work it through... who was the one who witnessed the situation.

Yet with few exceptions (Vort and Anatess being prominent) you are all bobble-heading along with the notion that the "swat" was somehow a heinous breach of decorum/propriety.

That has not yet been proven.

We are all given the spirit of discernment about any given situation at any given time.

Ummm...no.

Our gifts of spiritual discernment are limited to those matters within our stewardship. Our gifts of intellectual discernment are limited by our experience and our prejudices (and we all have them).

Because of your BSA and Primary training, you are biased towards caution.

Because of my experiences, I am biased against those who would offer up unfounded allegations without first doing thier homework.

We are helping the OP to think things through and allow them to proceed as they feel best.

Well....that's one way of describing rampant speculation and a rush to judgement based on a priori assumptions.

[skippy740]

As you pointed out in an earlier post, you don't want to be accused.

I am quite certain that the man accused by the OP is no more eager than you in that regard.

A person who doesn't want to be accused, doesn't put themselves in a compromising position... particularly where others can see it.

I don't believe the OP has enough information to decide, let alone to go in front of the Bishop and accuse this man.

The only way he will get that information is to confront those actually involved.

I disagree. And I'll leave it at that.

And that includes leaping to the conclusion that the man's behavior was automagically "inappropriate".

Yet with few exceptions (Vort and Anatess being prominent) you are all bobble-heading along with the notion that the "swat" was somehow a heinous breach of decorum/propriety.

That has not yet been proven.

It doesn't have to be proven.

Ummm...no.

Our gifts of spiritual discernment are limited to those matters within our stewardship. Our gifts of intellectual discernment are limited by our experience and our prejudices (and we all have them).

Shall we review the duties of the priesthood which is to watch over the church?

Because of your BSA and Primary training, you are biased towards caution.

Because of my experiences, I am biased against those who would offer up unfounded allegations without first doing thier homework.

Talking to the Bishop is another way of doing the 'homework'. Just describe what you saw, that it made you uncomfortable and leave it in the Bishop's hands - to either explain or handle it.

[Finrock]

Being your brother's keeper means helping him and looking out for his best welfare, not calling CPS every time you disapprove of his parenting.

This is a straw man. Who has suggested that CPS be called, or anything like unto it, every time one disapproves of another's parenting?

If I witnessed the situation the OP witnessed, it would strike me as strange enough that I would think twice before simply dismissing it as some innocent gesture. I think I just might have gone up and asked the high priest if he slaps every young woman in the Ward in the rear and see how he responds. If it's his daughter, well, no harm done. Maybe he gets offended but he can recover from that and I am not ashamed to be wrong in this case and I'll happily suffer some social discomfort to be safe. If it isn't his daugther, then I think a high priest, outside of a sports context, slapping a teenage girl in the butt while they are attending church, is inappropriate. I know that I would not want any high priest (no matter how well they are known) slapping/swatting my teenage daughter's butt as a means to greet them and if this was occurring, I would want to know about it and I would be upset if others knew about it and they didn't say anything to me about it.

Regards,

Finrock

[selek]

A person who doesn't want to be accused, doesn't put themselves in a compromising position... particularly where others can see it.

So in other words, the man was asking to be accused and harassed until proven innocent.

He deserves to be accused because someone else (someone totally ignorant of the facts) was upset by his conduct.

It doesn't have to be proven.

In other words, the man is guilty until proven innocent.

Well! Isn't that special!?!

Shall we review the duties of the priesthood which is to watch over the church?

By all means. You can start by citing the section of the Priesthood duties which authorizes, requests, and/or requires that we go crying to the Bishop without first attempting to reconcile the matter between ourselves.

Talking to the Bishop is another way of doing the 'homework'. Just describe what you saw, that it made you uncomfortable and leave it in the Bishop's hands - to either explain or handle it.

Horse pockey.

"Talking to the Bishop" in this regard is a passive-aggressive attempt to foist the problem off on him, rather than dealing with it yourself.

If the swat was innocent, then the only thing it will do is needlessly harass the accused (and waste the Bishop's time) and alienate the relationship between the man and young woman.

