Sign in to follow this  
Tyme

Interviews with leaders

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

I'm not willing to discount the story entirely. I remember my mom telling my sister that her mother (i.e. our grandma) had prohibited tampon use because "those are for married women." But I'm not likely to accept a story about a bishop denying a temple recommend due to tampon usage at face value. I suppose it's possible, but without a bunch more corroborating evidence, I'm much more likely to assume it's just another of those stupid stories floating around that get embellished more with every tale. Or perhaps a less-than-honest excuse from an embarrassed young woman who couldn't go with her youth group to the temple to do baptisms. Or some other situation that does not involve a bishop denying a temple recommend to a virtuous, worthy young woman because she uses tampons. I'm not saying no bishop is that stupid, but, come on, no bishop is that stupid.

Keep in mind...this is someone he dated. Sure. Great grammy and grampy believed all sorts of crazy stuff. So 60-70 years ago...maybe (though even then, I seriously doubt it). But how old, exactly, do we believe MoE is?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

1 out of 3 girls are sexually abused somehow by the age of 18.  For boys it's 1 in 6.

https://www.rainn.org/statistics/children-and-teens

According to RAINN it's 1 in 9 girls and 1 in 53 boys. Where'd you get your "facts"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

We're all saying protect the child.  That's fine.  But what about the bishop?

 

Right, that's why having another person in there as a witness is a good idea. It protects ALL parties. 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Did the bishop tell you this, or was it just the girl's story?

Because A) bull and B) crap.

Yeah, I know it sounds ridiculous.  As this woman told the story, she was told she couldn't go to the temple because she used tampons. She thought that was odd and spoke to her parents about it.  The parents rightfully flipped out and got the stake president involved.  It wasn't long before the temple recommend was issued (she was a teenager at the time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not particularly concerned about them being abused per se. My concern is them getting an intrusive line of questioning. I think even a well intentioned Bishop can ask unnecessary and intrusive questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
4 minutes ago, Tyme said:

I'm not particularly concerned about them being abused per se. My concern is them getting an intrusive line of questioning. I think even a well intentioned Bishop can ask unnecessary and intrusive questions.

I know the odds of abuse happening are incredibly small, but since the effects of abuse are so horrific, to me it's not even worth that risk. 

Edited by MormonGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tyme said:

I'm not particularly concerned about them being abused per se. My concern is them getting an intrusive line of questioning. I think even a well intentioned Bishop can ask unnecessary and intrusive questions.

Again: teach your children healthy boundaries and what to do if someone crosses them.

Not just for possibly having bad questions asked by an adult, but also in the much more likely chance a peer asks them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you Jane_Doe. That's some sage advice. The only problem is that a Bishop is different than a friend. A Bishop is somebody people in the church are taught to look up to, always have answers and be reverent towards. It's a lot harder to stand up to a Bishop than a friend. That's especially true for kids 13 and under.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

Yeah, I know it sounds ridiculous.  As this woman told the story, she was told she couldn't go to the temple because she used tampons. She thought that was odd and spoke to her parents about it.  The parents rightfully flipped out and got the stake president involved.  It wasn't long before the temple recommend was issued (she was a teenager at the time).

Makes more sense. I know crazy stuff happens. But the implication that it never righted itself was the part that was weird. I can see bishops doing weird stuff like that (particularly new bishops).

Of course stupidity and corruption are not the same. Believing things like red food coloring is against the word of wisdom or you must wear garments whilst being intimate is very different than predatorialism (a word I just made up).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Tyme said:

I'm not particularly concerned about them being abused per se. My concern is them getting an intrusive line of questioning. I think even a well intentioned Bishop can ask unnecessary and intrusive questions.

What is "intrusive" is subjective.

Intrusive by whose standard?

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
5 minutes ago, Tyme said:

I agree with you Jane_Doe. That's some sage advice. The only problem is that a Bishop is different than a friend. A Bishop is somebody people in the church are taught to look up to, always have answers and be reverent towards. It's a lot harder to stand up to a Bishop than a friend. That's especially true for kids 13 and under.

Exactly. Add into that religion-where you are taught to believe him and that questioning him is equal to blasphemy. So, when (and yes, it almost never happens but that doesn't mean it doesn't happen) abuse does happen it makes it much more devastating for the child when no one believes them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Tyme said:

I agree with you Jane_Doe. That's some sage advice. The only problem is that a Bishop is different than a friend. A Bishop is somebody people in the church are taught to look up to, always have answers and be reverent towards. It's a lot harder to stand up to a Bishop than a friend. That's especially true for kids 13 and under.

Same with parents, grandparents, teachers, coaches, etc.  They are all adults which children are supposed to look up to and can have devastating consequences when they do something bad.

Hence my stressing the focus on teaching your children healthy boundaries: a protection that will always be with them, wherever they go, and whoever turns into a threat.

Edited by Jane_Doe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Makes more sense. I know crazy stuff happens. But the implication that it never righted itself was the part that was weird. I can see bishops doing weird stuff like that (particularly new bishops).

