New Church policy regarding Bishop and Stake President interviews


pam
 Share

Recommended Posts

42 minutes ago, Vort said:

You're a woman? Who knew?

So says the big eyed Norwegian woman herself, hah

20 minutes ago, zil said:

And born in 1985, no less!  I figured he, er she, was older.

Don't give away all my secrets

20 minutes ago, zil said:

PS: 84046 ain't no NY zip code.

Manila, NY - sure is...urrr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bishops are not trained counselors.  They are called to serve and although may have various handbooks at their disposal, they get to play it by ear as well.  The Church kept quiet about Rob Porter, vetted to work in the White House and they knew he has beaten and abused his wives to such an extent that they even got temple divorces (if I understand the story correctly). Now Porter is still a Church member, his first wife said that she told their Bishop and he said to just stay with and support her husband. It got so bad that she had to leave.  How many times has this gone on in the Church? Is that happy-looking couple at Sacrament Meeting living a lie? If Sister so and so has a bruise on her arm and says she fell against a door or tripped....hopefully now that this has become public, the Church will take care of it, and come into the 21st century when it comes to spousal abuse.  I mean who would want to spend eternity with a spouse who abuses them?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
58 minutes ago, Dave Richards said:

  I mean who would want to spend eternity with a spouse who abuses them?

I agree totally, and thankfully the culture where "stay with a spouse who has these problems" is beginning to change and thank goodness for it! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dave Richards said:

Bishops are not trained counselors.  They are called to serve and although may have various handbooks at their disposal, they get to play it by ear as well.  The Church kept quiet about Rob Porter, vetted to work in the White House and they knew he has beaten and abused his wives to such an extent that they even got temple divorces (if I understand the story correctly). Now Porter is still a Church member, his first wife said that she told their Bishop and he said to just stay with and support her husband. It got so bad that she had to leave.  How many times has this gone on in the Church? Is that happy-looking couple at Sacrament Meeting living a lie? If Sister so and so has a bruise on her arm and says she fell against a door or tripped....hopefully now that this has become public, the Church will take care of it, and come into the 21st century when it comes to spousal abuse.  I mean who would want to spend eternity with a spouse who abuses them?

If it’s accurate that Porter’s ex-bishops advised his wives to keep silent, then that was certainly wrong and I’d sure love to sit down with them to hear their perspectives.  Certainly it appears their actions were in violation of explicit LDS policy (though it’s perhaps noteworthy that Holderness concedes she may not have been very articulate with her bishop as to what was going on beyond using the phrase “get physical”, and both women do say their bishops referred them on to counseling; where the allegations would have come out and been addressed appropriately according to the best mental health treatment standards).

I don’t know what Porter’s administrative membership status is.  He seems to have been an active fixture in the DC bar scene and was (is?) in a fornicating relationship with another White House staffer; so I doubt anyone would take him for a practicing Mormon or emblematic of Mormon men generally except for those who have bought into the lies told by  folks who are out to smear the Church.

By the way, Porter apparently did not marry his wives in the temple.  His first wedding certainly wasn’t.  So I’m not sure that a sealing cancellation was necessary.  That’s neither here or there, as it applies to any of the individuals in Porter’s case.  But as a broader social commentary, it seems a lot of folks do seem to be quick to say “don’t be such a judgmental jerk!” when the Church encourages its youth to only marry a temple-worthy spouse—but then when those out-of-temple marriages go awry because one party or the other turned out to be a complete ratbag, somehow it’s immediately *THE CHURCH’s* fault.

And finally, the idea that an abusive man can a) get into the Celestial Kingdom and b) have his wife with him there; reflects a frankly uninformed understanding of Mormon theology.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dave Richards said:

The Church kept quiet about Rob Porter

Back up this statement. What do you mean? What do you think the Church should have done? Taken out a front-page ad in the NYT to broadcast Porter's deficiencies?

Your claim is tantamount to accusing the Church of cover-up. Morally speaking, that is a libelous statement unless you can provide some evidence to support such an outrageous claim. Please provide said evidence.

