TRIGGER WARNING: sexual and spiritual abuse
When I was 13-years-old, I was violated in a very personal way. A middle-aged man from my neighborhood pulled me aside, brought me into a private room, and asked me explicit sexual questions. It was a traumatic experience. It triggered severe anxiety, and I spent the next 15 years worried that something like that might happen to me again. I developed obsessive-compulsive rituals to avoid finding myself back in such a situation. I internalized a tremendous amount of shame from the experience and struggled with feelings of self-loathing.
For many years, I had no idea that what had happened to me was wrong. My culture, and even my family, made me feel that such an experience was normal and acceptable.
You see, I was at church, in my bishop’s office, when I had this experience.
It is very difficult to speak of such a tender subject. It goes against several taboos. It opens up a very private, personal experience–one from which I have largely healed, thanks to excellent counseling and by the grace of God–but it’s not something that I like to revisit regularly.
But for several months now, I’ve felt as though I should speak up about what happened to me and advocate for other children who might be in a similar position. I want to encourage parents to set boundaries to protect their kids. I hope our LDS community will demand change so that the frequency of these situations can be diminished.
A Common Problem
I’m not sure if this is still the case, but when I was growing up, youth aged 12-18 were interviewed by the bishop or one of his counselors every six months. They’d bring us into an office and ask how we were doing. On one particular occasion, my bishop deviated from the standard “script” and took the opportunity to ask very inappropriate questions.
I’m not sure why he did it. It could have been for perverted reasons. Part of me wants to paint him this way because it’s less complicated. But I actually believe he did it because he thought he was being helpful. Because he genuinely believed it was his role as bishop. Because he had been raised in a tradition that has some very unhealthy notions about sexuality, stewardship, and worthiness.
Unfortunately, this was not the only time it happened. Throughout my years as a teenager and young single adult, I had at least two other experiences where priesthood leaders asked very explicit questions. Each time it was disconcerting and stressful. I’ve heard of similar things happening to others. This makes me believe that it’s a relatively widespread problem–one that we simply must correct. It’s not necessary, acceptable, or even understandable.
It’s abusive.
Confession Must Be Voluntary
As far as I can tell, the “logic” behind the practice of conducting regular interviews is to encourage confession of sin. And certainly, confession is a Christian principle. It is the acknowledgment of wrongdoing and the fruit of a repentant heart. Scripture has several injunctions to confess, including 1 John 1:9 (“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness”), James 5:16 (“Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you might be healed”), and Proverbs 28:13 (“Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy”).
Most Christians view confession as a private affair; you confess your sins to God in prayer and to those whom you have wronged. Some groups include confession to a leader or small group. There are a few Christian congregations that practice public confession–that of naming your sins out loud to everyone. Mormons practice a blend of the first two: for the most part you confess your sins to God in prayer, but some sins are deemed “bad enough” that they require confession to an ecclesiastical leader. Included in this “extra bad” category are certain types of sexual sins.
I have serious reservations about the idea that some sins are “worse” than others in the first place, and the reservations are compounded when we’re speaking about sexuality. If we’re going to “rank” sins at all, I believe that sexual sins are probably less serious than what C.S. Lewis called “diabolical vices”–sins that rise from hatred or hardness of heart as opposed to passion or weakness of flesh. I see nothing in scripture, ancient or modern, that supports the categorization we currently use, and I pray we do away with it.
But even granting that it is legitimate to require special confession to ecclesiastical leaders for certain types of sin, such confession must be offered voluntarily and not coerced in any way. Asking graphic, probing questions in an attempt to elicit confession is anathema to the spirit of repentance. There is absolutely no theological justification for such invasive interrogations.
Protecting Minors
Even more problematic is that these interviews take place between authority figures and minors, behind closed doors, without parents or witnesses present. It’s one thing for two adults to be sitting across from one another. It’s entirely another to put minor children in this situation, especially in light of the fact that LDS bishops are volunteers with no training in pastoral care or counseling. Even though I’m sure that in a majority of cases, bishops aren’t asking graphic questions (or worse!), is it worth the risk? It’s a set-up that makes abuse extremely easy to perpetrate. There is no other context where this would be acceptable–not in school, scouting, extra-curricular activities, or even at the doctor’s office (a nurse always comes in when I’m getting a breast exam, for example). It’s just too dangerous.
Further, sexuality in minors is the purview of parents. I don’t want an untrained neighbor, who might have ideas and beliefs about sexuality that are diametrically opposed to mine, using his authority to co-opt conversations that should be happening at home. If youth approach trusted leaders of their own accord to address questions or problems they are having about sexuality, that may be acceptable if the conversation remains respectful and careful, with proper regard for boundaries. But there is no situation in which it is appropriate for leaders to “take matters into their own hands” and initiate these conversations. We have an obligation to protect our children from such egregious violations of their privacy and abuse of authority.
A Call for Change
With these things in mind, I call on the LDS Church to take fast action to protect children and minimize the instances of ecclesiastical and sexual abuse. Suggestions for change include…
- Explicit instruction to bishops to avoid questioning minors about sexuality.
- Extensive training on how to deal with reported incidents of sexual abuse or activity in minors, including protocols on when to notify authorities, parents/guardians, and/or refer out to therapists or other trained professionals.
- “Two-deep” interviews, so that minors and priesthood leaders are never alone in a room together.
- Re-examination of teachings and policies that require special confession for sexual sins in light of scripture, the Holy Spirit, and the teachings of Jesus Christ.
Setting Boundaries
Until the church makes policy changes to protect minors from ecclesiastical abuse, it’s up to parents and concerned leaders to do so. Here are some practical things we can do to set boundaries and prevent this practice from damaging our children.
1) Insist on being present in interviews. It’s a no-brainer that “two-deep” interviews should be standard policy, but until such time as it occurs, parents can create a safer environment by insisting on being present in any interviews that occur. The policy in our family is: there will be no interviews between priesthood leaders and our children unless we are present, period.
2) Teach children principles of sexual agency. Help children protect themselves by teaching them that their bodies belong to them and no one else. Teach them that no one has the right to ask them intimate questions about their bodies, genitals, masturbatory practices, or personal relationships. Teach them it’s okay to say, “No, I won’t answer that; it’s none of your business.” Stand by them if there are repercussions by domineering priesthood leaders who withhold access to religious ceremonies and rights of passage as a result of children’s refusal to compromise their sexual agency.
3) Foster a healthy questioning of authority. This problem exists in the church because no one has thought to question the practice in the first place; it’s simply “what we do.” Teach children that as they mature, their objective is to internalize their own spiritual authority and stand before God as fully actualized spiritual agents. Let them know that it’s healthy and important to question what they’ve been taught and come to their own conclusions.
Conclusion
Christ said: “Whoever receives one such child in my name receives me; but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea” (Matthew 18:5-6).
It’s time to cast this millstone off. We cannot claim to be Christ’s people while we tolerate and perpetuate practices that harm children.
This simply must stop.
I actually left the church around age 19 because the panic attacks stemming from these interviews were taking over my entire life. I left so I could actually commit a sin worth feeling guilty over. For years following those interviews, I felt I could never be clean enough, good enough, loved enough and in my youth and early adulthood I hadn’t even done anything to feel guilty about! It was entirely based on inappropriate conversations with my bishop and it took me leaving to feel like I could infuse myself with enough worth and emotional stability to return.
WOW! it just sounds to me like none of you took any initiative whatsoever to do any kind of research or study of your own. True to the Faith, the Chastity pamphlet, Let virtue garnish thy thoughts, all are very good recourse materials. You didn’t talk to your parents, you never asked any kinds of questions to anyone. If you where so perturbed by it why did you never say anything to anyone? And if you where feeling dirty and unclean and as if the savior didn’t love you, then i cannot believe you where reading the scriptures and praying regularly.
I cannot say that your bishop did not handle it poorly, or give you bad information. I can’t even say that it was not inappropriate. But you did nothing. Nothing at all.
Again, these bishops screwed up. they didn’t perform the interview right. but i had the same interviews, and you know what i did about it? i talked to my parents, i read about it, and i prayed.
this is a problem, but the solution is not to change the interviews, because the interviews are divinely instated. we need bishops to be educated on how to handle the situation, but they are still going to screw up because they are humans. so what we really need is for parents to educate their children, and for children to be told to educate themselves.
oh yeah, and when you where in these interviews and felt so uncomfortable, why didn’t you say “whoa, i’m not comfortable with these questions,” or anything else to that effect?
Really? Because we were children taught to trust the authority of our religious leaders? Because there is an imbalance of authority when you have a 13-year-old girl in a room with a 50-year-old man who is in charge of her spiritual well-being?
Exactly!
A bishop is not “in charge” of someone’s spiritual well-being. Each person (even a teenager) is responsible for his or her spiritual well-being. And I’m also frustrated with the author placing so much blame on bishop’s interviews and none on her own parents. She has bulleted advice for how the church should change protocol, but no where was there an admission that her own parents didn’t do a very good job of teaching her what to do if she felt something inappropriate was happening. If her parents had fostered an open communication channel she would have felt she could have told her parents she felt uncomfortable when the Bishop asked such and such a question, but instead she spent years being traumatized by some questions…this leads me to ask what exactly were there inappropriate questions? I can’t even begin to guess. I think if the author wants to “put it out there” that this Bishop was asking inappropriate questions she should let people know what he was asking so we can all judge how appropriate or inappropriate they may or may not have been. Embarrassing to a thirteen year old, maybe yes, but embarrassment is different than inappropriate. It is entirely appropriate for a bishop to ask if masterbation is occurring, if heavy petting is occurring, if pornography is a problem. If the answer is “no”, then there shouldn’t be trauma…if the answer is “yes” and then there are followup questions to discover the extent then the questions are not inappropriate.
This post is about the practice of interviewing youth about sex. It isn’t about how to talk to your kids about sex. There are other posts for that.
It blows my mind that people get upset that she’s questioning the appropriateness of these interviews and then tell her that as a child she should have felt comfortable questioning the appropriateness of the interview?
And we just plain disagree if you think it’s appropriate to ask kids about masturbatory practices and hand jobs in one on one, mandatory interviews. Yuck. Imagine an adult asking your 12-year-old about those things in any other context.
Wow, you are a perfect example of the effectiveness of the indoctrination process of the church. That you believe “It is entirely appropriate for a bishop to ask if masturbation is occurring… etc”, is indicative of an unhealthy lack of boundaries, which is all too common in the church. As the OP says, these are not the purview of bishops or any other church leader. Children should be taught that any such line of questioning is wholly inappropriate in any setting, with the exception of parents, period.
Glen, I understand that you’re asking a sincere question. The answer to that is that I was taught under no uncertain terms that the Bishop was always the one in the right. Also, I was absolutely _mortified_ to talk about these things with anyone, let alone discuss them with uber conservative parents. I’m glad you had parents who would be open to talking about these things and who would believe you but mine certainly would not. So where does that leave people like me and so many others?
Also, is it truly divinely inspired? The questions have changed over the years as has the role of the Bishop (the D&C makes it very clear that the purpose of a bishop is to look out for the temporal well-being of the saints). It seems to me that with these sorts of results, it’s anything but divinely inspired.
Amy, I’m so sorry you had such conservative parents that you couldn’t talk to them about such things, and I’m also sad that your parents taught you false doctrine concerning Bishops. I’m truly sorry. But people who find themselves in your situation cannot continue to point their fingers at others (Bishops–who are also flawed) as the cause for all their problems with the church. A few bad experiences with some bishops dragged all across the internet overlooks the MILLIONS of great interviews from wonderful bishops around the world.
Glen, requoting Pres. Tanner:
“It is not in order for a priesthood leader to list in detail ugly, deviant, or bestial practices and then cross-examine a member of the Church as to whether or not such things are practiced.”
http://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/11/the-blessing-of-church-interviews?lang=eng
It becomes a problem to protest when a Bishop crosses the line in this, or, any other area. Many may feel that a Bishop can “ad lib”, but, there’s also the real danger of hurting others. They need to watch out about what they feel inspired to do. One married young adult sister, without any children, mentioned that the Bishop’s Counselor stated in a Temple Recommend interview that he was inspired to tell her that people should not delay starting a family. She then told him she had a miscarriage the week before.
So, was he inspired as he thought by adding that question of her? The same peril awaits in morality questions.
Oh my gosh….so that sister was offended because a church leader felt prompted to teach a true principle in an interview. She is the one that jumped to a conclusion that the leader was judging her. My guess was that he had NO INTENTION of placing any kind of judgement on her or her situation, but when the spirit is telling you to teach a true principle YOU DO IT!!!! She is the one who got hurt and offended.
I don’t think the spirit would prompt somebody to share that “true principle” with somebody who is going through the heartache of a miscarriage. That is obviously not part of the interview and was therefore unnecessary and judgemental. I’m sure the interviewer meant well, but he should learn the difference between inspiration and his own justification for saying something that was not in his place to say. As someone who has suffered two miscarriages, I would be devastated if a church leader said that to me and then had the gull to say it was inspired.
Blaming the victim is standing on the wrong side of the issue. Blaming a child for not defending herself against the inappropriate behavior of an adult is flat wrong. I hope you shift your perspective and see it from another side. It will be enlightening, I am sure.
Is it far fetched to suppose that the bishop could be a victim of this blog? Truth is that no one really knows much of anything about that exchange because it was left out of the blog. Vague language with strong accusations and even stronger calls to storm the castle with pitch forks in hand.
“victim blaming” is the buzz word de jour whenever anyone disagrees with someones story or conclusions.
There was a bishop who suspected youth in a certain ward were not being straight with him or their parents. He interviewed them all and asked them two questions:
1) Are there youth in the ward breaking the law of chastity and word of wisdom?
they all answered, yes.
2) Is it you?
they ALL answered, no.
It ain’t easy being a bishop or a parent.
Maybe we should stop trying to police people’s behavior and get back to confession instead of control and interrogation?
People have missed the entire point if they think this has anything to do with what specific questions were asked. The things we should be concerned about are the emotional consequences of that setting and a policy that is at best a breeding ground for harm and abuse.
This makes me really sad.
Tonight when I was telling my husband about this article, after telling me about his own experiences, said…
At that that age the bishop is so important in our eyes you might as well be confessing to the prophet.
And that’s the problem. Way too much power and influence.
Glen, I can see you’re a gutsy guy that won’t let anyone put anything over on you.. Anything..like say–education. It takes a great deal of nerve to write a long post misspelling “were” as “where” twice, starting multiple sentences without capital letters. “And if you where feeling dirty and unclean and as if the savior didn’t love you, then I cannot believe you where…” I, for one, cannot take one thing you write seriously because of the terrible spelling and grammar. Time to set aside your ego and go back to school.
Glen–
I hate to play the gender card, but as a male, you have less to little experience with being or feeling sexually abused. And not everyone’s parents would hear what their daughter was saying and be receptive.
Jen, while I understand where you’re coming from, please do not make assumptions like “as a male, you have less to little experience with being or feeling sexually abused.” As a man who has experienced sexually abusive situations, I believe that statements like that are part of the reason why those of us who have been hurt often do not feel that we can seek help; after all, if no other boys were abused, then we must have been too weak to defend ourselves. More men feel this way than you think, and almost all of them are shouldering the burden alone because we’re regularly told that only girls and women can be damaged sexually.
I didn’t mean that men can’t be sexually abused. But in a room with a bishop, a girl is very easily preyed upon. A boy is, too. Any young person in a one on one situation can get into trouble.
Sad.
What planet are you people from??? You are making it sound like every young woman in the church is in mortal danger whenever she has an interview at church!!!!!! This is crazy! People need to just have a straight talk with their kids about what to do if they feel uncomfortable—just like you would have the “stranger danger” talk with your kid–and trust that 99.9% of the time their interactions with priesthood leaders is going to be wonderful! Or you can scare the crap out of your kid that their bishop is going to prey on them and you as the parent can be the cause of the anxiety, worry and years of therapy ahead for your daughter!!
I’m sorry that your experiences aren’t validated or taken as seriously. My heart breaks for you and what you’ve been through. In this case, I honestly think that men deal with just as much shame and self-loathing as a result of invasive Bishop’s interviews. I think guys get hounded about things like masturbation even more often.
And the mormon church wonders why they are losing members at record numbers. Marlin K. Jensen said the church is seeing a mass exodus of members in recent years, people are leaving in numbers not seen since Nauvoo. And they are trying to figure out why. It could be because attitudes like the one displayed by Glen are typical in every church building.
Honestly, it’s probably just the internet.
The internet provides doubt, but people still go to church even with those doubts, because they enjoy the social aspects. Guys like Glen give the doubting member no good reason to stay active.
I would like to see claims like this cited with a link to a reliable source. If the Church is losing members in “record numbers” it would logically then be declining in membership. However, statistics show otherwise: “According to the National Council of Churches, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the second-fastest-growing church in the United States.” http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/topic/church-growth
Please use comment sections with care and caution. Claims like this can cause misunderstanding and inflammatory remarks.
Yes, we actually need a concrete explanation how the church is calculating those numbers … for example, they surely include inactives, and possibly ex-members as well – which would explain the growth.
Rebecca,
The quote about the number of members leaving the Church is from an address Marlin K. Jensen gave at Utah State University on 1/3/2012 when he stated “maybe since Kirtland, we never have had a period of, I’ll call it apostasy, like we’re having right now” referring to the number of people who are leaving the Church voluntarily. Note that the Church lost roughly 30% of its members in Kirtland. Here is a copy of the recording from that interview if you would like to listen to it for yourself. http://www.fileswap.com/dl/5iKOuShH9D/ElderJensenQandAInterlacedEdited.mp3
As for the Church numbers growing, we know that inactives are counted on the records of the Church. We’re not sure about official ex-members which is to say that of course we’re growing, 1) we’re still having kids and 2) we keep meticulous records unlike any other church…
It is a problem the church is surly trying to deal with. But the LDS church is not the only one suffering from a “mass exodus” of members, especially the younger adult members. Evangelical churches too are suffering from such an “exodus.”
http://www.cnn.com/2011/12/16/opinion/stepp-millennials-church
We often like to see the church (and the church itself likes to see itself) as very different from other churches out there, but the plain fact of the matter is that it isn’t that different. It is a church pretty much like any other. For sure it makes some unique claims. But claims don’t make you different. And it deals with the same problems that other large conservative churches deal with in the United States.
Is it a generational problem? Maybe. Does it have to do with church practices? Maybe. Is it the internet? Maybe. Are we disillusioned? Maybe. But it is unfair to the LDS church to pretend like it is corrupt and overrun with stereotypical self-righteous men and women who are so unfeeling and insensitive that they are causing others to leave.
I think if Christian churches knew exactly why young people were leaving they would do something about it. I personally think it is more than just doctrine or antiquated practices that are causing people to leave. Because updated practices in many churches aren’t doing anything for their numbers. And doctrine is very similar across the board. So what is it? I don’t claim to know. But it is truly a sweeping problem for many churches, not just the LDS church.
Thank you for making this point.
Seriously Glen,
When did you have the guts as a teen to stand up to an adult – especially when you have been talk your salvation is at stake.
Again, I don’t understand this idea that teens believe that their “salvation is at stake” due to an interview with the bishop. Clearly, there is some important doctrinal teaching missing from PARENTS, youth leaders, seminary teachers, etc. when a teen believes that talking to their bishop is equivalent to talking to the prophet.