You can be assured that- having been called on the carpet to explain himself- the accused will think twice before engaging in any such behavior again!

Hurray! What a glorious triumph for the politically correct meddler!

We can- and will- stamp out any behavior we don't like; and maintain our poise as pious, humble members by getting the Bishop to do our dirty work for us!

Because that's the kind of virtuous conformity we need in this Church.

The other problem with your rationalizing is that it won't provide closure to the aggreived party.

Any counsel between the offender and the accused is necessarily (and legally) confidential.

The only thing the "aggrieved party" (in this case the OP), will come away with is a vicarious and vacuous sense of "having done something."

That sort of idiocy is precisely what led to the McMartin scandal and hundreds of innocent lives being ruined.

The only thing the High Priest has actually been accused of is making the OP uncomfortable by swatting someone.

Boo frickin' hoo.

Last I heard, offending the delicate sensibilities of an ignorant stranger is not a punishable offense.

Edited May 21, 2013 by selek

[skippy740]

Okay, we're going to disagree. Fine. I'm okay with that.

But it SHOULD'VE been handled by the young woman.

I bet she didn't know HOW to handle it because NO ONE should be doing such activity in the Church... or at any other time.

When it says "the laying on of hands"... it doesn't mean this.

If I were the Bishop, I'd be talking with the Young Women's Presidency on how to coach young women on how to look a HP in the eye and say "That's not appropriate. Please don't touch me there."

I spoke with my parents about this thread. Would my father dare to touch one of his daughters-in-law on the bottom at anytime? He had the look of shock and shook his head 'no way'.

Bottom line: It's not appropriate contact, anytime or anywhere.

The OP doesn't want to confront the person directly. So, talk with the bishop in a semi-anonymous manner. It's not to accuse. It's to notify.

If we need further guidelines, maybe we need to look at the Church Handbook of Instructions?

[selek]

This is a straw man. Who has suggested that CPS be called, or anything like unto it, every time one disapproves of another's parenting?

Not a strawman, but at worst, a slippery slope argument.

Agree with the argument or not, it is justifiable given the number of posters who automagically leapt to condemning the accused.

If I witnessed the situation the OP witnessed, it would strike me as strange enough that I would think twice before simply dismissing it as some innocent gesture. I think I just might have gone up and asked the high priest if he slaps every young woman in the Ward in the rear and see how he responds. If it's his daughter, well, no harm done. Maybe he gets offended but he can recover from that and I am not ashamed to be wrong in this case and I'll happily suffer some social discomfort to be safe.

Congratulations on having the courage of your convictions.

Better that than running to the Bishop with a purseload of gossip.

If it isn't his daugther, then I think a high priest, outside of a sports context, slapping a teenage girl in the butt while they are attending church, is inappropriate.

This is an opinion. Others are not required to share it.

I know that I would not want any high priest (no matter how well they are known) slapping/swatting my teenage daughter's butt as a means to greet them and if this was occurring, I would want to know about it and I would be upset if others knew about it and they didn't say anything to me about it.

As has been previously admitted (sometimes overtly, sometimes not), context is everything.

Assuming- without knowing all the facts- that "the swat" was automagically inappropriate is speculating in advance of your data and is prejudging those involved.

It is no more appropriate behavior to the faithful Latter-day Saint than the swat which you find so offensive.

[Dravin]

Okay, we're going to disagree. Fine. I'm okay with that.

But it SHOULD'VE been handled by the young woman.

I bet she didn't know HOW to handle it because NO ONE should be doing such activity in the Church... or at any other time.

When it says "the laying on of hands"... it doesn't mean this.

If I were the Bishop, I'd be talking with the Young Women's Presidency on how to coach young women on how to look a HP in the eye and say "That's not appropriate. Please don't touch me there."

You're presuming:

1) It was unwanted.

2) It was inappropriate.

I spoke with my parents about this thread. Would my father dare to touch one of his daughters-in-law on the bottom at anytime? He had the look of shock and shook his head 'no way'.

Some guy on the internet's parents, now that's definitive.