1 hour ago, Dave Richards said:

Now Porter is still a Church member

So you, Dave Richards, are qualified to announce that he shouldn't be. Right?

I'm sure Jesus Christ will be thrilled to know that Dave Richards is standing manfully as the Gatekeeper to Zion.

1 hour ago, Dave Richards said:

How many times has this gone on in the Church? Is that happy-looking couple at Sacrament Meeting living a lie?

Probably BILLIONS of times!!!! Don't trust ANYBODY's appearance of good! It's all a lie!

1 hour ago, Dave Richards said:

If Sister so and so has a bruise on her arm and says she fell against a door or tripped....hopefully now that this has become public, the Church will take care of it, and come into the 21st century when it comes to spousal abuse.

No doubt. The next time my wife has a bruise on her arm, I'll be excommunicated and referred to the police for prosecution. And that will be a GOOD thing! That's 21st-century justice, you know!

1 hour ago, Dave Richards said:

I mean who would want to spend eternity with a spouse who abuses them?

Surely you don't honestly believe that the doctrine of the LDS Church teaches anything remotely similar to this.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

I agree totally, and thankfully the culture where "stay with a spouse who has these problems" is beginning to change and thank goodness for it! 

Funny that you call it a "cultural change" without acknowledging who is driving this Cultural Change.  Re-read the letters this is a top down push.  This is the church leaders hearing, seeing, and acting on problems

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MormonGator
11 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

 This is the church leaders hearing, seeing, and acting on problems

Fine. It's a top down change that church leaders instituted because of changes in the culture. There. Good on them for changing it-that's all that matters in the end. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2018 at 5:37 PM, MormonGator said:

I agree totally, and thankfully the culture where "stay with a spouse who has these problems" is beginning to change and thank goodness for it! 

Now if we could just change the culture of "be a spouse who has these problems."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2018 at 4:38 PM, Dave Richards said:

If Sister so and so has a bruise on her arm and says she fell against a door or tripped....hopefully now that this has become public, the Church will take care of it,

My ex girlfriend and I took some martial arts classes together.  The number of bruises we left on each other from that would probably have had us in court on a regular basis if anyone had decided to raise the alarm every time.  My wrist still gets sore when it's about to rain.

Edited by NightSG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/31/2018 at 5:38 PM, Dave Richards said:

 I mean who would want to spend eternity with a spouse who abuses them?

I do.  I chose to LOVE my husband.  I vowed to bring him with me in my attempt to get closer to Christ.  If he ends up abusing me, then that makes my job a whole lot harder but my vow remains the same.  I'm going to have to find a way to bring him to repentance so that we can get to Christ.  And this will be my life's work.

It makes me kinda sad that not all people believe the same way I do... because, muh 21st century.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am less than sure this is actual a major change. Although I was not technically aware of it, I read a statement on a Deseret News discussion on this issue where a current bishop stated that existing policy allowed for a second person in an interview if so requested. 15 years ago I had a bishop who not only always had another priesthood holder just outside his office when doing an interview with a female (this was a YSA ward so it had no children), but he did not even fully shut his door.

 

I know that the Church has had a abuse hotline since the mid-1990s for bishops to contact. 

 

I am not sure the statements to never counsel people to remain in abuse and to never counsel against reporting illegal authority were ever explicit before, but neither of those are actual changes in policy. At least since the 1980s, and probably earlier, teachings have clearly stated that abuse is a legitimate reason for divorce. Abuse in all forms was the subject of a major talk given by President Hinckley in October 1994 general conference, and more stringent policies against abuse were announced by him in a talk in either late 2001 or early 2002.

 

The one possible change is that now all youth classes need to have at least 2 adults present, whereas before it was just for cases where the teacher was a male. 

 

Note this is not a requirement for two teachers. Only one person needs to be a teacher of record, and the other person can be provided on a rotational basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The Church" did not know about Rob Porter. His local bishop's were told information on him. There is no evidence that anyone higher up knew of it. We need to be precise about these things.
 