Brainwashed much, Kristin? Read over that original article with a clear mind and you will see that the author clearly had a traumatic experience. Period. Bringing up parenting and child rearing is a different subject entirely. If you would like to discuss that, I suggest writing your own article, complete with bullet points on how we can all be better parents.
Why wouldn’t a teen believe talking to their bishop is the equivalent to talking to the prophet? If I understand correctly, bishops are chosen when other leaders pray about it, which suggests some kind of connection to God. So I guess what you are saying is that nobody, teens included, should take what bishops say as very important because it’s not the same as speaking with a prophet. It seems like you are being really defensive will all of your comments, which suggests some kind of doubt on your part about your own faith. Maybe it’s you who hasn’t had proper guidance.
If you cannot see the importance of protecting children from sexual trauma then you are truly lost. The quality of parenting does not influence whether or not a child is exposed to sexual trauma. You seem to think there is a direct link, as if to say, that if all parents taught their children better sexual trauma would cease to exist. I also find it troubling that you seem to believe that leaders within the Mormon church are simply not capable of having deceitful thoughts and behaviors.
My basic question for you would be, what harm would come from parents being present when interviewing children? Name three good reasons why that would be harmful and I might believe you.
There are adults who believe their salvation is in the hands of their bishops, so it’s not surprising that young people would think the same thing. Actually, in fact, as a Judge in Israel, the bishop does hold the keys to the salvation of the non-Melchizedek-Priesthood-holding members of a ward. He has the ability to convene and carry out church discipline, and young people (and adults) are taught that part of the mantle of the bishop is the gift of discernment. So, yeah, I can see why sitting in an interview situation could be uncomfortable. Especially if you don’t know what the rules are about which questions are appropriate and which aren’t.
Seriously, Glen? Children are supposed to stand up to so-called representatives of God? Get some compassion!
Glen, I was 13-years-old and filled with intense anxiety about the state of my eternal soul. You bet your ass I read my scriptures and prayed; I did so constantly.
You, my friend, are on the wrong side of this issue. You are engaging in victim blaming. You’re trying to find a way to justify a policy that is clearly wrong. Christ said, “By their fruits you shall know them.”
Just read the comments section. The fruits you see before you are evidence enough that this is a deeply problematic practice for which the only appropriate response is, “THIS MUST STOP.”
Amen. Glen, your stance on blaming the victim is tantamount to blaming a rape victim for allowing the rapist to rape them. Why didn’t they just run away? Why were they wearing that seductive attire? etc. It’s not the victim’s fault they were being victimized. In our church we are taught not to question ANY authority figures, and that we will be blessed if we follow them. It’s unconscionable that you think a child is emotionally capable of standing up against an adult, especially a church authority figure in light of this teaching. No matter how you look at it, it’s abuse.
I’m saddened to see your response to this, Glen. Blaming a victim is wrong. A 12 or 13 year old girl who has been taught her whole life that a bishop is THE spiritual authority and guardian in her life is not going to have the proper frame of mind to question his interview practices. I’m also saddened to see you brushing it off as someone not “reading the scriptures and praying regularly.” If you read the examples below, you’ll see example after example of young women who prayed vigorously for forgiveness of sins they weren’t actually committing, because they were afraid of having to answer “yes” to these abusive questions. The main example coming from the anonymous source below who felt guilty for washing her vagina because she’d been told masturbation was “touching her vagina”. In her comment, she said she prayed ALL the time for forgiveness. Was she doing something wrong as well?
I hope you’ll re-examine your response to this issue.
Glen, I must come out of lurking to ask you to not blame victims. It is at best ignorant of how sexual harassment and exploitation of minors takes place. When a trusted authority figure violates a minor, it can make the victim feel like telling someone will make them a bad person. What child in the LDS church isn’t taught that feeling critical of a church leader can lead to apostasy? What LDS child isn’t taught that you must always answer a bishop’s questions? The resulting confusion about feeling ashamed due to the interaction is very common among children who are sexually violated. They blame themselves for the bad feelings. They feel they will make it worse by saying something, or that people will think they are dirty or evil. It is very difficult to overcome those feelings and be able to share your story. It is unethical and inappropriate to then turn around and condemn the victim for not having the strength or ability to “do something.”
Oh really? When? Where? To whom?
Dude, she was a kid. It’s not her responsibility to do anything. It’s up to adults (and especially leaders) to create a safe, sensitive space for the kids under their ecclesiastical care. Making this out to be her fault demonstrates not only a lack of empathy, but also a lack of understanding when it comes to some basic truths about sexuality.
She had a bad experience, the fact that a very intimate and sexual discussion with an adult made her feel uneasy or unclean has nothing to do with her scripture study or prayer level. You’re sick for making out like her negative feelings where somehow based on her unworthiness.
And you’re example that you had a similar experience and handled it better because you talked to your parents … wow. I guess you win the “fastest sexual impropriety recovery” award. It’s like you only see the world through your own experience, like a learning disability where you are incapable of seeing through the eyes of others. What a sad and dangerous handicap.
People like you give the church a bad name. Show a little empathy, and if you lack the capacity for that, at least show the good sense to keep quiet about things you don’t understand.
Glen you are expecting way too much from a young teenager and I am expecting way more out of an adult like yourself. Blaming the victim is despicable but, more importantly, try to learn from people instead of condemn them. It’s a crazy notion but maybe you might not know everything there is to know about gender, ecclesiastical power abuse, and sexuality issues. Perhaps Kam has a certain set of experiences that makes her uniquely qualified to address these issues and perhaps you’d be better off listening to her and valuing her contribution. Act like a Christian instead of belittling people who don’t agree with you. I’m a true believing Mormon but I know very well that we have A LOT that we need to improve upon. I hope you realize that too. It’s that dose of humility I believe God expects from us.
Glen… Interviews are divinely instated? I’ve had a bishop lie to my wife and tell her that I was addicted to porn and masterbation. I have no idea what he was aiming to accomplish with that. Many bishops are also known to twist scripture to reflect what they want it to. It’s a big problem in our church, that doesn’t get talked about. Most bishops are great, but I’ve heard stories from many people, and have experienced it myself where our bishops aren’t always what they seem.
As a female, I couldn’t agree more with Glenn. I’m glad you spoke up. Sounds like the author is looking to stir up trouble. She does not sound like a victim, as others have referred to her…other than a victim of self-pity. I certainly believe there are MEN who serve in volunteer positions such as the bishopric, that should not be serving with, around, or near children. I know there are, just like every church out there, men who prey on males and females and use authority positions to do prey on others. However, this just doesn’t sound like the case here.
As an actual victim of being sexually abused as an 8 yr. old. I made choices to become sexually active as a young teenager. I disregarded the teachings of my parents and other church leaders who loved and cared for me and became inactive. I became pregnant at 17. I returned to the LDS church and never felt judged. I went through interviews one-on-one with my Bishop and spoke about very explicit sexual experiences. I then went to my disfellowship meeting (all alone at 17 with 3 men) and also shared my sinful sexual stories and stories about forgiveness and of Christ’s love. I was healed that day. I can remember not feeling like there were dirty old men asking perverted questions, but I felt love, and caring, and kindness from men in a way I had only come to know from my Savior and Heavenly Father. Having been asked those so called perverted questions alone, helped me repent and feel the love of my Savior. I have never felt more love and support.
I testify of our Savior’s love for all of us and the healing power that comes from those one-on-one interviews. One day when we look back and see how we spent our time I think everyone will regret bantering about an inspired church program. I do not share or confess past sins on the internet to strangers. I certainly never talk about the abuse I endured as a child. I am at peace about it and that peace comes from a loving father in heaven. I only share this small moment of my history to address how beautifully healing those interviews were for me.
Wondering why Glen is so defensive…maybe you just exposed yourself. A child should never worry about why or who…its the adult who has that responsibility. Glen you should repent for all the ways you treated young men and girls.
Yeah, the crazy thing is that my dad, a.bishop ordained of God (twice more after being prosecuted) was too busy molesting my sisters to ask those questions, so we were questioned by an equally sick first counselor. Why are you typing anything. You are defending a mysoganystic group who created you, mind body, and hell-bound spirit. So your comments are not only invasive, but offensive. You have no idea, you never will, your comments only intensify the drive to inform everyone. You represent all that is sad about the men in this religion.
Glen-
Have children educate themselves how? By praying? lol That’s a definite way to know… hahaha
Hi Glen. I remember when I was as indoctrinated and shallow as you appear to be. Try NOT blaming the victim and go from there. I hope one day you can restart the part of your brain that handles critical thinking and begin to take off the blinders the church so gladly gave you that prevent you from seeing what’s real.
this is beautiful; where have you been ‘hiding’, KAM?
Why have I been so stupid about this? Why have I allowed my children to endure this? Why have I allowed myself to endure this?
You are needed in this decadent, fallen culture–
Don’t give up the battle–
Yes! I also had a few very bad experiences regarding sexual questions and bishops interviews, one of which took place when I was at the tender age of 12. The bishop asked me about masturbation and when I had no idea what that was, he explained it to me. I was horrified and felt so uncomfortable. A adult church leader should never be talking to a 12 year old girl (or any other minor,) about sexual matters, period. My children will never attend an interview with an ecclesiastical leader alone.
This was also how I learned about masturbation at age 12. I was completely mortified, embarrassed, and shamed. I don’t even understand why because I was innocent. I do know that being ASKED put me on the defensive. It felt almost like I was being accused of something.
Imagine that every year someone in a suit took you in a room, got all serious, and asked you if you stole something. Even if they did it to every kid, every year, it would feel pretty crappy to have your character called into question on a regular basis. This is the same thing, except they are asking kids every year if they touch themselves, or have sinned at all. And I imagine that many kids HAVE made mistakes.
I was an innocent goody two shoes kids. And yet I learned to dread those interviews. I can imagine it would be horrible for someone with something do confess. Even into adulthood, in the weeks leading up to my temple recommend interviews, I always felt like I wasn’t good enough, not spiritual enough, etc.
“Fully actualized spiritual agents” is the most important part of this.
I had a similar experience as a twelve or thirteen year old girl. The Bishopric member conducting the interview asked me if I masturbated. At that age, I was unaware that girls could actually do that. He asked me if I knew what he was talking about, and since I didn’t, I told him so. He then explained that it meant touching my vagina. Perhaps there was more to the explanation, but that was all I remembered.
That had devastating consequences. I thought that anytime I touched my vagina, I was committing sin. That included in the shower, so I thought. I was afraid to even wash myself, fearful that I would inadvertently commit sin. One time I lost a tampon, and I sobbed as I tried to find it, sure that I was polluting myself. Sure that I was masturbating.
I am sorry to say this belief went on for years and years. One time, in college I shaved my bikini line and then prayed and prayed for forgiveness. I promised Heavenly Father I would never do it again. Ever. The shame I felt was terrible. It wasn’t until I was married that I was fully able to let go of my skewed understanding of the word masturbate.
All because of a Bishopric interview.
My children will not be interviewed without me there. I agree completely with this post. This has to change.
You should have looked up “masturbation” in the dictionary. Or in any church literature. Church website. Talks. Your friends on the bus. Google. A friendly policeman. The library. Anywhere, really.
Really? 10-15 years, feeling constant, overwhelming guilt over a definition that you could have found anywhere? And what, you would have felt better if your dad had been standing over you in that interview, ready to draw you a picture?
Just make sure your kids are smarter than you were, and they’ll be fine.
Have you looked up the meaning of the words, sky, blue, trousers ….umm sister etc? If not, why not? Most likely because someone you trusted told you what those words meant and nothing happened in your life that made you question whether blue is what you told it was. Addto tthat the fact that masturbation is viewed as sinful activity in this church..and this church teaches that you don’t question authority figures . Also that you don’t read sinful literature. .. and shove all that into an impressionable young girl and this is what you get.
Nice go at victim blaming. Do you also think women who are raped were asking for it by exposing their knees?
“Victim blaming” requires a victim.
But yes, before I let my mental definition of “trousers” destroy my life, I would look it up. I would memorize its definition.
I can specifically recall state-mandated sex ed in 6th, 7th, 8th and 10th grades. I learned about it all there in pretty good detail.
Also, surely she picked up at some point that men have to make contact with their private parts to aim while urinating? It just doesn’t stand up, logically.
I could believe that a young girl could reasonably be confused, and not think too hard about it or check with other (even other church) sources, but all the way through college?
Bailey, the author of this piece didn’t have anxiety because she didn’t know the definition of “masturbation” until she was in her 20’s. If you read the piece, it has nothing to do with that. I personally know the author, and the anxiety she felt was that she would be asked such sexually explicit questions again, not that she might accidentally masturbate (because she didn’t know what it was). She knew perfectly well what masturbation was following that interview, from her bishop, as well as from her parents.
The deep scars came from a 13 year old girl being asked about her vagina by a strange man, and the subsequent worry that if she didn’t live an absolutely perfect life, that she might have to confess again under similarly abusive circumstances. Because of that worry, she spent YEARS being sure to only side hug boys in case she felt their penis against her body, or in case her breasts touched their bodies, or only very briefly kissing boys so she wouldn’t be aroused, because she was worried if she did ANY of those things, she would have to confess to a strange man about her body again. THAT is the problem. Not the lack of knowledge of a definition.
emperorbailey, the anonymous commenter shared a very painful experience, and it’s not okay for you to ridicule and harass her about it. If you make another comment about her experience, it will be deleted. Putting you on warning.
Many Mormon parents opt their kids out of sex ed. Mine did. I was married before I knew what my clitoris was. And no, you can’t just blame me for not looking it up. One, I didn’t know there was a thing to look up. Two, a sense of sin shrouded anything having to do with sex for me. I was brought up that way. The only advice my mother had for me getting married was that we shouldn’t tough each other’s genitals *too* much. It’s entirely plausible to not know what masturbation or even sex entails at the age of 12 under these circumstances. Your judgmental tone and talk of state-mandated sex ed as the solution makes me question whether you are even LDS, as it seems you have no grasp of the environment most Mormons are brought up in. Either that or you were raised in a way that was a far exception from the norm. Your attempts to blame victims–and yes, a child in a room alone being questioned by someone who has authority over her and she feels like she can’t refuse is a victim–shows a lack of education and an unwillingness to try and understand the plight of those in distress.
‘…makes me question whether you are even LDS, as it seems you have no grasp of the environment most Mormons are brought up in.’
Most Mormons? Do you mean most of the 15 million Mormons all over the world, or do you mean most of the Mormons in the Utah area? Or the U.S.? I must say I do not recognize myself in any of these situations, nor do I have friends that do. BUT, that does not mean that I don’t recognize that they happen, and to those of you sharing those experiences here, your experiences and feelings and thoughts and pain is completely validated. It truly breaks my heart that these inappropriate things happen. However, all these comments make it seem like this happens more often than not, all over the world in the Church, and I personally doubt that.
I am saddened that I have not read anything about repentance and forgiveness, and the beauty of feeling God’s love and acceptance for exactly who we are, no matter what we have done. He loves us all equally. He will never love one more than another. (Some people might have mentioned these things, but I have not made it to the end of this thread, so I apologize if there are accounts of this nature further down.) I am glad to read about the occasional positive experiences with bishops. I have talked with one bishop myself about certain sexual details, and it was one of the most wonderful and spiritual conversations I’ve had. I feel he emulated what a bishop should truly be – someone who deeply cares for the members of his ward, and acts and speaks in tune with the inspirations of the Spirit. I have to say that I am saddened by those who comment on bishops’ ‘right’ to say what they have been inspired to say. Yes, maybe they weren’t inspired, but maybe they were. Inspiration and revelation is something personal and individual.
Another question: When has the Church EVER taught that we, as members, should NEVER question our leaders?? These are strong words. And regardless of what local church leaders, teachers, or parents have taught, I do not think the Church has ever said that we are not to question our leaders. If anything, I feel like we are taught to find out for ourselves if anything and everything we are taught in the Church is true. I think it is truly a shame that too many have not been taught these things, but feel like they have no accountability and choice over their own person and salvation. I think the gift of agency is one of the most beautiful things the Church teaches.
And lastly (for now), I do, as many before me, put blame on parents. Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not talking about any particular experience that has been shared here, but in general. I am truly shocked and extremely saddened whenever I hear of young adults, and women in particular, who are more or less traumatized by sex, and all that it entails, when they get married, because everything is new to them. To those of you – kudos for making it to where you are (which I assume are responsible, good people). In my opinion, based on my own personal experiences and beliefs, parents have the main responsibility of teaching their children about sex – how wonderful it is supposed to be, and not to mention, how sacred. I think YM and YW leaders along with the Bishopric, can very appropriately discuss what sex is, and various immoral behavior in settings such as Bishops’ Youth Council – which happened in my ward earlier this year when I was serving as the YW president. The youth were able to ask questions, and give their thoughts and opinions about what happens in the world today, especially in their social circles. The point is, they need to know and understand that having sexual feelings and urges is natural, and nothing sinful. But they also need to know and understand that by treating sex and immorality casually, and not setting personal standards for themselves, they might find themselves in situations that can lead to serious sin. HOWEVER, they ALSO need to know and understand that if they ever do transgress in this manner, they are not damned to hell. (Just as a PS, if you think about how sex is portrayed in the world today, and then how sacred it is, it is, to me at least, obvious what a serious sin sexual transgression is, without proper repentance.) No, they can, if they choose, repent, seek forgiveness, and be clean. Heavenly Father will remember their sins no more, because His Son, Jesus Christ, died for all of our sins. AND, they need to know and understand the importance of forgiving themselves. They need to know and feel that they are and will be loved and supported by their parents and church leaders, and perhaps, most importantly, by God.
Again, this, in my eyes, is ideal. Is it the norm? I don’t know. In my life, I have not come across anyone who have had any of these various uncomfortable and inappropriate experiences, but that it happens to even a small percentage of church members is far too much. What can we do? Stop blaming anyone, and rather make sure that we teach our children who they are – children of God, and that their bodies are sacred, used for procreation and expression of love within the sanctity of marriage – the nuances of this should be up to the parents.
The end.
I couldn’t agree more with you emperorbailey.
Umm… I think you’ve missed the point. The child in this post hadn’t learned about masturbation, and had to hear what it was from her Bishop, who was a middle aged stranger. She was 12, and didn’t have any reason to know what masturbation was, or the need to ask. Her guilt wasn’t about not knowing what the definition of masturbation was, it was about the shame she went through because of that interview, and the ensuing worry that if she didn’t live a perfect life that she would have to go through that same shameful process again (even though she’d done nothing wrong).
There are no other religions where it is okay for a young kid to be alone in a room with a man and be interrogated about their sexual activity.
There is a component left out here. Often, the people most willing to defend the LDS church because it’s the one true church, Christ’s kingdom on earth, are the same people that say, “Oh well, you shouldn’t rely on the church for everything, you should’ve looked this stuff up on your own.” Except…that’s exactly what Mormon youth (at least when I was growing up) were told not to do. You can’t rely on the big bad “world” for information about sex. It’ll just tell you it’s good and grand and have all you want. You have to rely on the church. Couple that with an environment that creates an almost worshipful attitude towards its hierarchy and leaders, and you have young people who think the bishop and the church authorities are the best source of information about sex.