Of course stupidity and corruption are not the same. Believing things like red food coloring is against the word of wisdom or you must wear garments whilst being intimate is very different than predatorialism (a word I just made up).

It doesn't have to be predatory to be inappropriate. 

For instance, this woman recounts being told that french kissing was oral sex. Again, fortunately, she eventually went to her parents to get it cleared up. But not everyone is willing to stand against their priesthood leaders.  We place a high value on deference to leaders in our culture, but don't do much in the way of educating our members how to identify when a leader has gone off the rails.  Much in the same way that @Jane_Doe is telling us to educate our kids, educating our members and telling them that it's okay to say "I'm not comfortable with this line of questioning" would do us a lot of good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

It doesn't have to be predatory to be inappropriate.

Agreed. But to @Vort's point: we send our children off to school and all other sorts of places where they may well experience the "inappropriate". Clearly there's a level of "inappropriate" we are willing to subject our children to as part of their life experience. Does theoretically stupidity from a bishop fit? *shrug* Depends on how inappropriate, right? There's a pretty big spectrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
33 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Right, that's why having another person in there as a witness is a good idea. It protects ALL parties.

Did you read the rest of that same post?

One witness may not protect ALL parties.

Two witnesses plus the two participants cause other problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:

For instance, this woman recounts being told that french kissing was oral sex.

Do you accept her story at face value? Does it not cause all sorts of alarms to ring in your head? Maybe it's just me, but if someone is so incredibly brittle that a bishop's words (even though countered by the stake president) would "mess with [her] head" to the point that it interferes later in her marriage, the problem very clearly lies with the woman in question, and not with the bishop's nonsense being promulgated through a ham-fisted attempt at teaching a lesson.

I think her story is baloney. If it's not an outright fabrication—a possibility I won't discount—it is so obviously slanted in the retelling that it reduces her bishop to a caricature of ineptitude, and the teller to a caricature of pathetic uselessness.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest MormonGator
Just now, Carborendum said:

Did you read the rest of that same post?

No I've been reading so much of @JohnsonJones posts that I've got into "skim and look for key points" mode. (Just kidding JJ!)

Just now, Carborendum said:

One witness may not protect ALL parties.

Maybe not, but one witness, especially a parent, won't allow the questions/interview to get to a point where an issue comes up. 

2 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Two witnesses plus the two participants cause other problems.

It's about balance bro. Finding a balance between brining in a trusted mentor and making people announce their sins on fast and testimony Sunday. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

No I've been reading so much of @JohnsonJones posts that I've got into "skim and look for key points" mode. (Just kidding JJ!)

You read his posts? JK

2 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

Maybe not, but one witness, especially a parent, won't allow the questions/interview to get to a point where an issue comes up. 

It's about balance bro. Finding a balance between brining in a trusted mentor and making people announce their sins on fast and testimony Sunday. 

Balance is fine.  But don't be too surprised if someone else sees a different point of balance than you do.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, MormonGator said:

No I've been reading so much of @JohnsonJones posts that I've got into "skim and look for key points" mode. (Just kidding JJ!)

Haha. Sorry @JohnsonJones for laughing. But you do write some pretty epic...um......page turners?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tyme said:

I'm not particularly concerned about them being abused per se. My concern is them getting an intrusive line of questioning. I think even a well intentioned Bishop can ask unnecessary and intrusive questions.

I am genuinely wondering what people would determine to be unnecessary and intrusive questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, KScience said:

I am genuinely wondering what people would determine to be unnecessary and intrusive questions.

Sexual questions that go beyond have you violated the law of Chastity. The ones you hear about where the Bishop asks for details. It should be a flat, "have you violated the law of chastity." A Bishop should go no further than that.

Edited by Tyme

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Tyme said:

Sexual questions that go beyond have you violated the law of Chastity. The ones you hear about where the Bishop asks for details. It should be a flat, "have you violated the law of chastity." A Bishop should go no further than that.

If the answer is "no" and the person knows what's being talked about sure.

If the answer is "yes" then the degree of violation would be needed to know to work on healing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tyme said:

Sexual questions that go beyond have you violated the law of Chastity. The ones you hear about where the Bishop asks for details. It should be a flat, "have you violated the law of chastity." A Bishop should go no further than that.

Like, "What color was the negligee?", or, "Were the lights on at the time?" Perhaps something like, "What did you have playing on the radio at the time?", or, "Was this after or before dinner?" Also, "How many feet were involved?", "Was the bullwhip leather or vinyl?", "Were you tied up in any manner?", or "Were you hanging from any type of swinging device?"

And, of course the dreaded,

"You did what?!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not need to be in on the interviews. I know my Bishop and the kind of man he is. If I didn't, I would spend more time around him to get to know him better. No one can stop a parent from being in on the interview, but it should by no means be required. If anything, a second adult is needed for the Bishop's protection from false accusations. I have never had a Bishop use probing questions...and I have had at least 10 of them. There may be some bad eggs here and there, and some horror stories may be true, but I do not believe many of the stories out there...some are just too far out to be believable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this