Also, the claim "bishop's are not trained counselors" is clearly meant to underestimate their training. 20 years ago my uncle who is a professional family counselor was involved in giving training to bishops. Beyond this bishops regularly refer many cases to LDS family services. For their part, LDS family services counselors in some areas spend most of their time far from their home office, traveling to various church buildings, sometimes hundreds of miles away, to counsel with members in closer proximity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With Sunday School classes, at short term response for youth classes is to have a member of the Sunday School presidency there. When I was in the Sunday School presidency I rotated in visiting youth classes, when I was not filling in. I always filled in as the lone brother. My understanding was that no lone adult male present was required for primary but not youth classes, although it may have been a minsunderstanding on my part. I also with primary would leave the door open in my co-teacher was not present. The last time when I subbed for my mom, that was when I was in the Sunday School Presidency, before I had been a primary teacher for almost 2 full years straight, I left the door open, but the father of one of my students was sitting in the hallway, I think possibly because his son was dealing with having just had a little sister die, but maybe intentionally to make sure that we lived by the rules.

 

The placement of windows into the doors of all rooms used for classrooms is clearly also linked to trying to avoid problems. One issue, should bishop's office doors have windows? I have to admit I have not always wanted anyone to know I am interviewing with the bishop.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think two deep applies to seminary class. However when I was a seminary student, some of my teachers did have another adult who sat in on the class. Two deep does not mean two teacher, it means two adults. One can be the designated teacher, the other just needs to be present.

 

The bigger change may be how this affects the way full-time seminary teachers carry on their work. There was one a few years ago who went to prison for sexually abusing a young woman. The Church fired him before he even went to trial, because even if he had been not guilty, which was not very in doubt, he had violated other employment policies as well.

 

With the end of high priests groups, this does free up some more adults in many wards for youth callings. The person who I will assume is my ministering companion until I am told otherwise, which may well happen with the expansion of the elders quorum etc, was a Sunday School teacher doing it jointly with his wife. When I was in the Sunday School presidency we had some of our Sunday School classes that were taught by married couples. A proactive Sunday School presidency could make being present easy, although that assumes that none of them double up as teachers. 

 

My ward primary I think has been double assigning even female teachers for the last two or so years.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the issue of men never going alone on ministering visits to single sisters, the one place where this may not have always been fully followed was in YSA wards. Still I have known couples who met when the man was the woman's hometeacher. It might be wise if people at least consider the policies on dating/ministering mixing. With the recognition that there are gradients of non-consensual immorality, and even some behaviors that are not a violation of the law of chastity, such as kissing and lingering hugs, should still not be done non-consensually, this is something people should at least consider. 

 

Possibly more interesting is that the document uses ministering, and yet was released before the change in terminology. Although, in the past not all ministering visits were connected to home teaching. I remember one Sunday me and another brother in the ward made two seperate trips to the hospital to give presithood blessings. That brother was a high priest, although a young one, and I am not sure that he was home teacher to either of the people we visited. I think he got roped in because A-he is just an awesome person and B-he lives cloese to that hospital of our ward members. I am not sure how I got roped in.

 

I know my dad always dilligently lived to the have another male present. On the other hand, he took me along on some occasions at least when I was as young as ten. How old a child has to be to make the visit ok is hard to say. I also was assigned as a hometeaching companion at age 12. I have to say I am glad of that, because my hometeaching companion was the best ever. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very high amount of counseling in the US is done by religious leaders. Bishops are encouraged to advise seeking trained professional counseling, and will pay for counseling not only with LDS family services, but with other trained professional in some cases. I know my bishop has paid for some members to receive conseling for an organization that provides indepth help in dealing with sexual addiction. 

 

The reality is that people seek aid much quicker from bishops than seeking out professional counseling aid. Bishops are going to have people making statements about physical, sexual and emotional abuse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share