So young children are trusting their church authorities because, hey, they’ve got a direct conduit with God on how we ought to be behaving, and then they’re treated as if they’re naive, stupid, or foolish for doing exactly what the church wants them to do.
I was never told or under the impression while growing up in the church that “the church” is the source of your sexual education. If you, as parents, have not educated your children on sexual matters but the time they reach the age of 12 then the fault will be on you. This is absolutely insane that you, or any other member, would think that the church educates on these issues. I am a product of childhood sexual abuse myself (committed by a family member) but have also taught my children the common behaviors of such people. I am very much aware of even those extremely rare and few in my ward that possess these behaviors and always keep an eye peeled when they are around. Am I calling them sexual predators? No. I am merely stating that I, from experience, have learned the personalities and behaviors some have that come with POSSIBLY committing this sin. I have always been open with my children what happened to me and that they need to feel they can come to me if there ever was a problem so we could solve it (not using such nice words as to what the punish would be coming from me toward the perpetrator). If you lived 100 years ago or more and came back to life you would be horrified with what is going on in this day. Sex is written everywhere and it is OUR JOB AS PARENTS to keep our kids on the straight and narrow. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the bishop’s interview if they stick with the interview. If the child doesn’t understand something, the bishop should merely postpone the interview, notify the parents as to the wording in the interview the child does not understand, have the parents explain it, and continue the interview at a later date. A teenager who understands the law of chastity and has committed a sexual sin is more likely to tell the bishop about this during an interview to work through forgiveness and become temple worthy. I don’t think very many youth would be inclined to say something to there parents about sexual sins but would to the bishop since spiritual cleanliness is an important principle of the gospel. What teenage boy or girl would try to come clean during an interview with their parents standing over them and say, “Oh yeah, BTW I fondled so-and-so’s …..” Nothing is wrong with the way the interviews are written. Those in charge of giving the interviews just need to be educated a bit more. A bishop may suspect sexual promiscuity from a certain teenager but if that teenager lies during his/her interview then that sin lies with the teenager, not with the bishop.
Obviously parents should have an open dialogue with their children about sex, and obviously children shouldn’t be put in a position where they are going to be asked about sex alone with an authority figure. I don’t know why the parents thing keeps being brought up as if it negates the point of the post?
>>I was never told or under the impression while growing up in the church that “the church” is the source of your sexual education. If you, as parents, have not educated your children on sexual matters but the time they reach the age of 12 then the fault will be on you.<<
Strawman. No one has claimed that the church teaches it is the sole authority for sexual education. I grew up in Mormonism too, so let's not pretend like some of us are somehow naive as to what life is like in the church. It's not unreasonable to conclude that what a parent teaches their children should coincide with what the church teaches in the mind of believing Latter-day saints. This includes that masturbation is wrong, any kind of sex before marriage is sinful, and, as explained in the OP and several comments, that it's perfectly acceptable to stick young girls alone in a room with a grown man who will ask them sexually explicit questions about their personal life.
Of course, even the most well-meaning of parents, if they are LDS, might hesitate to explain to their kids exactly what masturbation is, for fear that they might give it a try, which could then lead to all kinds of misunderstandings among youth as to what activity constitutes what sin. I would be the first to agree that such an attitude is wrong-headed on the part of these parents. But attempting to absolve the LDS church of any responsibility for its extreme, unhealthy, and sometimes toxic views on sex, especially as it relates to teenagers, while attempting to shift that blame onto parents, is itself extreme. And what of those parents, in an attempt to teach their children healthier attitudes, explain that masturbation is natural and normal, so long as it doesn't become a compulsion. Well, I guess those kids are left to decide if their parents are wrong or the church is wrong…not at all a confusing message for a teenager to try and deconstruct.
Yes there is. It’s an inherently abusive situation.
The fact that you think that mandatory, regular inquisitions into personal worthiness are reaosnable doesn’t make them reasonable.
The actual temple interview questions are pretty vague and self-directed. For example, when it comes to sexual activity, the script only dictates that the bishop ask, “Do you obey the Law of Chastity?” It’s up to the interviewee to say yes or no, based on their own understanding of that law and what it means to obey it.
When bishops deviate from that broad question and start trying to have a specific discussion, then they’re doing something wrong. If the interviewee doesn’t understand the question and asks for clarification, the bishop should (especially in the case of a minor) direct the person to resources and offer to reschedule for a time when their parents or another trusted adult can join the conversation. Even then, they should stick to direct quotes from mainstream church sources, like For the Strength of Youth. No editorializing, no probing questions, no personal opinions or elaboration.
I don’t think temple recommend interviews are necessarily abusive, but I do think it’s a situation that’s very vulnerable to abuse if everyone isn’t very, very careful.
Of course they’re inherently abusive. They’re literally an inquisition. In no other context would you think that regular, probing inquiries like that were okay.
Mainstream church sources like For the Strength of Youth are inappropriately detailed for that setting. It specifically names:
– Passionate kissing
– Lying on top of another person
– Touching private parts, over or under clothing
– Anything that arouses sexual feelings (! this could be so many things! talk about setting us up for guilt and failure!)
– Masturbation
– Late night or overnight activities
– Discussions or ANY MEDIA that arouse sexual feelings (once again, having sexual impulses at all = not ok?)
– Porn
– Homosexual or lesbian behavior
No wonder so many of us have anxiety and shame issues in regard to sexuality. :/ It also says that the spirit will leave people who have committed sexual sin, so we can all further internalize blame for those feelings of pain and self-loathing. Using it as a template in interviews with the youth may be a huge part of the problem.
Holy crap, of course it’s abusive! It doesn’t matter that most bishops are acting out of love; it’s the impact of the situation on the children that we should be looking at. From what I’ve heard, most kids wonder if the Bishop can read their thoughts! For most children, asserting themselves in any way outside of what the bishop wants won’t even cross their minds.
She didn’t have to rely on the world, she could have checked any of a number of church sources (as I listed above) for a more complete definition of masturbation. The church doesn’t exactly keep all the conference talks secret. Heck, pick a priesthood session at random and you’ve got a good 25% chance of a porn/masturbation talk.
But hey, keep working on that narrative.
Do any of those talks actually talk about what masturbation is or how it’s done? Especially female masturbation? I honestly had no idea how women masturbate until I found it on a fairly straightforward sex-ed website in my mid-twenties. It’s not as straightforward or easy to stumble upon as male masturbation is.
Any church talk on masturbation or sex that I’ve seen has been so vaguely worded that I had little idea what specific activities they were talking about.
Could you try just a little to understand something outside your experience that has traumatized a lot of people? Did you read all the people who shared similar stories on here? Just because you don’t get it doesn’t mean it doesn’t matter.
Wish I could get away with swearing on here, cause you, my friend, are a complete @ss.
I had a similar experience with a bishop at BYU. He asked if I lived the Law of Chasity, but even though I answered yes the questioning continued. He continued to ask very detailed sexual questions. I felt trapped. It was humiliating to be questioned about my sexuality by a man I didn’t know. This practice must stop. It is unnecessary and damaging. Thank you for speaking up.
Great ideas. I would add two more suggestions :
1. No interview tool passes IRB without beginning with an informed consent statement that tells the interviewed that they have the right to refuse to answer questions or to end the interview early, etc. Such a statement should be at the beginning of an ecclesiastical interview as well.
2. Parents and interviewees should be allowed to read the interview questions at any time. This would help prepare for the appropriate amount of disclosure as well as name it possible to hold leaders accountable if they stray from the appropriate script. At present, the guidelines fir youth interviews are in volume one of the church handbook of instruction, which rank and file members (especially female members) are not allowed to read. This is just one more reason why keeping church policy manuals secret is wrong.
http://www.the-exponent.com/the-sealed-book-church-handbook-of-instruction-volume-1/
Great additions, April! I really like the idea of looking at IRBs for another way to frame these interviews.
If you don’t have mandatory inquisitorial personal interviews, you don’t need advance consent and advance review of mandatory questions.
Church handbooks are not kept secret. In fact, they can be read online on lds.org. Here is a link:
http://www.lds.org/bc/content/shared/content/english/pdf/language-materials/08702_eng.pdf
It is called Handbook 2 because it is an updated version. All older handbooks were supposed to be tossed after this was released in 2010.
It is called Handbook 2 because there are 2 handbooks, both published in 2010. Handbook 1 is for priesthood leadership positions and the Handbook 2 is for the laypeople. Having a separate book that is not readily available to the public is not transparent and not good communication between the Church and the members.
Groan. Pres. Tanner already gave counsel about this subject, but, it’s being ignored:
“Remember, you who conduct worthiness interviews are representatives of the Lord and you must conduct the interviews as the Lord himself would conduct them.
That is, there must be nothing immodest or degrading in your interview. Our interviews are not to be indelicate, or offensive, or pornographic in any way.
May I say here that occasionally we receive reports that a bishop or a stake president has been very indiscreet or indelicate in an interview, especially of married members.
It is not in order for a priesthood leader to list in detail ugly, deviant, or bestial practices and then cross-examine a member of the Church as to whether or not such things are practiced.”
http://www.lds.org/ensign/1978/11/the-blessing-of-church-interviews?lang=eng
But I think it’s inappropriate whether the bishop does something unseemly or not.
I remember feeling uncomfortable even with the questions about testimony–not even just the chastity/sexuality questions! It’s weird to be stuck in a room with a middle-aged or old man, asking you personal questions.
Bingo, the situation is an abusive situation, even if the Bishop sticks to the script, thinks only the purest thoughts, and asks no follow-ups.
That is good to see.
I think the root of the issue, though, is compulsory confession, especially for sexual sins. As long as we see sexual sin as extra bad sin that requires priesthood intervention, I think abusive situations are inevitable. :(
Is this in the bishops handbook or somewhere more accessible? It’s not reasonable to expect a new bishop or church leader to come across this particular Ensign article, or expect them to interpret it correctly. It also doesn’t safeguard against a bishop who has gone rogue. It needs to be somewhere where it can’t be missed, and there needs to be safeguards in place (the article has some good suggestions). It probably needs be very explicit about what questions and discussions are appropriate (To prevent any possible miscommunication). The youth, and the general membership also need to be also be very aware of these guidelines. So if they are asked a question that is out of bounds they know the bishop is one out of bounds.
“Remember, you who conduct worthiness interviews are representatives of the Lord and you must conduct the interviews as the Lord himself would conduct them.
–> Well, that’s the problem isn’t it? No one knows how the Lord would conduct these interviews, so they make up whatever they happen to think is right, without really knowing …. they probably think that the more explicit they get, the more “Holy” they are being …
This is because the Lord *wouldn’t* conduct these interviews. “Worthiness” to receive certain blessings/privileges/access to grace is a false construct that you will find NOWHERE in Christ’s teachings. It’s evil stuff, and the sooner we do away with it, the better.
Kam, I believe the Lord would and will conduct these interviews. We are taught that we will face the lord at the judgment day and be held accountable for the actions we have undertaken. Sexual sin is serious. Sexual intimacy and stimulation are tools for creating an eternal bond between husband and wife. It is the power to create life. I think eternal bonds and the creation of life are pretty important things. Alma tells his son Corianton in chapter 39 that sexual sin is second only to murder and the denial of the Holy Ghost. This seems to be an important conversation for a bishop, or judge of Israel, to have with the members of his congregation. Let me suggest that the real problem is that the subject of sexual intimacy and sexual desires is one that is treated as taboo in the home. This creates an awkward situation when the man charged with your temporal and spiritual well-being asks about a subject that is otherwise taboo. If it is taught in the home that sexual desires need to be respected and our children learn why it needs to be respected, then the bishop who is doing his best to fill some really big shoes can ask you about your life and you can respond as if speaking directly to Christ. I know things happen that shouldn’t. I know that the bishop is human with the same fallibility as me or you. But instead of challenging his position, (one that he didn’t ask for), teach our children the things they should know about those same topics that made you feel uncomfortable. Teach our children that the bishop is called by God to provide guidance and and help. Teach our children that the bishop is a judge in Israel and that part of his calling is to ensure that the members of the ward are staying on the right track and that if they are not, he is there to help, not just to make you feel guilty. Teach our children that when they have questions from church that they can come to us, as their parents, for extra help in understanding. Use family home evening, family scripture study, and family prayer as times to teach and strengthen our youth. Don’t spend your time questioning every little thing and undermining priesthood authority. If something is taught that you don’t agree with or you don’t understand, study it out and ask the Lord.
Tyco, why would it be inappropriate for a Bishop (along with someone else in the room) to ask, “Are you morally clean?” and leave it at that? Why the details? Are SPECIFIC conversations about young girls touching themselves, having anal or oral sex, or being touched in specific locations of on their bodies anyone’s business but theirs? Answering yes or no to being morally clean is enough. Nothing else is needed. As you say, the parents can tell the children about what is acceptable sexual behavior so they fully know the answer to those questions.
Also, you show an amazing amount of hubris in assuming the author hasn’t studied this out and asked the Lord, or that they spend all of their time questioning Priesthood authority. Perhaps you should follow your own advice, and really pray about this and read the scriptures, and see if you can find the specific examples of Christ conducting sexually explicit interviews. The only example I remember from him is his declamation of the Pharisees and stone throwers when the woman was taken in adultery. As far as I know, he didn’t stop right there and say, “Did you touch the man’s penis? Was it over the clothes or under the clothes? Did he penetrate you? Did you orgasm?” He told the Pharisees to get over themselves, and if they felt like they were better than others, or hadn’t sinned themselves, that they were FULL of it. Does this apply to you, Tyco?
Also, sorry in advance for my strongly worded response. It wasn’t very Christlike of me.
Alma tells his son Corianton in chapter 39 that sexual sin is second only to murder and the denial of the Holy Ghost. This seems to be an important conversation for a bishop, or judge of Israel, to have with the members of his congregation. Let me suggest that the real problem is that the subject of sexual intimacy and sexual desires is one that is treated as taboo in the home.
No, Tyco, the problem is the false and disturbing teaching that sexual sin is second only to murder and the denial of the Holy Ghost, which creates inordinate amounts of shame and perpetuates the very taboo of which you speak. Combine this with controlling and inappropriate institutional policies that require mandatory confession of sexual experiences to untrained neighbors, and we’ve got a stew of dysfunction.
I’d urge you to go back and read the gospels with this question in mind: where does Christ say that sexual sin is second to murder, or more serious than other types of sin? (HINT: he doesn’t.) In fact, there are only two types of sin that Christ condemns strongly. They are 1) religious hypocrisy; 2) child abuse.
With this abusive practice that the church is engaged in, we get both, all rolled up into one neat little package.
Finally, I’d say this to you. If you are so committed to a narrative that we must never undermine priesthood authority that you are willing to sacrifice the wellbeing of children on its altar, you are engaged in a grotesque form of idolatry, and I urge you to reconsider. I’m sorry if my strong words offend, but this is a serious issue, and it’s shocking to see people so enmeshed in the party line that they refuse to acknowledge the anguish of children that is staring them in the face.
(P.S. If it helps, see this article about the meaning of Alma 39; a careful reading reveals that we have grossly misinterpreted it.)
Abraham and Isaac.
What about the substantial number of living prophets and apostles who have unambiguously confirmed the traditional reading of Alma 39?
Abraham and Isaac.
Oh gracious. Only scripture’s, like, #1 most problematic story.
What about the substantial number of living prophets and apostles who have unambiguously confirmed the traditional reading of Alma 39?
Simple. They were wrong.
Well duh, but how are you going to tell that to a faithful Mormon?
With all due respect, I suggest you read for yourself and see what Alma says in context. Yes, Corianton sinned sexually, but that’s not what Alma is talking about as the sin “second only to murder.” What Corianton did was abandon his ministry, turn people away from God and make it more difficult for people to believe in God. In effect, he killed or severely injured people spiritually. That was Alma’s concern. The sexual sin was secondary.
There’s the rub. Doing what Kam’s bishop did and what other bishops mentioned in the comments have done isn’t a little thing. Expecting bishops to do as they’re authorized (and that includes not being invasive) isn’t undermining their authority. Expecting bishops to maintain proper emotional boundaries with people in their wards isn’t undermining their authority. Expecting bishops not to engage in unrighteous dominion isn’t undermining their authority.
When bishops do those things, they are the ones doing what Alma warned about.
All mandatory personal worthiness interviews are an exercise of unrigheous dominion.
Show me where a Judge in Israel held inquisitorial interviews to root out personal sin. Go go go.
I agree with you one hundred percent.
Amen. A permanent inquisition is not necessary. Or Biblical.
It’s a difficult topic for me to discuss, so I wasn’t going to comment, but after reading this I decided that I should add my experience to those here. I believe these 6-month chastity interviews are where boundaries are first crossed and lines first blurred. It’s here where I confessed being able to feel my boyfriend’s erection through his jeans (and mine) when we kissed to my bishop, who was also our high school calculus teacher. He asked if I experienced orgasm through this, and I said I wasn’t sure what that was, and embarrassing conversation ensued. This from a man who watched me and my boyfriend interact every day. This type of institutionalized condoning of over-curiosity on the part of a married man alone with a minor child is where I first learned to override that voice inside me that told me something was wrong with the situation. I thought I was the one who was wrong.
It is also this type of grooming for sharing sexually-explicit details in such an unequal power dynamic that led me to silence that voice of inner warning when my psychotherapist, an LDS married man 35 years my senior who had served on High Councils and in bishopbrics in my stake, told me on no uncertain terms that it’s a woman’s fault when a man gets a sexual feeling about her, and then proceeded to recount the number of erections he had for me in our sessions together, how my long-waisted torso made for a finer view from behind, etc. By then, I had silenced the inner voice of warning and filled it with things like, “he’s LDS, happily married, a religious leader in our community; this type of conversation is very similar to those we have at church; therefore, if I’m feeling bad about it, it’s because of something I’ve done, that’s why I’m the client and he’s the doctor.” I had so much training before that time in Church to lead me to that unfortunate conclusion.
Thank you for sharing your experience. It is heart-wrenching to read the stories here, but they help illustrate why this needs to be addressed so badly.
I agree with you! When I worked for LDS family services, the agency director had these kinds of sexually intrusive sessions with couples. Many of the women transferred to me to get away from him. and were grateful when I pressed charges against him for sexual harassment (against myself) in the workplace.
I absolutely agree with this. Is there an official FB page or a call to action that we can be a part of. I want to see this get as much press and exposure as possible. It’s gone on long enough.
I agree, something like a Facebook page that we could like and share with our friends/family might be a good way to start. Maybe it could lead to something like the “Let women pray” or the wear pants to church day. After all the Let women pray was successful and wear pants to church day got an official response if nothing else. That’s better than any of us can do alone.
Don’t forget Feminist Mormon Housewives involvement in getting the policies on menstruating women being baptized for the dead aligned a few years ago. So, groups of people do have influence in the Church.
Yes. The Facebook page is called “No More: End Mormons’ Sexually Invasive Interviews of Children”.
I think most Bishops would benefit from reading this page (including the comments) and may learn they’re doing harm they didn’t intend. Why not forward to yours?
Sorry if this gets too graphic for some: I’ve also heard about one Bishop asking YW if they participated in bestiality. The reporting YW didn’t know what that was, & the Bishop told the YW what it was, & totally mortified her. But, YW needlessly came to think such graphic detail was a regular part of interviews.
Another sister I know online went to her first YW interview as a young Beehive. Her Bishop asked if she masturbated. She did know what that was, so he explained it. So, when the interview was done, this YW went home & tried that out for the first time.
And, Pres. Tanner later on in that talk mentioned a YM being disqualified from serving a mission, after an interview with someone else, due to some serious sexual sins, & it turned out that the YM’s Bishop gave him the idea to try those things, the YM had not thought about them before. That Bishop would ask about every sin he could think of, & would cross examine about each one of those sins in his interviews.
So, 3 different Bishops, so, it’s obvious the Church has a problem here.
I want to add my voice to the many saying that they’ve experienced this. In college, I told my bishop that I had committed some sexual sins. He wanted to meet with me every month after that. Most of the time, we would talk about my testimony. I was suffering from depression, and that would frequently come up, which I hated. Why would I tell this man about my problems with depression when he clearly didn’t understand the illness I had and thought that if I was just faithful enough and stopped sinning, my depression would go away? I distinctly remember one meeting when I told him I had recently committed more sexual sins, and he asked me some details about it. The questions were basically under or over clothes, below or above the waist. I don’t believe my bishop was being predatory. I think he was trying his best to be a good bishop and stay appropriate. I know that the Church culture/tradition taught him that this was necessary, and that’s wrong. But I don’t know why he needed to know those things in the first place, or why the Church told him he needed to know those details. Why does it matter the exact nature of my sexual sins? The idea we have that some of the “bases” are worse than others, in terms of sinning, is wrong. I think back on it now and remember how uncomfortable I was. I barely knew this man. I wish I had resources like this so that I knew I could refuse to answer his questions.
Amen.
I love that the author names the invasive interviewing as “sexual abuse.” So true and obvious, yet so invisible to those who experience the abuse.
I would add that women shouldn’t be asked sexual questions by men at all, at any age. It was after I was married that my Stake president asked me in an interview how often my husband and I were having sex. And when I answered not often (we both suffered from guilt over the subject), he asked me if this had led to any forbidden behaviors on my part. I felt uncomfortable, but assumed he was being inspired to ask, since this was indeed a problem in my marriage. I tried to tell him that I had occasionally fantasized and been tempted to masturbate, but it was just so embarrassing. I shouldn’t have been talking with him about those things. I shouldn’t have felt that I needed to confess something like that. Women in the temple are given authority to officiate in the Endowment because it would be inappropriate for the men to do it. We should have a similar arrangement in interviews, two-deep, and the same sex as the person being interviewed, regardless of age.
I meant in the Initiatory, not the Endowment. Also, so much for being Anonymous Today. Looks like it automatically grabbed my picture. :/
I fixed this so that your image wouldn’t show. :) Thank you so much for sharing your thoughts.
Thanks!
This presumes though that the female isn’t an abuser or that the parents aren’t abusive. I don’t think these questions should be asked by anyone.
I was sexually molested by a woman with my mother sat near by.
True. My brother was also molested by a woman. That’s why I left in that the interviews should still be with two people present. There is, of course, the possibility that children would feel even more intimidated with two people there, and that the same types of questioning would continue, making it worse. I really do think the questions about sex need to stop completely. Our church focuses so much on the idea of agency, yet is so anxious to force its members into doing the right thing. Leave it up to members to decide when they need to confess on their own.
Teach them the correct principles and then let them govern themselves or something?
Why not allow the child–or the person being interviewed–choose the person to accompany him or her, and even to do the interview, from among qualified interviewers if that is an option as well? If that were done, not only would the person in the room be someone the child is comfortable with and feels free to speak in front of, but it would be someone he/she feels would be a strong advocate in case that role was needed. If choosing the interviewer is possible, the person, child or adult, would feel more at ease as well. I wasn’t interviewed often growing up back East bitd, so I missed a lot of this, maybe dodged a bullet or a few. Still, I can only imagine how terrifying it can be for someone just barely old enough to finally begin to do a few of the things adults will do. This should be exciting, not something to cause sadness.
I feel compelled to share my experience as well. I think it’s important to be clear that yes, this is a common occurrence, and yes, it is harmful. These interviews were just too uncomfortable for me to deal with as a youth, so I experienced the double-guilt of feeling defective for having sexual thoughts/impulses, and feeling like I was doing something wrong by avoiding the interviews. By my late teens/early adulthood, I had found peace in my personal relationship with God. Then when I was preparing to get married in the temple I was told that I was not truly worthy or forgiven because I hadn’t gone through the proper authority. The interview with my college ward Bishop was explicit and mortifying. I cried through the entire thing. My Bishop was a man I really liked and respected, and I never really felt comfortable around him after that. I guess he needed details to determine whether I would be able to get married in the temple, even though I told him about my person repentance and peace.
The points about sexual and spiritual agency are everything. This post is especially important for parents, but even adults should know that they have the power and authority over their own bodies and sexuality. I wish I had known it was ok to say “No, I won’t answer that; it’s none of your business.”
Unfortunately though, many times if you refuse to answer, you aren’t allowed to pass the interview. For example, my sister had a serious boyfriend in HS and probably was doing things with him. She ran in the same circles with the bishops son who wasn’t the model LDS boy either. When it came time for my sister to graduate seminary and have her interview, she refused to discuss her private life with the bishop. He wanted details. She wouldn’t give them and refused to lie just to pass. She wasn’t allowed to graduate from seminary even though she passed with A’s the whole 4yrs. But the bishops son graduated.
She left the church after that. And I don’t blame her one bit!
But that’s the thing. Given Mormon teachings about the nature of ecclesiastical authority, it’s actually not ok to say “No, I won’t answer that; it’s none of your business.”
I guess if I had stood up for myself and my connection to God, I wouldn’t have been able to get married in the temple. Perhaps if I’d said, “I won’t go into detail, but I feel worthy to enter the temple, I feel forgiven,” maybe there are Bishops out there who would honor that. I just wish I’d had any kind of support in my life telling me that I own my own spirituality/sexuality. The whole concept of worthiness interviews is troubling, but if they are going to exist, they should be about introspection. They shouldn’t be about policing behavior/belief and literally passing judgement on someone’s worthiness.
But that is my point. As a matter of Mormon doctrine, you don’t really own your own spirituality. As a believing and faithful Mormon, you should not feel like you do. There is a direct and (I believe) irreconcilable conflict between faithful Mormonism and “telling [you] that you own your own spirituality/sexuality.”
I think I’m agreeing with you? That’s why I felt the points about spiritual and sexual agency in the OP were so important, because I think that kind of leader-worship needs to change.
I’m not sure what the doctrinal basis is for policing the behavior of members in such an extreme way, though. Or that there isn’t an equally doctrinally sound position one could take that would be more empowering to members. And I think “faithful Mormonism” can mean different things to different people.
When my 13 year old daughter was asked in a bishop’s interview if she ever had anal sex, then I decided that was enough and I wrote a letter to the bishop stating there would be no more bishop’s interviews.
I believe these interviews are invasive and abusive and need to stop.
What.the.hell, Kay? Seriously: what the hell????
That is EXACTLY a violation of what Pres. Tanner was saying to avoid, IMHO!! Yet, for example, why isn’t the “striving to be honest in all your dealings” question cross examined to death in interviews? Like: “Do you cheat on taxes? Do you shoplift? Are you honest when selling a car?”, etc.
While I suspect some Bishops want to be sincere in asking these things, the door to Voyeurism is opened by getting too detailed, accidentally or intentional.
My gosh! Did you cc the stake president? Or someone in SLC?
I had a very similar experience, I didn’t know what heavy petting was. My Bishop went into extreme details that jarred me as a young women. I went through a high counsel in my mid-twenties while engaged to my fiancé for going to far. The two hour court left me battered and traumatized for years. I had one high councilmen who kept asking about if one orgasms, and how it was, and how long it lasted and how many times. I felt so violated and dirty. I saw this same person every week at a local business, in the end I had to move away and never look at this man again. I shudder to think about this experience, it was healing, it wasn’t cathartic and didn’t feel Christ there one bit. I had never experienced anxiety until this and it was years before I felt normal and was ok being a female with a range of feelings, including my feelings sexuality.
I think back and realize this is something I never want my children to suffer and endure through. It was a violation and although perhaps there was no bad intent that is 100% what happened.
I am so sorry this happened to you! How does orgasm have any thing to do with sinning or repentance. That line of questioning is just voyeuristic.
Wow. What a beautiful post, Kam. Thank you for articulating this so well. And for leading-out so other people could share their own experience. I feel fortunate to have had basically good experiences with ecclesiastical interviews. But I agree 100% that it is time for a change in the model. I like your suggestions.
Here’s my suggestion for a basic script. [Assuming an ecclesiastical leader is not a sexual predator] The only question s/he has the right or obligation to ask is: “Can I help you in your life in any way?” and maybe “Is there anything you feel you want to talk with me about?”
Then, if an under-aged person chooses to share any details about a perceived sin, the leader should say something to the effect, “If your conscience is telling you a behavior isn’t good for you, you can trust that. The Lord can help you change and if it feels like too heavy of a burden for you to bear alone, then I’m here too. I care about you. I’ll help you through this. I have great confidence in you and in God’s love for you.”
Some older teens may prefer a supportive adult outside their family when addressing issues of a sexual nature. I feel this can be a great blessing when it is done properly – again: female and/or two-deep leadership/support.
Yes to all of this. Ecclesiastical council can be a wonderful support when approached appropriately.
Amen. That would be an entirely appropriate question. People want to get stuff off their chest. People want to have someone they can talk to. I strongly suspect that if Bishops asked no more than what you suggest, then pretty much the same number of sins–real and imagined–would be confessed. But the difference it would make in individuals’ lives and in the well-being of the Church would be immense.
I didn’t experience anything like this until I was in the MTC. It was the branch president of the MTC “ward” in that ominous “tell me all your sins so we can decide if you need to go home now” interview. He questioned me for half an hour with explicit description of “likely” sexual sins I “may” have committed. I had no idea of most of what he was talking about. It was absolutely mortifying. And I was in the MTC so I didn’t know that this wasn’t “normal” as I too had been conditioned to be interviewed from the age of 12 on.
Thank you for writing this. Thank you for bringing this into the light so it can be changed.
Agree agree agree.
I would even take this a step beyond confessions and interviews– the afternoon I was set to have my official interview with my stake president to receive a recommend to be endowed before marriage, I met briefly with the stake first counselor when appointments were running behind. I had never met this man and don’t even remember his name, but somehow he thought it was helpful to give me advice about my impending wedding night and subsequent sex life. I was told the best way to maintain intimacy with my future husband was to pray out loud together– me first, followed by my husband (which has some patriarchal implications I also don’t care for)– giving thanks for all the wonderful, specific things we love about each other, and “every time, without fail, this will lead to a satisfying intimate experience for both of you.”
Needless to say, I don’t remember the actual interview itself, nor have I EVER felt inclined to take these measures… I still feel creepy about it.
I found out what oral sex was when I was 21 and went in for my interview for a recommend for my marriage. (It was a different world then.) Such a horrible experience having that conversation with my bishop.
Myself and most of my friends learned what masturbation was from our bishops. I didn’t even know what sex was when he told me at the age of 11. This started an “unhealthy” curiosity in my mind that hadn’t existed up until that point. These conversations should happen between parents and children and/or therapists, NOT your neighbor with no sexual counseling credentials who happens to be a Bishop.
This just happened to my niece less than 2 years ago. She turned 12 and had a bishop’s interview. He asked her if she masturbated. When she didn’t know what it meant, he proceeded to explain it to her in detail. He did this with every beehive and only when he was released and moved did they finally tell someone. The parents had no idea and no recourse. This has been going on since I was a kid and it HAS to stop.
Thank you for writing this. This topic has been on my mind for a long time. I too had some bad experiences as a young woman growing up in Sweden. I left the church at an early age after my bishop told me I was going to hell for what I had done. I was 16 and still a virgin but had done some heavy kissing. I thought “whats the point”. (This bishop was later excommunicated for extra marital affairs.) I remember feeling dirty and feeling that I will never measure up. After 8 years of inactivity I came back to the church and went to BYU. While at BYU I was date raped by a guy who knew I had a wild past. He thought it wouldn’t matter, I was already defiled. I was devastated. I went to the bishop and a school counselors but neither took me serious. They didn’t want to deal with it. It really screwed me up and it took me about 15 years of marriage and lots of counseling to get over the guilt of going to hell about having sex and being raped.
I now have teenagers and I promised to myself I would NEVER let this happen to them. So I thought…we just moved into a new ward and had only been there a few times. Our son who is 14 was called into the bishops office for an interview (who pretty much had no interaction with him before this) I had not idea what they were going to ask him. He was in there for a good 1.5 hours. He came out just white and pissed. He told me after a while what the bishop had asked him and I was MORTIFIED. All my past feeling came back and I felt like I had been hit in the stomach. Our son hated the church already and now he won’t go at all. We are not very active although we do go at times. I want the church to work but I just can’t let this guilt haunt them too.
I agree with the prior comments that something has to be done. It’s not okay for any leader to ask a child these questions. It’s just sick and wrong.
I’ve put my bishop on notice. If he asks any question about sexuality of any child I will file charges.
Over the top? Not in my book. I will not deal with another year of stressed out teenagers.
Part of this is in response to the very clueless “Glen” who posted above: “WOW! it just sounds to me like none of you took any initiative whatsoever to do any kind of research or study of your own. True to the Faith, the Chastity pamphlet, Let virtue garnish thy thoughts, all are very good recourse materials. You didn’t talk to your parents, you never asked any kinds of questions to anyone. If you where so perturbed by it why did you never say anything to anyone? And if you where feeling dirty and unclean and as if the savior didn’t love you, then i cannot believe you where reading the scriptures and praying regularly.”
You are part of the problem. You have just piled on to people who were already traumatized by abusive, incompetent or predatory church leaders and blamed them for their own victimization. Even adults who have been shamed by authority figures have a hard time talking about all kinds of abuse, and you expect a child to do it. How nice that you had it so altogether when you were 11 years old that you would have known that one of the most important authority figures in your life–your bishop–was being an abusive asshole, that you had parents who you knew would side with you against the abusive authority figure, and that at this young age you were so thoroughly assured of the savior’s love that you would know in your own heart how much he loved you, even though his authorized representative on earth has just made you feel like a piece of shit unworthy of his love.
Your ignorance in this day and age about the dynamics of sexual abuse, grooming, and shaming is almost incomprehensible. Just do a google search and you will undoubtedly turn up hundreds of thousands of explanations of the psychology of sexual abuse and the reasons that children don’t tell. It is because the abusers make them feel that the abuse is their own fault and that if they tell they will be the ones who are in trouble, the ones who are dirty, the ones who will be blamed.
You have totally dismissed the overwhelmingly unequal power of the abuser and the abused, which is nowhere more poignant than in a power situation where the abuser (in the child’s mind) stands in the very shoes of God. Mike (above) quotes the Pres. Tanner speech (which I’m really not acquainted with): “Remember, you who conduct worthiness interviews are representatives of the Lord and you must conduct the interviews as the Lord himself would conduct them.” While I have never had a bishop or other church leaders do most of the things detailed in the posts here, I have in fact have a bishop tell me that in the interview he was representing the Lord, and I should answer as if I was answering to the Lord. I was old enough, in sufficiently unimpressed by his presumptuous statement, that it was all I could do to supress the urge to roll my eyes, but at 11 or 12 or even 18 or 19 I might not have been. (Mike, I understand that you didn’t quote the talk in this context, but to show how interviews are supposed to be conducted, but I want you to be aware of how this can play out in an arrogant and abusive bishop, rather than in a well-behaved one who uses the advice to guide him to conduct a better interview.) Abusive bishops can and will twist these kinds of things to their advantage to intimidate a child/victim.
Now I will tell my over-reaching bishop story. It was my bishop when I was a freshman at BYU. He was not a bad or abusive person and he didn’t traumatize me, but like some others mentioned above, he did get too specific, as I think he believed was his duty.
At that time (maybe still today) the first question was “Are you morally clean and worthy to enter the temple.” That is a compound question. I knew that I had not violated any of the church’s sexual purity standards. But how could I know whether I was “worthy to enter the temple” when I hadn’t yet heard all of the questions that I was expected to answer? So I equivocated, “I think so.”
“Well, are you morally clean?”
“Yes.”
“No sexual intercourse?”
“No.”
“No homosexuality?”
“No.”
“No masturbation?”
“No.”
“No bestiality?
Pause. “What’s that?”
“Well, some young people, especially young people from farming areas, get involved in experimenting with animals.”
“Ewwwww!”
Now, none of this was traumatic to me. It wasn’t overly intrusive to me, because I had nothing in any of my past behavior that I had any guilty feelings about, and nothing to lead him to probe further. But before that moment I had never in my wildest imagination dreamed that people would “do it” with animals. Was that really an appropriate setting for that information? I found it disgusting, curious, mind-boggling and intellectually fascinating all at once. When I went back to my dorm I told my roommate, “He asked me about beastulation!” She, maybe because she was a farm kid from Idaho, corrected me: “Beastiality.”
To my kids: I apologize for ever allowing you to be in a potentially sexually charged setting like this, even if nothing bad ever happened to you. I can’t honestly say that it was not on my radar, because back in the early 1980s, before any of you were teenagers, I actually knew someone whose 14-year-old son was asked about masturbation by his bishop, and who then forbid the bishop from every talking with him again outside the presence of the parents. But she was ahead of her time. My bishops were always so nice and none of my bishops when I was a teenager ever asked any any inappropriate questions and I just didn’t think anything bad would happen. And if it ever did, my kids never told me. Knowing what I now know, however, I wouldn’t allow this. Sorry.
And just in case LDS PR is watching this blog: You had better have a heart to heart talk with the church’s leaders and its lawyers. If the lawyers are competent, they should probably start the process of convincing the hierarchy that this issue has a lot of potential for (1) lawsuits and (2) major public embarrassment. This is the internet age, and now that this is in the public domain, this is another PR disaster waiting to happen. You can’t solve this problem by simply tweaking the process, by telling bishops to be more discreet, by better training. While that might help most bishops to do a better job and to avoid placing children in untenable positions, it won’t stop the rogues, and there are far too many of them around who think they need to pry. You can’t control what they do, and you have liability for their actions because you authorized them to do what they do. You need to just stop this. Period. Put “two-deep” procedures in place for dealing with children. Other reputable churches and youth organizations do this, and you can too.
Thank you for this post. It is definitely not okay what can easily and often does happen behind closed doors in one on one interviews at church. I had a bishop in my early teen years always flip through the FSOY pamphlet at every interview but he would always take extra time in the sexual purity section and go on and on and on about it. It definitely made me uncomfortable but I also never told anyone about it, because doing that would just add to my discomfort. I got the weirdest vibe from this bishop and was not surprised at all when he was excommunicated and released for his own sexual sins while I was still in YW’s. Before I went to college I decided to confess some of my sexual history to my next bishop to “clean the slate” I guess before moving away. I had only done first base stuff with my long term boyfriend and my bishop cried and told me that I had no idea how serious that was, and that I had cheated on my future spouse. He also refused to give me my YW medallion for personal progress even though I had done all the work- he said I wasn’t “worthy” (which was funny to me since many of the other girls were doing way worst stuff but just were not confessing). He also basically disfellowshipped me and gave me a ton of crazy rules to follow and printed them on paper- no movies above PG rating, no praying in public, no sacrament, I can’t remember the whole thing but it was an entire page long. Luckily my bishop in college basically ripped up the paper and told me to read a book about Jesus and start taking the sacrament again. Priesthood roulette is not cool, and even if you have a great bishop it is still not appropriate in my opinion to be talking to a man much older than you about your sexuality.
While I don’t recall if I was ever asked explicit questions, I do feel as though the rhetoric regarding the seriousness of sexual sins (i.e. the need to confess to a bishop) prevented me from exploring my sexuality in a healthy way. Why? Fear of the bishop, leaders, people in my ward, my parents, etc. Essentially I shamed myself before I could give others a reason to.
I may not have been in this exact situation, but I believe worthiness interviews contributed to my inability to develop my sexuality in a healthy way. I didn’t want to be put in a situation like this, so I just turned eveything off and obeyed all the rules in every way, shape, or form. I cry sometimes because I don’t think I will ever be able to have a normal sexual relationship where I can just let go of everything and just be. I feel like I lost something in my teen/yougng adult years that I can never get back. It’s devastating.
I agree about the youth not being able to grow into their sexuality. Even if there hasn’t been any inappropriate questions or discussions by church leaders, having worthiness interview creates the environment of squashing agency and making the child feel vunerable. If the question were simple like what Melody suggested then there might not be so much anxiety and room for error to happen. I feel exactly the same way as Paula in regards to developing a Heathly view of my sexuality. Thank you for replying, you explained exactly what I have been going through and struggling with.
I’ve had my own horrible experience with these worthiness interviews, my father wanted to have these interviews with me as well. Essentially he wanted me to confess to him too. I always felt very weird and uncomfortable with these “interviews” but since they were similar to the bishops (just much more explicite) and he was my dad i thought that he had a right to know and that my salvation was at stake. I had done nothing wrong but any sexual thought or curosity i felt, i felt like i needed to confess to both my dad and bishop. He was made bishop a few years ago and then was released and excommunicated a few weeks later (for many different reasons but a lot had to do with views on sexual transgressions, spiritual revelation and priesthood authority). I know this is an extreme case but what I think it shows is that there is a conditioning from a young age to view sexual sin a certain way and then when these men grow up and then are put in leadership roles they use those to influence others. Whether the church “instructs” them to do it that way or not. So it becomes very important to have that two deep leadership and a parent to make sure there are watchful eyes. But I also think the line of questioning and view of sexuality needs to be changed drastically. If the youth are growing up feeling sexually abused when there has been no physical occurance of being sexually abused then things need to change. Hopefully that made sense.
When I included a comment on a friend’s Facebook wall about how I felt that such interviews were inappropriate, her response was, ” All I can say about that is that the process for repentance has been inspired by God, and meeting with the bishop one-on-one is part of that.”
THAT is the problem.
And that was coming from a grown, (formerly) married woman and mother. Now imagine what a teenager thinks.
This is their BISHOP asking these questions. They expect that anything he asks is normal and that he is inspired by God (or told by the church) to ask those questions. It makes them uncomfortable, but they assume that’s just how it’s supposed to be.
And that is wrong.
What Carrie said. ;)
Well, what if it is inspired by God? Isn’t that what the Church teaches? Honestly, your friend is being a more faithful Mormon than you are. Sorry.
That was completely inappropriate.
Nonsense. How? Am I wrong?
A change in this area is LONG past due. Questions about children’s (and adults) sex and sexuality are not appropriate and especially not in an ecclesiastical setting where the person in authority lacks appropriate training in pastoral care and counseling.
I echo nearly everything thing Sophia said.
I remember my first bishop’s interview as if it were yesterday. I was nervous to begin with, because I’d been raised to believe that bishops were the finest and most upstanding members who could intuit God’s thinking and they would know if you were being untruthful. So, right out the door, I was worried I might be caught in a lie, even if I wasn’t lying.
The interview was proceeding well, I guess. That is to say, there’d been nothing out of the ordinary. And then, Bishop Wilcox of the Provo 1st Ward asked me, “Do you masturbate?” I had no idea what this was and I said so. He then proceeded to explain masturbation to me. I remember thinking and feeling like he was actually enjoying this, but I was horrified. (And a bit fascinated. But mostly horrified.) I emphatically shook my head and said, “No.” I think he asked one or two more questions and then the interview was over.
I went home and said nothing to my parents, because the bishop was supposedly a man of God and I’d been told I could trust bishops. I didn’t want to upset that idea and figured this was just an isolated incident. I never discussed it with any of my peers or friends. None of us ever talked about. But this interview had three consequences: 1) it made me fear and dread personal worthiness interviews; 2) it introduced me to the concept of masturbation; and 3) it taught me how to lie in a personal worthiness interview.
In the case of the second one, this led to personal exploration, which then led to enormous guilt, which then led to the last one — actual lying in all subsequent worthiness interviews right up to the interviews for my mission. I remember, after I’d completed all of my paperwork for my mission, including the physical exam, meeting with my bishop. The conversation went something like this:
Bishop: So, I have your paperwork back from your doctor. Everything looks good. Is there anything you want to discuss?
Me: No. (In the back of my mind, I’m thinking, “Oh crap. The Spirit must be telling him I’m lying and he KNOWS. Something must have shown up on my physical that indicates I’ve masturbated. He’s going to know I’m a horrible sinner and a liar. I’m not going to get to go on a mission…”)
Bishop: Are you sure?
Me: Yes, I’m sure. (Now I’m sweating, because I really, really want to serve a mission and if I’m rejected because of this issue, how will I explain this to my parents? I’m the good kid. I’ve never toilet papered a house or broken the law. I’ve never stolen. I’ve never smoked a cigarette, tried drugs, or drunk alcohol. I’ve been respectful to my elders and my parents. I pay my tithing. I believe Joseph Smith was a prophet and Ezra Taft Benson is a prophet. Etc.)
Bishop: Okay. Well, your next appointment is with the Stake President.
Once I was on my mission, I was guilt-ridden about the whole masturbation thing. I ended up in a companionship where my comp didn’t want to work and, if we didn’t have appointments to actually teach an investigator, she wanted to go home and nap. Being the junior comp, I didn’t think I had any say in the matter, so I’d acquiesce to her need for a nap. While she napped, I studied. And while I studied, I thought. A lot. And the more I thought, the deeper my anxiety and remorse grew. I was convinced that my lack of a diligent companion was God’s punishment to me for masturbating and lying about it. So, I called the mission president and asked if we could meet.
He came to the town where I was serving and we had a conversation. I confessed my “sin” and tearfully testified that I knew God was punishing me with an unproductive companionship because I had masturbated and lied about it. To his everlasting credit, he said, “God isn’t punishing you and what you’ve done is not sinful. It’s natural. It’s natural and normal to explore your body. Is that all you did?” “Yes,” I said. “Fine,” he said. “You are worthy to be here and you are a fine missionary. I’ve noticed Sister X’s difficulties and the slow down in the work here, so I’m going to make a change in your companionship. Going forward, you will now be the senior companion.” And that was the end of that conversation.
That said, though, the larger point is, the conversation when I was 12 was unnecessary and abusive and it occurred in an environment that encourages and fosters this kind of abuse under the rubric of worthiness and divine mandate. The other consequence of this experience as a youth was, it made me distrustful of priesthood leaders. In my nearly 35 years of church activity and 45 years of life, I can barely count on one hand the number of priesthood holders and/or priesthood holders in authority whom I respect. The rest have been part of a similar pattern of inappropriate questioning and, in a few cases, outright intimidation. To this day, if someone says to me, “Oh, so-and-so is a bishop or has been called to be the bishop”, my respect for that individuals slips considerably. I know it isn’t fair or rational, but that’s how little respect I have for the office of the bishop.
I was 12, when Bishop Wilcox inappropriately questioned me. I said nothing. I was 22, when I confessed to President Smith. I was 25 before I said anything to my parents. When I did finally tell my mother, she was absolutely livid and told me, “I wish you’d said something when this happened, because I would have had a word or two with Bishop Wilcox.” While that was comforting to know in hindsight, how do you tell a loving, fierce mother that she and your father were part of the problem in that they raised their children to believe bishops were inspired, infallible, and would never hurt us? I was 31, when I told my story to a therapist. She asked me if I’d ever told anyone about it when it happened. I said, “No.” She said, “Why not?” “I was afraid I would be in trouble,” I replied. She then explained that what I’d experienced was sexual abuse. I said, “But he didn’t touch me.” She replied, “He didn’t have to. Sexual abuse can include words and doesn’t have to involve touching. What he did was inappropriate and the fact that you didn’t tell anyone and you thought it was your fault is a classic sex abuse pattern.”
Needless to say, this type of interviewing has to stop. As a church and as a culture, we have to stop stigmatizing sex and sexuality and the first place to begin is with bishop’s interviews. They are unnecessary and damaging. We need to stop objectifying sex and sexuality as often happens in YW lessons with poorly constructed object lessons equating sex and sexuality to cakes, chewed gum, and crushed roses.
****
On a different, but wholly related note, one of the few ecclesiastical leaders I had who I respect was the stake president who interviewed me for my mission. I wish I could remember his name. He was a kind man. I remember, as I was preparing to go to the temple for the first time, he asked me if I was familiar with the temple ceremony. Of course, I knew nothing and said so. He then went on to explain, beginning with the initiatory and continuing to the endowment, what would happen during the entire ritual. In respectful terms (i.e. respectful to me as a woman), he explained the initiatory in a way that did not feel uncomfortable and alarming and that, when I actually participated in the ritual, made it a wonderful experience. It’s the part of the endowment rituals I actually loved the most, when I was still going to the temple. I’m glad he explained this to me, because if I’d arrived at the temple and participated in the initiatory without any further information, I might never have gone back or felt comfortable in the temple. I have friends and family members who disliked the temple as a result of the initiatory and being ill-prepared for that. When my sister went to the temple for the first time, I sat her down and had the same conversation with her that my stake president had with me. She told me later how grateful she was for that, because if she hadn’t known and then experienced the initiatory, she would have been too upset and shaken by that.
I was 31, when I told my story to a therapist. She asked me if I’d ever told anyone about it when it happened. I said, “No.” She said, “Why not?” “I was afraid I would be in trouble,” I replied. She then explained that what I’d experienced was sexual abuse. I said, “But he didn’t touch me.” She replied, “He didn’t have to. Sexual abuse can include words and doesn’t have to involve touching. What he did was inappropriate and the fact that you didn’t tell anyone and you thought it was your fault is a classic sex abuse pattern.”
Thank you for this, J.M. I showed similar signs of trauma from my experience and a good therapist helped me understand that it was because I had been in a sexually abusive situation. I think it’s important to call this sexual abuse, because it is.
And it must stop.
“No one has thought to question the practice in the first place”????? Seriously, you believe this? I did and so have countless others. You don’t win allies by accusing them of having never stepped up. Talk to any ex-Mormon Feminist. We are everywhere. Thanks for speaking out but don’t assume you’re the first. It is naive and insulting.
I can understand why you are hurt but I interpreted that sentence as meaning many in the church know that these situations are happening and it is just part of the culture so it is not widely questioned as being inappropriate, not that she is literally the first to speak out about it.
I didn’t mean that literally. I know there are others who have spoken out about this issue. I meant it in the sense that it persists because, as a church culture and a body, we haven’t stopped to say, “Really? Would I tolerate this under any other context?”
But if God commands it, then it is distinguishable from every other context.
Yes, exactly. I have been tooting this horn for YEARS online in forums such as FMH, Beliefnet (years ago), About forums, and others. I’ve been an exMormon for over a decade, and because of my status people either ignored me or didn’t take me seriously. Mine is one of many life’s who have demands that these repugnant and abusive practices cease.
It’s not just inappropriate for youth; it’s appropriate for everyone.
You have an older, married man sitting behind a chair, hands hidden from view, asking sexual questions and using these answers to determine worthiness. Yes, boys and girls–porn is evil, but we allow this men to listen to detailed sexual descriptions and solicit increasingly more inappropriate information.
How is this ever okay?
Darn you, autocorrect…
I too was a very obedient teen and twenty something and just assumed with all of my awe-struck authority worshipping self that the men that I confessed my sexual sins too had a righteous mantel that enabled them to say the things that The Lord would say to me. I never saw them as just men until many years later when I stopped drinking the kool-aide and was blown away- BLOWN AWAY! by the things that they asked me in graphic detail. I really don’t think that any of these men were predatory or being intentionally abusive. I think that they thought they were being led by the spirit and were doing their job. Which is exactly the problem!!! Quote strength of youth pamphlets and Ensign articles all that you want. The real problem is that these men have been given permission from God (they believe) to ask these things and their interviewees believe that as well. In that perfect storm-anything goes! A fifty-something single female friend called me upset because in a temple interview question her Bishop asked her if she masturbated. This is incredibly sad and humiliating.
One other observation: I don’t think that this is fair at all to these middle aged bishops who sit across from very beautiful women who are talking about sexual things. I think that is a lot to ask if any man-
My first husband was sexually and emotionally abusive to me and I refused to have sex with him. In his frustration, he talked with our bishop about my lack of sexual intimacy. The bishop called me into his office and admonished me to have sex with my husband. I felt the bishop had already made up his mind that I was the one at fault in the situation, so I didn’t share the abuse that was happening.
A few years later, I got the courage to divorce that man and finally found another who’s been supportive, caring, and loving to me as I am to him. The abuse could have stopped earlier had that bishop asked me about the situation and listened to my side of the story rather than taking sides with my abusive husband. Ironically, through my first husband’s actions in talking with that bishop, our joke of a marriage was revealed and I no longer felt I had to keep up appearances for the sake of an abusive marriage.
Sexuality issues, among many other issues, need to be sensitively addressed by professionals with counseling expertise, not bishops who have no clue.
I read through all of the comments thus far as well as this article. I appreciate the many souls who have shared their stories and helped others recognize what has caused them grief in the past, in hopes that we can create a better future. I appreciate those who do serve the best they can in difficult times and circumstances. However…
I believe one of the thinking errors in this process begins with the concept that we should ‘never speak ill of the Lord’s anointed.’ Our concept of our own ability to think and reason as an adult, is trained out of us; so, how are we to train it ‘in’ to our children? In all other examples in life we would train them to ‘listen to their inner voice’–except in the case of an ordained leader, whom we are taught is called and therefore qualified by God to act in His name (is that not the very definition of Priesthood authority?). Who are we to defy that, when we have made covenants not to do so? It is not even on most adults’ radar to warn their barely pubescent children to be cautious and aware in a conversation with their priesthood leaders.
As for having a parent present, I would have NEVER discussed anything of an intimate nature with my mother around either. She had her own issues & traumas: what was then ignored and is now called ‘date rape’ resulted in marriage & then miscarriage followed by 4 kids and a divorce 10 years later. She often described sex as ‘messing around,’ with a grimace and disparaging tone of voice. Talking with her about sex at home was already awful, doing it with a male present was out of the question. Additionally, if your parent happens to also be one who is sexually abusing you (or knows it is happening via the other parent), how well can THAT work out? Having a YW leader instead may have been better.
The truth is, there is no perfect response. Public education has been delegated to train our children about sex because it was too frequently _not_ being taught in the home. That so many people are still unaware of the basic mechanics and the emotional responses of their own bodies tells us that sexual education failure in the home _and_ the school system is creating failure in ecclesiastical circles as well, causing some to feel obligated (if not delighted?) to fill in the gaps. This lack in knowledge/ exposure coupled with the all-empowering construct of ‘the mantle of divine authority / revelation/ inspiration’ makes it next to impossible for most folk to respond with any type of confidence. Adding the lecher/creeper aspect to the soup and making a 12 year old responsible for combatting that, on top of everything else, is simply ludicrous.
With all of the variety in the human condition, how can there be a best/ right answer? (Because those are not always the same thing.) We now teach our children at younger and younger ages about ‘safe /unsafe touches’ and recognizing the discomfort of ‘unsafe words and situations.’ We rob them of their innocence earlier and earlier in an effort to provide a measure of safety. It is crazy that this stuff has had to become as much a part of the basic training of children as ‘don’t put things in electrical outlets, your nose or ears.’
Adults who are learning that ‘the mantle of authority’ does _not_ remove one’s own God-given sense of personal authority will now be in a better position to hand that down to the next generation. A global policy change would definitely help, but as we’ve seen, those take eons to work through, with all of the layers, and be implemented. Changes still fall through cracks & gaping holes, because apparently direct revelation from an all-knowing God still has to pass through legal review, curriculum correlation and a unanimous vote before it can be warped & misperceived on a local level and applied to the rank and file who perceive that they covenanted to buy the whole package AS PRESENTED without batting an eye or even thinking to ask that same all-knowing God, “How does this apply to me?” And if they did ask, what on earth could they do when the answer is contradictory?
(Sigh) Well, I’ve played with this thought process for a long time now;
*since long before my 17 year old daughter was called a crackwhore by her bishop and told that in ‘5 years time she would have 4 children from 4 different men who would all end up in prison’ in response to her asking to be released as Laurel president because she decided to be in a sexual relationship and felt that to remain in that calling would be hypocrisy;
*and my mother was counseled by a bishop that if she were better in bed she could keep an alcoholic husband happy so he would stop beating her sons and thus prevent a 2nd divorce,
and I’m thinking my cell phone, my 2 thumbs & the rest of me should let it rest for a bit.
Thank God for Grace. I hand this mess to Christ, take the lessons & lose the trauma/ resentment–and preach hope, grace, common sense, personal empowerment/ responsibility AND skin-suit awareness to my kids the best I can.
God bless.
Unfortunately, the church responds to this sort of thing best when threatened with a real or imagined legal or PR problem. The best hope for change in this regard, therefore, would be some national media attention focused on the fact that all over the church middle aged men routinely pry into the sexual lives of teenagers. Given the recent scandals involving Catholic priests, the BSA, and others, it wouldn’t be surprising to find some media outlet(s) willing to tackle this issue. Someone with the know-how and connections ought to frame the idea for the right people.
Wow–I’ve been aware of isolated incidents like this (alluded to above by Mike H., I think), but I truly had no idea that this was such a pervasive issue. Yet upon seeing the sheer number of comments and the sincere anguish that generated them, I immediately considered them sufficient evidence to validate the argument being made. The shocking lack of empathy and the willingness to blame the victim demonstrated by a couple of male respondents leaves me dumbfounded, almost embarrassed to be a male and a priesthood holder in this Church. Empathy is a huge component of charity, without which we are as sounding brass and a tinkling cymbal. If there really is a “final interview” at the end, no amount of sounding and tinkling will get one past a lack of empathy, which will be evident in one’s very countenance before the interview even begins.
PS I’m glad DJDG brought up the potential problems of parental presence; having a YW leader seems like an excellent alternative, at least for YW. However, if for instance a YM were comfortable with his bishop but would be embarrassed to discuss sensitive things with someone of the opposite sex (as many YM are, understandably–and I would have been myself), perhaps that could be optional. I realize it’s not a perfect parallel because in the YW-leader/YM-interviewee scenario there isn’t the same authority component.
Thank you for this comment.
You are awesome. Thank you for being willing to listen instead of disparage when presented with evidence of something outside your experience hurting others.
This is awful and some do this to adults too. My sister was asked if she ever had oral sex with her husband and she told this bishop that was none of his business. My two boys that are grown now did the same, though one came out crying and would not telll me why. Even evangelicals, like Dr. Dobson are more rational about masturbation: http://boysunderattack.com/masturbation.html
Masturbation – Sexuality and Life Skills – Teenage Boys
boysunderattack.com
Masturbation information for teenage boys. Addresses wrong ideas and answers lots of silent questions. Big relief to many boys to know they are actually normal!
This articular makes it seem like Mormon kids don’t have a choice and that the youth are constantly probed by priesthood leaders against their free will. Not true. As a Mormon youth there where plenty of occasions where I refused to go to a bishop’s interview and when sitting in his office it was completely up to me, if i felt like being honest about my sexual experience’s and i often wasn’t comfortable with it, so I almost never shared those intimate details of my life. But i understand the value of these interviews, it’s about being honest and confessing ones actions, to a higher authority, when those actions are counter to one’s own personal ethics. In this a case, confessing what one considers a “sin” to religious authority figure. The value is the growth one receives from being honest about something hard to be honest about, under the most difficult circumstances. The question is; are kids smart enough to have there own personal ethics or are they all just brain wash victims of what their parents teach them?
This articular makes it seem like Mormon kids don’t have a choice and that the youth are constantly probed by priesthood leaders against their free will. Not true.
That was almost exactly my experience, and it appears to have been the experience of many others who have shared here, too. I’m glad you avoided some of this agony, but that doesn’t take away the pain that others have endured, nor the validity of their experiences.
the point is that the church teaches that agony and pain is an important part of personal growth and that will never change.
Really? “Let’s allow abuse, because hey, people need pain to grow!”
This might be the worst argument I have ever seen in my entire life. Really.
this calls for a change in church policy but from what i have been reading, peoples beef is with their own particular parents. Parenting needs to remove force for its tool set and that is also something the church teaches.
Let me be clear. In the church, people are taught that to disagree with leaders is tantamount to apostasy. Children are taught the same thing. We are taught that the bishop is the father of the ward, a spiritual guardian, a judge in Israel. I’m a pretty bright, independent person. It took me 15 years to realize that what had happened to me was wrong.
The culpability for this problem rests squarely on the shoulders of the institution that has policies and practices that harm children. Many parents are too blinded by their devotion to the institution to question that interviews like this might cause harm. In fact, you are demonstrating this very tendency yourself by refusing to acknowledge the source of the problem and searching anywhere you can to find a scapegoat.
Stop it, you’re contributing to the problem.
Thank you, KAM. The fact that people are defending this abuse of power is not at all comforting.
Seriously. It never ceases to amaze me how people will defend the indefensible just so long as they don’t have to challenge the comfort of an uncomplicated worldview.
But what if it really is all God’s design? Isn’t that what the Church teaches and what a faithful Mormon believes?
That’s the standard Mormon answer to pretty much every institutional dysfunction in the Church. “It allows us to grow.” The problems with that approach should be obvious (the Church could be in total apostasy and teaching damnable heresies, but it’s okay, because it allows us to grow), but it’s the standard nonetheless.
While that may be true, that doesn’t mean (as you imply) that it is ok, even acceptable for us to actively cause agony and pain. We get enough of both in the normal course of the human existence, and the Church should ideally be a safe place where we can work through those experiences and gain support and peace, NOT EVER a place where extant pain and suffering are compounded.
So my Stake president asking me as a grown woman how often my husband and I had sex–that being painful is just part of the gospel? That invasion of my privacy, and the fact that I had been trained that it would be a sin not to answer, were part of my personal growth and sustained by God?
So you’re saying it’s okay for Bishops to ask sexually invasive questions because the kids can lie if they want to? Come on now.
The nature and understanding of priesthood authority in Mormonism makes that impossible: an option to disobey priesthood leaders or lie to them is not really an option.
Ummm, I wasn’t given a choice. Not even a joke. My parents used the bishop as as arsenal in their issues with raising their kids (i.e. if there was an argument going on, they would contact the bishop and tell him to talk to me and convince me of the error of my ways). I was told one night at a YW activity that the Bishop wanted to talk to me so I hid for the rest of the evening because I didn’t want to deal with it. In the end, my parents brought the bishop to our house, kept me in the back seat of our family car and had the bishop talk to me in there. Don’t tell me I had a choice. I was trapped–literally–in to a worthiness interview.
That’s just bad parenting and i agree it that happens a fair share but it’s not at all church policy.
Yes, bad parenting. But also bad use of the bishop’s position and power and who was going to question it?
some bishops do abuse their power but a lot don’t. You are right about the fact kids need to feel empowered to think for themselves. I feel like my folks did that for me. but again its a parenting problem not a church policy problem.
I think it’s a combination of the two. There has to be some checks in place for bad parenting. There is no way my school would have legally been in a position to corner me and interrogate me and yet, the Church has given this power to a middle aged man. Something has got to change.
So you really think it’s not a problem that a Bishop is in a position where he can ask a 12 year old girl, “Do you masturbate?”, “Have you ever orgasmed?”, “Have you ever had oral sex?”, “Have you ever had anal sex?”, “Have you ever touched a man’s penis?”, “Has anyone ever touched your breasts or vagina? If so, over or under the shirt?” ???
That’s not a parenting problem. There is absolutely zero reason those questions should be asked. A Bishop should ask, “Are you morally clean?” and if the answer is yes, or no, that is the end of it. If the answer is, “I don’t know, what does morally clean mean?” the interview should end, and the Bishop should instruct the parents to talk with their child about what that means, and then ask at a later time.
Mandatory one-on-one sexually invasive interviews with minors are inappropriate even if the Bishop does nothing but sticks to the script. The situation is inherently abusive.
things can always be better, but this article is one sided.
Jake, when it comes to abuse, THERE IS ONLY ONE SIDE.
If you can’t see that, there’s probably no use dialoguing with you further. But when you have a chance to step back from this conversation and perhaps no longer feel as though your back is against the wall, I really hope you’ll re-consider much of what you’ve said here in honor of the candid and raw experiences that have been shared.
Yep, there’s not another side to this. The situation is inapprotriate and unjustifiable. There is no compelling reason for mandatory one-on-one interviews with minors involving probing sexual questions. It is an inherently abusive situation, even if the Bishop does nothing but stick to the script.
I remember the first time my bishop asked me these questions:
Bishop: Are you keeping yourself morally chaste?
Kolobian: Yep.
Bishop: Do you touch yourself?
Kolobian: What do you mean?
Bishop: I mean, do you arouse yourself?
Kolobian: You mean, do I jack off?
Bishop: Yes, that’s what I meant.
Kolobian: Yeah, it’s awesome.
Bishop: (red in the face) No, it’s not. (yadda yadda yadda you’re not worthy to hold the priesthood yadda yadda yadda you need to tie your hands to the bed yada yada yada can’t pass the sacrament yada yada yada I’ll be calling you every day this week to see how you’re doing etc)
So of course I’m shocked and embarrassed, but mostly angry because masturbation is great. It feels awesome, it doesn’t hurt anybody, it’s exciting (especially for a 12-year old). My mom asked me how my interview went and I told her everything.
What she said changed my life forever: “oh honey, the same thing happened to your brothers. You just don’t need to tell the bishop everything. That’s personal between you and heavenly father.”
________________________________________________________
This practice is not ok.
If kolobian bishops had any spiritual discernment at all they wouldn’t have to ask, would they? Or maybe they just don’t have the spirit because they masturbate too often?
Kolobian, your mom is awesome!
Maybe all these Bishops just want to know they aren’t the only ones who enjoy it…
Many good points made here. One other thing needs emphasizing. In addition to it being inappropriate for leaders to initiate these explicit conversations with minors it’s inappropriate and irresponsible of the church to be allowing these conversations and counseling without the leaders being properly trained. And I’d add, they should be professionally qualified as well.
I have a friend who as a young adolescent was molested by his older male cousin. That’s sad. What’s significantly sadder is that my dad, who was his bishop at the time, not knowing the first thing about abuse, actually disciplined my friend. The damage my dad did (may he RIP) to my friend, particularly in regards to his faith, is immeasurable. The important thing to note here is that my dad was a good man, a good leader, and a clever guy. He just was uninitiated and untrained.
My wife is a licensed therapist and assures me that if my dad had been a professional counselor and did that, he’d have lost his licensed and probably would have lost a law suite, had one been filed against him. Counselors/therapists can even be subject to jail time if they screw up badly enough (at least in the UK, not sure about the US). Leaders that are going to even dabble in counseling MUST be trained. Scriptures, prayer, and warm and fuzzy well-wishing aren’t gonna cut it.
The inability to question leadership and policy and blind adherence to what one has been told since they were old enough to speak smacks of a cult. Have you ever heard yourself saying things like “I’d like to bear my testimony… I know this church is true… I know Joseph Smith is a true prophet…” or “Dear Heavenly Father, thank you for this food. Please bless it to nourish and strengthen our bodies…” and ask yourself why do I tend to say those exact words? My 4 year old daughter once told me that she knew that Heavenly Father loves her. I didn’t have the heart to burst her bubble, but I did wonder how a 4 year old, who is so far from full prefrontal cortex development and any sort of grasp on rational thought, nor can read a book, could possibly have known that there is a god and that that god is a mormon. “Testimony” is the wrong word. “Indoctrination” is the more appropriate. The worthiness interview problem falls congruently in line with the problem of how the whole church foundation is set up. Kids and parents, alike, can’t challenge the system nor form any opinion regarding spiritual matters for themselves. They mindlessly assume, as they’ve been told to assume, that their leaders are all infallible. Or in this case, they may even form the opinion that they’re bishop makes mistakes, but certainly the next level up or all the way to the prophet, at the very least, must be infallible.
Bishops make mistakes, stake presidents make mistakes, GA’s make mistakes, and the prophet makes mistakes. Elder Bruce R. McConkie said so many stupid things the church had to stop selling Mormon Doctrine. His rantings about blacks being “less valiant” in the pre-existence, birth control being evil, and other tripe were just too embarrassing in 2010. Hinckley lacked the discernment to detect the fact that he was buying a fraudulent document (in order to hide it from the membership, I might add, as it was damaging to the church). And he redacted church doctrine in media interviews. The ORIGINAL modern day prophet was the worst. He had some 37-odd wives. Some 8 were currently married to other men, some he threatened with excommunication if they didn’t marry him (which was tantamount to a death sentence at the time and circumstance), some were minors, and all marriages were done behind Emma Smith’s back. His three wildly differing versions of the first vision are like a fish story where the fish gets bigger every time the story was told. Polygamy was redacted in order for the church to be reinstated as a registered religion with the federal government and to achieve statehood for UT. Blacks were allowed temple and priesthood privileges because god! it’s just too difficult to be a respectable organization who’s still carrying racist policies as late as 1978.
My own stake president called a disciplinary council on me to excommunicate me when I simply asked to have my name removed from church records because I didn’t believe it any more. To this day I have no idea why he did that. I wasn’t so much as disruptive to others’ testimonies and was even somewhat apologetic as I answered his questions about why I didn’t believe. I went online and read the Church Handbook of Instructions and found that “apostasy,” which was my charge, had three specific criteria, none of which was I even accused of doing. Apparently he hadn’t read that book. He should have had at least a small idea of what apostasy means (by church disciplinary standards) before charging me with it. Moreover, he was acting against the law as I discovered with a couple of google searches. The law states that religious membership is voluntary; and to cease being a member all one has to do is say so, and by legal obligation, a church MUST remove membership. There was a case of a man in Mesa, AZ that was put through this same harassment when he tried to resign. He sued the church and settled out of court, meaning he made some money. I threatened the same thing to this stake president and he backed down and processed my voluntary resignation. Unfortunately, he did do lasting damage by encouraging my then-wife to divorce me because I was an apostate, which she did and which decision she’s still miserable for with regret these many years later.
Fallible? Yes. They ALL are, from the deacon to the PS&R. Does the church need to change its policy regarding the worthiness interviews? Absolutely.. as well as many other policies. In the meantime CHALLENGE the leaders. TELL that bishop that HE ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT be asking your son or daughter any questions about sexuality. He’ll probably be nonplussed at your statement. And he’ll probably inform you that your son or daughter can’t receive a recommend to baptize dead people or whatever. Oh well… if it comes to the point where you can’t receive any of the spiritual benefits from the church without playing their game, then vote with your tithing and membership.. leave the church. There are plenty of non-denominational churches you can attend with fun music, even. And there you don’t have to give 10% of your income, work an unpaid job for the church, your 18-19 year old’s don’t have to perform slave labor for one-and-a-half to two years at YOUR expense and you don’t have to wear incredibly un-sexy, fashion-limiting, funny underwear that DIDN’T protect anyone from anything, but gave the church a little more revenue and control over your life.
My kids, unfortunately, are being indoctrinated as I write this, and there’s not much I can do about that. But sure as shit, I’m planning on forewarning my kids about these interviews and encouraging them not to give credit to a man just because others call him bishop and think his farts don’t stink.
First, I want to say I believe what you said and understand what it is like to be “verbally molested” by a grown man. I never had those kind of questions asked by a Bishop or teacher, so I also understand those who question it a little. If it hasn’t happened to them, they can’t understand. I haven’t read all the responses, but read enough that I want to stand on a high hill, and preach to everyone about how much power we give “authority figures”, and how parents should never let anyone else have that much power in their children’s lives. Even parents can be perpetrators, but putting those instances aside, parents should be the only authority in their children’s lives. Even a doctor should not have power over children.
Having said that, I do feel like it would have been more traumatic for me to have my parents in the room with me when I was confessing to the Bishop or telling my doctor about my sexual experiences.
I am a mother now, and would hope my daughter could come to me about the things she might confess to a bishop or doctor, but my relationship with her is a lot more open and honest than the one I had with my parents. If they had insisted on coming with me, I would have lied to the bishop and doctor.
My suggestion would be that a close friend should be able to accompany children in those scenarios. We all tell at least one friend what we are really doing (or what is happening to us), don’t we? I know my current bishop would find that to be a good idea. Because of volatile custody issues and a local teenage boy abusing a young child in the bathroom, our ward has a strict policy that no teacher is allowed to go anywhere alone with a child. We have to get a parent, have them go to the classroom, and take their child to the bathroom or the drinking fountain.
I don’t think the world has changed much since I was a teenager 30 years ago, but I know we are more aware of things than my parents were. We know the dangers our children are in, because nothing happens without someone putting it on facebook or twitter or text.
Thank you for making me more aware of a possible danger. I never had a bad experience with a bishop, so I wouldn’t have ever thought twice about letting my daughter be alone with the bishop.
I just wanted to add that this can be especially harmful for LGBTQ youth. Recently I was being interviewed by my bishop for a living ordinance temple recommend. He knew I was bisexual, and even though I have been with an opposite-sex partner for four years, he still felt the need to explicitly ask me, “Have you ever had sex with a woman?” This was after I had already answered the temple recommend question about chastity. When I said that no, I haven’t, he responded with, “Then how did you know you were bisexual?” I was too flustered to answer (when what I should have said was “did you not know you were heterosexual until you had sex with a woman?”) and instead came home and cried about it. This led to a four-month process of the bishop refusing to give me a temple recommend until I had met with the stake president, whom the bishop had told without my consent that I was bisexual and therefore needed to go through a more rigorous interviewing process. I’m a shy person and don’t like to talk about sex with ANYONE, and have a hard time talking about it even with my fiance, so being asked specific questions about my bisexuality by a sixty-year-old man convinced he was helping me was a particularly humiliating experience.
Jake, a 13 year old is still just a child, and rarely has the capability to withstand those kinds of damaging questions. Ya there are handbooks and talks from leaders about where to draw the line regarding what questions are acceptable, but most likely, her bishop will be the first, if not only, person that will talk about these thing with her, and with so much idolatry for leaders in the church, chances are that she will only cling to what her bishop says. I seriously don’t understand the people that are defending the church on this. Obviously you never experienced this for yourself because you were too busy trying to show off how holy you are/were. Fuck off and stop trying to make it the victims fault you pompous ass holes.
As a victim of sexual abuse myself I cannot tell you how awful these interviews were for me. Being alone, in a closed room, with a man, was very distressing for me. Even if I had no reason to distrust the person interviewing me, I still felt scared and uncomfortable. In regards to Mormon feminism, this is the issue I feel the strongest about. I can not believe church hasn’t already realized how distressing an interview would be for an abuse victim.
I have a friend whose father was abusive (not sexually), and I know she has found dealing with forceful bishops to be very triggering, almost to the point of causing her to leave the church. For a person who has suffered abuse of any sort, being shut in a room with someone who has been given authority over them, who they believe they must obey and respond to all questions, can be a really horrible experience.
Abuses are not the norm, I know you want to share that sentiment to serve your purpose, but its not. The evidence is the millions of Mormons who, of their free will, go into that office and share very painful details about themselves every day all over the world. Why do they do this? Ask them. But who are you to decide right for them?
Regardless of “the norm,” I think it’s clear that these abuses are a common occurrence. The point is to have a system that protects against abuse, and the current system allows it to thrive.
No one here is arguing that they are the norm. Rather, the argument is that the system, as it currently exists, enables the abuse in the (hopefully) rare cases where it does happen. If it works for you, that’s wonderful, but even the smallest amount of human interaction has surely taught you that what works for one person may not work for another, and in some cases may actually be damaging.
No, the problem is not that the situation enables abuse. The problem is that the system is itself abusive.
Or rather, they are two separate problems that we need to be careful to not conflate.
This article isn’t about people who completely voluntarily talk to a bishop (just as a Catholic might talk to a priest) as part of the repentance process. I don’t believe Kam is even hinting that people who find that useful shouldn’t do so.
This article is about children who are abused in a process that’s expected of them if they wish to fully participate in church activities. It’s about a system that is set up without the simple checks needed to assure that bishops won’t abuse their authority — and the fact that some bishops will want to do just that is cautioned about in scripture, where the term used is “unrighteous dominion.” It’s about a church culture that sometimes treats church authorities as if they’re infallible, even though they are not. The article isn’t meant to tear down the church, but to make it better.
The church, if it’s a true church, has nothing to fear from this sort of constructive criticism. I can’t help but wonder why you find it threatening.
Mandatory worthiness interviews are already unrighteous dominion, even if nobody deviates from the script.
An adult going voluntarily to a bishop to discuss “painful details” is an entirely different matter than a child who is placed in this setting with the expectation that everything the bishop does is good and right. Even with adults there are and can be abusive situations, but that is a matter for a different blog. Your intentional blindness and rationalization of a practice that is inherently fraught will devastating child abuse potential, along with Glen’s above, speaks more loudly than anything else on this page about why the Mormon church needs to put an end to any form of one-on-one interviews between adult males and children. Knowing that there are men in the church like you is plenty of evidence that this practice will continue to reap a bitter harvest as long as it is allowed to continue.
“with devastating” not “will.” Wish there were an edit button.
Going to talk to an ecclesiatical authority on a voluntary basis is fine. Better than fine even–it’s great. People, including minors, absolutely should be able to go to their ecclesiatical authorities with their questions, concerns, and troubles of any kind. That’s what pastoral care means.
But this is not that. This is mandatory one-on-one interviews with children where probing sexual questions are asked by the ecclesiastical authority. And it’s not required by any scripture or revelation, ancient or modern.
It’s not about the potential for overt sexual abuse. The situation is inherently abusive.
Jake, you don’t know what “the norm” is. Unless you’ve spoken personally with these millions of people and they’ve all given you an honest answer? From what I know, the conversations going on here are actually the “norm.” Discomfort over this practice is widespread.
Serve your purpose? You mean asking the church to take steps to stop verbal sexual abuse? No matter how “rare” it is, it still needs to be taken seriously. And if you can’t soften your heart enough to be sympathetic for these people, well then you have your reward. Being aloof from people that desperately need help. Sounds like you only want to help if it serves your purpose. If it makes you look holy
I agree that this practice need to change. But also, some of you folks need to get better at lying. I guarantee at least 20% of men you see in the temple (yes that includes the temple workers) lied on at least one question to get there. (I’m sure the actual percentage is MUCH, MUCH higher than that, but I’d be willing to bet all my money on at least 20%)
I remember, I was terrified the first time I lied to a bishop in an interview, I was sure God would see right through it and let the bishop know. Nope. The bishop just congratulated me on my “worthiness.” I got my recommend, went to the temple with my friends to do baptisms for the dead, no problem! You all just need to realize that the so-called “power of discernment” is a total farce! Absolute B.S. Just sit there confidentially lying to his face and you’ll walk right out of that office with a smile on your face and a recommend in your hand, every time.
Fair warning: once you figure out that the “power of discernment” is a farce, you may start wondering what else about the church is farcical nonsense. (Spoiler alert: practically all of it!)
Nick, I’m a little insulted at the implication that we all think that “the power of discernment” is a lie detector that our local accountant magically gets when he’s called to be our bishop.
We have to morally reconcile however we choose to answer temple recommend questions, but I really hope that the deciding factor for any of us is our own comfort in how/why we respond to the questions like we do, and not that we might bet busted by someone else’s spiritual super-tinglings.
Answer temple recommend questions however you want – it’s just the honor system, anyone can fake their way in for whatever reasons they have – but “lie better – the bishop’s not magic, so you won’t get caught!!” may not be the most mature/respectful advice about a situation that others here actually do respect.
Why should the church put you in a position where you choose to lie at all?
The “magic lie detector” was the only way I was ever taught the “power of discernment” growing up. My mother basically threatened me, that I better not lie to the bishop, because he has the “power of discernment” and WILL know if you’re lying. It was basically the same in YM, when we had a lesson that mentioned the “power of discernment,” that’s just about how the teacher would usually describe it. That the bishop, “Just knows,” when someone is not answering the interview questions honestly. Same story on my mission, when an apostle visited, only he reportedly had some super-special, souped-up version of the “power of discernment,” where he could REALLY tell if you were lying. (I wasn’t, and still am not, entirely sure how that was supposed to differ from normal “power of discernment,” where the Holy Ghost himself supposedly tells you when someone lies. But, at any rate, that’s what I was told. Supposedly he’d like, “see into your soul,” or some such nonsense!) I don’t know, maybe its changed lately. I’ll admit, I haven’t been to your church in several years. Apparently you believe something different from what I was always taught. I’d be interested to hear what you were told about the “power of discernment.”
And actually, I choose not to answer the temple recommend questions at all, these days. Ever since I noticed that its nothing more than a transparent attempt to make followers pay to enter heaven. Ever noticed that the church has “tithing settlements,” but not, say, “love thy neighbor settlements?” And that the big three things necessary to enter the temple, and therefore supposedly necessary to enter the Celestial Kingdom all have nothing to do with helping your fellow man? I wonder why that is. Do you?
Your tone is insulting. Many of the people here are very well educated about other problem areas of the Mormon church, and yet they don’t go waltzing around acting like they know so much and telling people to lie.
The church needs to change, it has changed and it is changing. This article was bias and did present the difficulty of finding a solution that works for everyone. I’m sure the church will address it and people have a right to point out the problem but some people want to use it as a chance to bash the church. I admit, I don’t have a girls perspective and it is very different.
Not to mention that many of the commenters have been men. This is not an issue that is exclusive to women.
You keep mentioning that you think this article is biased. I’m not sure what you mean by that. Is she supposed to also research and present the issue from the POV of the abusers in the same well-written and even-handed manner in which she discussed the plight of the abused?
“I’m sure the church will address it ”
hahahahaha
I’m not sure where you get that this article is bashing the church? What specific parts are bashing the church? The only thing the author did is question one specific practice. By your reasoning, those who sought to end polygamy, and to get blacks ordained to the priesthood were just “bashing the church” as well.
People like Jake fall into a category of believers who think that if something doesn’t ring with the church’s praise, it is church bashing. Rarely have I seen people more thin-skinned than these. It is unseemly in the best of circumstances, but it is truly odious when it is turned on victims of the church’s harmful policies and practices. He is determined to find a way to defend the institution at all costs, even if it means dismissing and belittling the victims. He can accept the idea that there is an errant man out there who makes “mistakes.” But he can’t accept the fact that the entire institutional process of have an adult male question children about sex is sick and harmful in and of itself and needs to stop.
Jake, the article is “biased” because it is about someone’s hurtful personal experience and the change she thinks needs to happen because of it. I’m pretty familiar with what constitutes bias in an essay, and this is not it.
Throughout my whole life I was paranoid about masturbation, and obviously since I can’t run away from my penis, I would make a “mistake.” Worried about the well being of my soul, I would end up confessing this to my bishop. Pretty much every bishop I had, got to hear my confession, which made me feel like a perverted weirdo that wasn’t good enough. Each Bishop handled it differently, some would just not make a big deal of it, and there were a few that wanted to know all the details like how often, where, when, and if I was doing anything with any girls. This ALWAYS made me feel uncomfortable, but because I wanted to be clean and well be for God, I told them. I never understood why people would say. “it felt like a big load of bricks were taken off my back.” To me my stress and anxieties and spirituality felt beat up. I support this article 100% THIS HAS TO STOP.
Same exact experience, bro. Additionally, I had feelings of worthlessness because I couldn’t get this under control. I felt inhibited from interacting with girls because I felt they didn’t deserve a perv like me who couldn’t not masturbate. One GF, who supported me through my whole mission, dumped me afterward because I told her about it. During my mission, I felt so down about my lack of control that I wanted to go home, and nearly did until someone close to me talked sense and told me that 1 out of ten men masturbate and 9 out of 10 men lie about not masturbating. It didn’t completely stop the pain, but did mitigate it some by at least knowing that I wasn’t unusual.
P.S. I feel like I am finally in a healthy place, I masturbate and don’t feel bad about myself, I have educated myself on something that has caused me so much unnecessary stress and self-shame. Come to find out, I am a human, and that’s what humans do.
Jimmy I had a lot in common with your experience. How was it that every man in my elders quorum could attend temple night except me because I m bated once a week? Yep my bishop would not give me a recommend until at least 3 months without incident. who the hell was he to decide my worthiness? hiw could he possibly understand how much i was trying? I was in tears for almost a year because of this struggle. Girls would ask me if I was going to temple night and I had to say no. That pressure made my life incredibly hard. It wasn’t till later that I had this amazing revelation that felt like an eternity of peace! Quitting the church! Giving it my two middle fingers on the way. It is only between me and god now, if he exists. No middle man. The damage that this current system is causing is very serious, if not deadly. I can’t count the suicide attempts throughout the course of 4 years after I couldn’t go on a mission.
Taylor, the only difference between you and those that were eligible to go to the temple and on missions is that you were HONEST and they were not. Because of your honesty, you were punished. Because of their dishonesty, they were rewarded. You should give yourself a pat on the back for maintaining your integretiy, this just shows you how rare it really is.
The church needs to take a class on the human body, I guaran-damn-tee that they have no idea that abstaining from masturbation is unhealthy and can cause testicular cancer. After learning this, Boyd K and his factory talk didn’t mean crap to me, in fact I am beginning to think he has an unhealthy obsession with the sexuality of others.
Thank dude. I can’t believe that kids are going through the same bs right now. And they don’t have to. I’m so glad I married a women that never had to go through that. She is capable of being there for me when I suffer from my past. She lets me know that it’s okay to be human, even at times where I’m forcing myself to be perfect. It is so relieving. The system screwed me up big time.
Something that I think needs to be emphasized: this is not just about the risk of sexual abuse. This is not about risks of something worse happening, because even seen in the very best possible light, sexually invasive interviews between priesthood leaders and minors are not okay.
Even if a Bishop never does anything other than read the questions from the script as-is, with no follow-up questioning at all, and never does anything else or even thinks anything else, the entire set-up is inherently abusive.
^^YES, this does need to be reiterated.
It’s not about the risk of rogue Bishops using the situation to exercise sexually unrighteous dominion.
The whole situation is inherently an exercise of unrighteous dominion. Mandatory personal worthiness interviews are crazy. They’re invasive, they aren’t really confidential (!), and they break down personal boundaries in a way that is dangerous. Mormons take them for granted because they are used to them, but that doesn’t mean they are good or okay.
I had a pervert Bishop in the early 70s when I was in high school. I went in his office, behind closed doors, for an interview and came out feeling like I wanted to kill myself because I hated myself so much and felt like I was the most evil vile thing that ever lived. I had no self esteem as it was and that put me in the negative self esteem range for many years. I realize now that it was sexual abuse in one of its most secret forms. Getting a young girl in an office, closing the door and asking all kinds of very pointed sexual questions, feeling like you have to give them sex education lessons, making them feel like they are dirty and skanky (and these are girls who are virgins, ferchrissake), is abuse. That pervert is still living but almost 90. I wish he’d had to register as a sex offender, because he was. The worst part though? If I’d told my parents what happened and how it made me feel and said I would never go in his office alone again, they would have punished ME for saying the bishop would do anything improper. They would have just believed that whatever he asked me was ok because he was led by the spirit. Makes me sick that this crap is still going on when I have granddaughters who are still stuck in that cult and could be exposed to this same abuse.
Other churches do not have mandatory interviews with youth involving sexually invasive questions. Just in case you didn’t realize.
Shoot, other churches don’t have mandatory personal worthiness interviews at all. Even confession in Catholicism is completely penitent-driven. The idea that the lay leadership of the church should be holding a perpetual investigation into members’ righteousness sua sponte for some reason is a crazy, crazy idea.
I hate to jump into the fray at the risk of having the kabosh laid down on me, but here goes:
First of all, I’m male, so I’ve never experienced the sheer awkwardness of being a teenage girl in a one-on-one with the bishop, and I can only imagine how mortifying it can be. Therefore, I admit to not being able to empathize with that side of things. Please bear that in mind as you process my comments.
That said, I want to defend some of the remarks of a minority in this conversation – that while the practices discussed in this article must surely stop, they are not necessarily the norm. When you have a terrible customer service experience, you are extremely likely to tell others about it. Not so much for wonderful customer service experiences. The same applies to this. The vocal – and correct – majority on this wall makes a lot more noise than the possible overall majority within the church that has never had a problem with a bishop or other ecclesiastical leader, especially because LDS blogs are simply more likely to attract those who seek a forum to discuss these injustices.
Someone else also said that the best thing that could happen would be for this to blow up enough that it caused a massive scandal and PR nightmare for the Church because it would effect change. I respectfully disagree with that idea for a couple of reasons: 1) For it to be that big, it would involve the continuation of the abuses in question and an exponentially larger crop of victims, which is bad all around; 2) If your mission is to help the Church (some of you might not be interested in that, which is fine), you would want to help it while not tearing it down. Yes, I know I’m just a “thank you for loving me enough to hurt me” comment away from being contradicted, but I think there are more productive ways to address these issues.
I have been very fortunate to have good bishops throughout my life who have not probed beyond what was necessary, and I have often found that love is a more productive teaching tool than awkward condemnation. The simple question of “Do you obey the law of chastity,” should be all that is necessary. I believe that falls along the lines of teaching us correct principles and letting us govern ourselves.
If I were confessing sex, for example, I would expect the questions to be pretty open and shut. There’s no need for the local Levite stand-in to ask me about positions, frequency, orgasms, yadda yadda yadda.
Confession is surely a vital part of repentance, and I don’t think it should go away just because we, as fallible humans, have decided on something better. But can it be amended? Absolutely. And I think the Church would do well to more forcefully instruct bishops – who are far more often than not well-intentioned, honest men just trying to magnify an often overwhelming calling – not to cross any lines or be more inquisitive than is appropriate.
Why is an inquisitorial approach necessary at all? I say that it is not.
But this is not about confession. Nobody here is arguing that people should not confess their sins. There’s a world of difference between (a) a penitent who seeks out their clergy to confess their sins and seek guidance in confidence and (b) a clergy who calls a congregant into a private inquest to determine the nature and frequency of the congregant’s sins.
Who says any amount of inquisitiveness is appropriate?
The fact that you don’t think that its outrageous that your Bishop regularly calls you into a private inquest to determine the general nature and frequency of your sins doesn’t make it not outrageous.
Kids shouldn’t be grilled every six months. That much is obvious. But some form of checking up on people is probably wise, isn’t it? Aside from that, how would a temple recommend interview be? Rather than ask questions is the bishop to merely say, “Welp, I’ll sign this here unless there’s a reason I shouldn’t.”
Granted, this post started with the mention of children, not adults, so I’ll try and stick to that. Bishops do not need to go crazy probing into the lives of teenagers. Parents should do that.
Did I say I didn’t regard anything as outrageous? Please don’t put words in my mouth. I merely said that just because 97% of the comments on this post support the thesis as presented doesn’t mean that it’s a representative sample of the Church as a whole. And that’s because there are countless people in the Church who have never had any of these problems. I hope those people are in the majority and I hope that what we’re discussing today, as important as it is to address, has affected a minority of Church members.
Lot of assumptions to unpack there.
Why does there need to be a temple recommend interview? There’s not a sacrament recommend interview, and the scriptures say that taking the sacrament unworthily is eating and drinking damnation to your soul.
Would that really be so bad? What about Melodie’s suggestion upthread: “Can I help you in your life in any way?” and maybe “Is there anything you feel you want to talk with me about?” I strongly suspect that about the same number of sins (real and imagined) would be confessed.
No, because we are not only talking about the potential for gross abuses of the interview process. We are also talking about the interview process itself. Even if everyone sticks to the script and only things happy thoughts, the situation is itself ecclesiastically abusive.
Private interviews at the Bishop’s request where you are asked by the Bishop about the general nature of your sins are outrageous. They don’t happen to “a minority of Church members.” They happen to every member; it’s Church policy. Again, the fact that you think it is perfectly reasonable doesn’t mean that it is.
Perhaps the best way to deal with youth would be to sit with them, ask them to look over “For the Strength of Youth,” and ask them if they have any questions. That would be such a healthier way to talk about sensitive things with kids.
As for bishop-to-girl interviews, I’m not comfy with that at all. And I don’t know what an optimal solution would be, as many have rightly said that having multiple people in an interview would potentially be overwhelming to a youth.
Perhaps the best way to deal with youth would be to sit with them, ask them to look over “For the Strength of Youth,” and ask them if they have any questions. That would be such a healthier way to talk about sensitive things with kids.
False. My bishop used FSOY as his “script” and that’s how come he felt it was fine to ask me if boys had been touching me places or if I had been touching myself.
Stop trying to preserve an inherently problematic/abusive/crappy/unscriptural system. The whole approach is bad news, and it’s *especially problematic* with kids.
You’re aware that you come off as unbending and mean, yes? I’m just trying to flesh out possibilities or issues, but all I’ve seen you do on this thread is slam anyone who remotely disagrees with you. That is hardly the best approach.
I didn’t say “Look over ‘For the Strength of Youth,’ then with that out of the way, ask probing questions,” did I? So why did you respond as if I did? I would never condone the method you described and I never alluded to it as being OK. You just filled it in so that you could have a reason to blow up on yet another person on this thread. My other comments rationally support your overall thesis, but apparently that isn’t enough. For someone who wrote a pretty well-written post, it is alarming how poor you are at synthesizing written information from others.
I don’t intend to come off as mean, and I apologize if I have been; it’s been a bit of a raw day for me. But yes: I *am* unbending on this issue. I don’t think there’s any wiggle room when we’re dealing with abuse, and I hope I am always unapologetically firm about it.
I appreciate that you’re sifting through the issues, that’s very important. Though FWIW, it’s not like your last comment was the paragon of kindness and diplomacy. ;) The Internet tends to bring out the worst in us sometimes, eh?
May God bless you.
How about just preach the gospel, including the reality of sin and the role of confession as a part of repentance, and make sure they know your door is open?
I like that idea much better.
Nothing to add, I just wanted to point out that I believe that this and your follow-up comments comprise exactly what the responses of every participant in discussion on this topic ought to look like: recognizing that there is a problem, recognizing that there is a reason for the interviews in the first place, and then working to create the best solution with respect to the strengths of both. Such comments are where the real work in creating a solution will be performed.
No, there is not a good enough reason for the interviews in the first place. The fact that you think they’re reasonable doesn’t mean they are.
I have had more Priesthood Interviews then probably any and all respondents here put together having had a lifelong struggle with masturbation addiction and found the approach of the church towards masturbation to be counter-productive..I believe as my father once counseled me on that subject that some sins are grave and rob us of the spirit faster then others if not repented of …..but this is one the more attention you give them the worse they get… Masturbation creates a cycle of guilt and then confession then embarrassment then alienation that then insures the behavior will be repeated till it is an addictive cycle that destroys an in every other way a productive life by giving a small and fairly insignificant behavior too much weight till it overwhelms the compulsive personality type …My father told me to simply confess it to the Lord and go about your business and if the time came you met with the bishop yearly or whatever confess it and get it out of the way but do your best with it and don’t make more of it then it is and it is one of those issues mainly between you and the Lord and ignoring it is usually the best way to deal with it…On the issue of Bishops probing questions I have never felt a bishop crossed that line and if they do I believe they are just trying to get the child to open up about an otherwise deeply embarrassing issues that kids tend to smother and cover up creating bigger problems later …It has been my experience that the Bishops Question was simply the means of trying to help a person talk about something that while very embarrassing if not got out and off the soul it would rot and create more problems that come through incomplete repentance. Finally the Church is a Voluntary organization if you don’t like it ….Leave it …..Then just Leave it alone which rarely happens…if you can but the fact you typically cant speaks to its truthfulness and was prophesied by the prophet Joseph Smith when he said when a person leaves the church rarely can they leave it alone…In the final analysis no one is forcing you to have any interview ether way and the Bishop isn’t getting paid in any form to see you ….you can always simply say I am not comfortable and get up and leave…
Children can’t leave. Children can’t usually opt out of these inherently abusive settings. Children can’t fix this problem, and your justification of it doesn’t make it right. People have been quietly saying this needs to stop for a long time. It’s about time this became a public matter because while the LDS leadership apparently cares nothing at all about children’s private humiliation in an abusive setting, the one thing it does care about is its own public image. Moreover, thanks to this public blog, parents can read what goes on behind closed doors and can protect their children from being put into these situations by forbidding bishops or anyone else from every having one-on-one interviews with their children.
And, yes, parents can leave and take their children with them. Parents can mitigate the potential harm. But only the hierarchy can fix the problem once and for all, for everyone. And they need to do it.
Ya you can just leave the church if its uncomfortable. But when you are taught that “the church is true” since you were 2 years old, your brain is molded accordingly. Indoctrination exists I.e. Hitlers youth. The church uses the same tactics. Hitler knew that brains develop around their surroundings. It’s not that simple to get up and leave. You’re fucking programmed! Of course Joseph smith knew it would be difficult to leave. And that a person seldomly leaves silently. They need all the help they can get, hence these vent forums. It’s social suicide! My best friends since 3rd grade went on missions and wrote me that if I didn’t go I would be dammed for the rest of my life. Life was really bad after I left, but it was because I had to begin finding myself at a later stage of life. These things stay with you. Now I’m free of those chains, and its greater than any amount of happiness that church brought me. There’s no comparison. It’s a religion founded by a man who mastered the art of control. Every single aspect of mormonism is control. Especially answering to phony leadership, idolizing prophets more than Christ. It will always be with me, the self battering I learned from mormonism. I need forums like this to know that it’s ok to be human, and that people on the other side of religion are great people who accept and strengthen the real you.
Thank you for writing this. I had a terrifying experience in an interview when I was in college, that when I left and told my boyfriend, he was enraged. At the time, I didn’t understand why he was so upset because I thought the fault lay with me. He insisted that I make an appointment with the stake president and tell him what had been asked and discussed. The bishop was released shortly thereafter, but I strongly suspect that what happened with me wasn’t the only reason. I feel like I’m shouting at the rain when I tell people that those types of questions aren’t right and that if they happen in an interview you go straight up to the next person on the chain in the hierarchy and tell them what happened. Yes, bishops are supposed to be inspired, but not everything that comes out of their mouths is gospel. They can make mistakes and sometimes it is to the detriment of others.
I think this article has made me consider a lot of things I have not considered before. In my experience, though, I would have been more terrified about talking with my parents than I would the bishop. I believe this article is a step in the right direction with a few errors I think should be corrected.
1. The idea that such discussions are “none of the bishop’s business” is not accurate. 1 Cor. 11:27 says “Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.” The Savior speaks to the church leadership in 3 Nephi 18:28 “And now behold, this is the commandment which I give unto you, that ye shall not suffer any one knowingly to partake of my flesh and blood unworthily, when ye shall minister it.” With regard to the temple we are commanded in D&C 97:15 “And inasmuch as my people build a house unto me in the name of the Lord, and do not suffer any unclean thing to come into it, that it be not defiled, my glory shall rest upon it;”
These scriptures signify that certain rights of passage and rituals must be done worthily and that it is the stewardship of the priesthood to make sure that this happens. That’s not to say it can’t be done better, but the bishop has a job to assess worthiness in partaking of the ordinances of the gospel.
2. I believe the author wrong with respect to the scriptures with regard to some sins being worse than others. Alma to his son Corianton explained this pretty well: Alma 39:5 “Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?” From this scripture, denying the Holy Ghost is more abominable than shedding innocent blood which is more abominable than adultery/fornication.
I believe newer generations of parents in the church are much more open to discussing sex with minors, and I believe this is a good thing, but still requires wisdom and order. We must be careful not to plant ideas at a premature age yet still ensure that our children know they can come ask us about anything or confide their thoughts and actions.
I see some problems with the suggestions made in this article, but I applaud the author for proposing solutions that we can begin to work with. First, two-deep is important for protection, but would make confession even more uncomfortable. The parent thing is a workable idea.
I’m thinking the Bishop could just simply ask “Do you live the law of chastity?” followed up by “Have you read the For the Strength of the Youth pamphlet and understand what the law of chastity is?” “Do you have any questions that you would like to ask your bishop?” If the youth would like to discuss further, then the bishop should invite the parent in at that time. I think this strikes a balance of comfort for the teen as well as ensuring that adequate protection is provided. Parents can even know ahead of time that the Bishop will not ask anything more than these questions without a parent present. Parents should also instruct their child that if the Bishop asks more than these questions, then the children don’t have to answer and should let the parents know. The parent should be right outside the door with a view into the office.
What do you think?
Yep. And the very next verse says “But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup.” So, that pretty much says the exact opposite of what you want it to say.
And, for the record, don’t you dare call unclean what God has declared clean.
Thanks for this post Clay.
I felt like I was taking crazy pills reading the absurd arguments from both sides above.
Sounds like an uninspired Utah Mormon practice. I grew up in Virginia and we NEVER had these kinds of interviews. Every so often, (not a regular 6 months) the bishop would have us in his office and we’d just talk….about anything we felt comfortable talking or asking questions about. But that was only with one bishop I had and he never asked anything inappropriate. He just wanted to know how things were going in our life, like a PPI for priesthood holders.
I’ve seen problems like this around in many parts of Utah since I’ve been living here. The people that are true zealots in the church take it upon themselves to be in everyone’s business, which I don’t like. However, having gained my own testimony and knowing I stand firm in the gospel, I don’t let the weaknesses, flaws, and foibles of other members deter me. If they have a problem with me, I go to talk to them about it and understand that they do not have the last say in the matter. Luckily, I’ve been blessed with level headed leaders that understand that any confession has to be voluntarily offered and not coerced.
Might I add that there ARE varying degrees of sin; some ARE worse than others. I’m sorry that the writer of this article cannot see it but it is made abundantly clear throughout the scriptures. All it takes is some understanding of key passages, such as those that deal with the 10 Commandments and the children of Israel, King David’s fall from grace, Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, etc. However, I will credit the notion that committing any sin knowingly, no matter how “small”, weighs much more than committing it unknowingly because the former condition reflects an attitude of open rebellion against God as the latter is just ignorance. But even in that condition, we’ve been warned that “man cannot be saved in ignorance”.
Rob, I grew up in the south, not far from you, and was consistently pestered about masturbation from age 12 up until my mission. The barrage of inquiry was unrelenting, and psychologically devastating. It had lasting negative effects well into my marriage. I’m now furious about it. This is not just a Utah cultural practice….it is unequivocally 100% ingrained in worldwide Mormon culture everywhere.
When I was 16, after several trips in and out of the Bishop’s office from age 12, my Stake President made me look him in the eye and promise never to masturbate again. I lasted a few months, but the next time I did it, I felt horrendously shameful…as if I had broken a sacred vow I had made with him. Over the years every time I had a “relapse” (including while married), I would loathe myself so much, and usually go back into the bishops office in tears and sorrow.
Then a funny thing happened in my late 20’s. A female co-worker once asked if my wife would come to her “lingerie/sex toy party”? I said she would NEVER consider it. The she asked, “you guys have 4 kids right? Surely she has a vibrator??” To which I replied, “no, masturbation is frowned upon in our religion.” To which she replied, “OMG, how does she keep her sanity!!!” She was dead serious…and a church-attending, God-fearing christian woman at the same time.
It got me thinking. Here’s a woman of faith who sees nothing wrong with self arousal. She even condones her husband doing it. They see it as a normal healthy part of living. Normal. Clearly she was never grilled into shame by grown men growing up. Lucky her.
So fast forward a few years and I’m lying in bed…my oldest son is 2 years away from entering the young men’s organization and getting the priesthood. I look over at my wife and I ask, “how do you feel about the bishop, in 2 years, asking ________ if he masturbates? ” She was shocked that I would even question the authority of the church. A huge argument ensued, resulting in her blurting out that she had been sexually abused by an older bother in her youth. In her mind, masturbation was the first step to sexual deviance, and if we didn’t intervene – as per normal church policy – with our boys and prevent them from masturbating, then that was the first step to them acting in more sinister and deviant manners.
Now we both know that the opposite is true. Masturbation is a healthy outlet, and actually is preventative by it’s very nature. The feeling to act out sexually goes away the moment a boy ejaculates. So in all actuality, suppressing masturbation actually increases the likelihood that boys will obsess with sexual thoughts. The church as been DEAD wrong on masturbation. Dead wrong!
Our children will never be subjected to this type of inquiry. We caught it in time, thank goodness.
On another note. 71% of women CANNOT orgasm through vaginal penetration. The church as taught that oral sex and self stimulation are wrong, therefore sending the message to 71% of women that “it’s tough luck in the climax department”.
The church has ruined lives and marriages on this issue. Last gripe: sexual sin is NOT next to murder. Could the church please qualify this a bit more? What sexual sin? Violent forcible rape to normal teenage self-arousal are all lumped into the same category – sexual sin. And it’s ALL next to murder in gravity. BS. Sorry, rant over.
Just FYI, the official Church position on sexual behaviors between husband and wife only has 3 points: No other people, animals, or any activity that is degrading to either partner. Any leaders who have commented on the issue beyond that have not been speaking doctrine. In the one example of which I know, the declaration was followed up by a statement less than a month later that the previous comment was not an enforced point of doctrine and that the Church did not give explicit acceptable/not acceptable labels to specific activities.
” … no ..(sexual).. activity that is degrading” ….
Exactly – no one has any idea what that means, so they make up whatever fear-filled definition gets distilled into them …. resulting in plenty of members who are afraid to have sex or bathe without their garments on (one leg at a time? through the fly?) …. the only people they can ask about it would their Bishop … who also has absolutely no idea yet is considered nigh infallible next to God with his supposed “discernment” … with the higher church leadership providing absolutely no details, yet everyone thinking they are constantly being judged for doing evil things in their own bedrooms … extend this onto their children and teenagers, and you have a recipe for psychological damage.
Unless God really says to not to, in which case, the Church is dead right and you are dead wrong.
…except that the Book of Mormon says it is, and no small number of living prophets and apostles have unambiguously confirmed it.
quick honest question for you Kullervo: You don’t believe the church or its leaders have ever been wrong, do you? On any issue, in the past or present?
Quick honest answer for you Steve: I believe that Mormonism is an insidious and possibly damnably heretical sect that denies the true Christian faith “which was once delivered unto the saints.” So yes, I most assuredly believe that the church, and its leaders, have been wrong, on many critical and fundamental issues, in the past and the present.
My best friend was horribly abused by a boyfriend at 18. When she confessed her date rape experiences to her bishop, as she had been raised to believe she should, he did the usual- blamed her, said it was her fault, disfellowshipped her, forced her to commit to frequent interviews, and convinced her to marry her abuser since “the damage was done”. The boyfriend got no punishment because he was 1-year shy of graduating from BYU and “it would be a shame if he was expelled so close to his degree”. Her guilt, reinforced abuse, and continued mistreatment by her then fiancee led her to suicidal tendencies. It took many, many years for her to recover from this and to discover her self worth, her actual position in the eyes of her savior, and the courage to stand up against this kind of abuse.
Part of that healing was to never allow herself to be placed in that position with an ecclesiastical member again. Her new singles ward was particularly hostile when they saw she was gun shy about the church. Her home teachers would physically trap her in the pews after sacrament and loom over her until she committed to an appointment. Her bishop threatened to call her stake president father if she continued to avoid interviews. After so much harassment she was nearly hysterical at every knock on the door or unfamiliar phone call. When the bullying became too much- we came up with a magical solution. I went to her interview with her.
We sat together outside the office waiting for her appointment time and when her turn came, I stood up and followed her right into the office as if it was the norm. The bishop was startled and taken aback. He tried to be nice- he assumed I didn’t understand how this process worked, like I was new to the church. He chatted to both of us for a while, then got flustered and asked me to go. “I will sit here as long as she wants me to,” I said. The bishop didn’t like that and threatened that he would begin a series of embarrassing and personal questions. I folded my hands and stared at him calmly and said nothing. My friend explained that there was no part of her life that I did not already know, and he was free to speak in front of me.
The man was so thrown off balance by this turn of events that he could hardly speak. Now we were not aggressive, not hostile or defensive- just two 20 year old girls sitting quietly together in sunday clothes with our politest smiles and attitudes. I simply refused to leave. The bishop turned bright red and was sweating so profusely that we both became concerned that we’d need an ambulance before much longer. This was simply not how this was done! The bishop tried to ask her embarrassing questions about her sexuality- to shame her I think. So she would know THIS was why these interviews were one-on-one! She answered that she was not comfortable with answering those questions because they were personal, but she was praying and Jesus knew about her past. He almost stroked out on the floor. Frustrated to no end, he ended the meeting and barked that she could return for another meeting when she was ALONE. “Oh no, that is not going to happen. If you want to speak to me again, she will be here or I will not come.” I was so proud of how far she had come, I nearly cried.
And then of course we went out for victory coffee and cigarettes because that was as bad and liberated as two Provo-raised Mormon girls knew how to be. It was necessary to cleanse ourselves of such a… spiritual? encounter.
I will never attend such a meeting without a friend for support and who can be a witness the proceedings. I understand that a parent could be too embarrassing, and I lived in such a gossipy ward that the fewer neighbors who listened in, the better. But please have an interview buddy- especially if you have had bad experiences in the past. If you make that the condition upon which you are interviewed- what can they do?
Discipline you. Disfellowship you. Deny you a temple recommend. Tell you that you can’t take the sacrament. Tell you that you can’t pray in meetings. Refuse to give you a calling. Excommunicate you.
In light of this post and discussions in other forums, there is now a new Facebook page dedicated to stopping this issue. It’s time to end the practice of Mormon leaders subjecting children to sexually invasive interviews.
On Facebook, search for:
No More: End Mormons’ Sexually Invasive Interviews of Children
I was told by my Bishop that I was masturbating. I was told by my Bishop that I was gay. I was grilled every month one these questions, how I was doing, how often and with whom. I would answer NO to all of these questions but he did not believe me. I was told to repent of my sins when I did not have those type as a 12-14 year old boy. It was exhausting, humiliating, and sexually intrusive. This practice needs to STOP!
this actually makes me cry, I can’t belive we still living in a culture so IGNORANT, first of all is horrible to blame the victime,thats how we start to leave all those violators unpunished, thats how we start having all those suicides, and let me tell you something, we are talking about kids of 12 and 13 year old, against an adult, I am not a mormon and something happened to me in that church, and if somebody thinks that I am the demon only because I’m not a member, don’t read this, but only when you look from the outside is when you realize how WRONG are a lot of things, I’m Colombian, and I came to the United States to visit mi aunt, and cousins, one of my cousins is a mormon and my aunt use to be one,(before she realize a lot of odd things), I went to the church with my cousin a lot of times and not olnly because the things that they say but because their acts I wasn’t too happy, and is completely accetable, bacause you know I’m from another culture, but at the moment that this people told me that I have to have an intervew with somebody to be allowed to go on a trip with them my aunt told me, DON’T GO ALONE! and I said ok, when it was the time for the intervew I completely forget what she told me, so I went with the bishop to a closed room with none windows, and he start asking me about me, and if i dink coffee, and alcohol and all those thing that they ask, and then he ask me about my sexuality, and I said for myself “what the f.. is this ” I’M NOT EVEN FROM YOUR CHURCH, HE WAS A COMPLETE UNKNOWN ASKING ME EXPLICIT SEXUAL QUESTIONS, ARE YOU KIDDING ME !!!!!! before that “intervew” (if that is how you call it) I felt so mad, not only because all the time that I was there they judged me because I drink coffe and I have other beliefs(are you serious I’m colombian the best coffee producer, and a complete diferent culture), but because I realize how the teenagers are pressed, and how many teens comet suicide, because of them, the pressure that you have when you cannot do anything about your sexuality and everything is a taboo in that church, and I’m sorry if some of you feel offended for my words but it’s the truth, I’m just gonna tell you something, please trate to look out of the box! this is not a simple thing, with a change everything will be better, but if you still thinking that those things are simple or nonsense, WAKE UP THIS IS REAL, thanks to the person that made this article, and the people that is supporting you, we can make a change!! because we know that God is from our side!
Again I reconfirm that the Church is the living vehicle of the Priesthood on the earth today but that dosent make it infallable and if you think that people can be Saints or prophets and not be fallable obviously you havent lived very long or you havent read the Old Testiment rescently the church makes mistakes becausee while it is a divine organization it is evolving just as we as a people are and some practices while seemingly good are later seen as inapprobriate or overtly self rightous in the practice and bottom line dosent work… I believe the churches practice towards Masterbation creates more problems then it solves just as its approach of excomunication to often, used to be the norm till they fiqured out the approach just didnt work and it and other practices have been tempered since and it is simply like allot of things in life an Issue of trial and error and this dosent effect my testimony in any form seeing I have experienced incrediable spiritual experiences personally while being grossly inperfect …the fact is no one in the Church other than Christ is perfect the rest of us are still in training and that is the point and so that mistakes in interview might happen is part of life get over it…and make it positive as the Christ teaches ether way and forgive and you will find peace.
Whats the point of claiming divinely inspired prophetic leadership if they are figuring everything out by trial and error and using their best judgment. Isn’t that exactly what Mormons accuse post-apostolic Christianity of doing?
The Point is that faith and mistakes and having to walk by them are the norm in our out of a Divinely set up organization and the fact that God doesn’t revel or tell us everything is exactly the point of this process called life and the testing and growth that can come of it …Christ himself had to descend below all things as taught by Paul before he could bring all men to him and so the only perfect Man had to bleed from every pore in the Garden during the performance of the atonement…and as said so well in the Gospels though he was the Son of God yet he learned Obedience from the things he suffered so it is with us as individuals and as a church and God steps in when its dealing with the Big stuff and the rest of the time lets us stumble around and learn obedience from the things we rightly suffer …and as far as the victimization …Get over it bad things happen to good people its part of this probation called life and of course in saying I don’t condone but I say forgive as commanded and let justice dwell with him who is truly qualified to dispense it and all things will work for your good through Christ that makes all things new again Including ourselves.
But you didn’t answer my real question. Isn’t that exactly the charge you level against orthodox Christianity as evidence of its apostasy?
I think you can believe that the church has special authority from God without believing that it’s perfect or infallible.
How is that different from the claims of post-apostolic historic Christianity then?
Well, there’s the idea that the keys for salvation (baptism, sacrament, temple ordinances) have to be authorized by God, and that the LDS church is the only one with official authorization. The priesthood authority claim doesn’t automatically imply infallibility.
But that’s exactly the problem. If you look at older Church literature, doctrinal and policy errors by the post-apostolic Christian church are consistently presented as the evidence that the keys were lost in the first place. You have to demonstrate the Great Apostasy before you can make a case for the Restoration.
If the church’s truth claims rest on it never making any mistakes, they’re pretty much screwed out the gate.
If you believe that Joseph Smith had keys restored that were lost, that’s kind of evidence enough that the restoration was needed. Not sure why you would need to demonstrate that someone else didn’t have them. God allegedly came down and told Joseph himself.
No, that’s begging the question.
And anyway, like I said, that’s not the approach taken by Church leadership in previous generations. There’s an awful lot of LDS literature seriously taking orthodox Christianity to task for doing exactly the kinds of things that people are excusing the LDS church for now. We were not always at war with Eastasia.
How about, in order to be able to evaluate the veracity of Joseph Smith’s claims about what God did or didn’t say. If it’s not self-evident that something was lost, you can’t make a very believable claim that you’ve found it.
At least in previous generations, Church leaders had the conviction to claim that in addition to being verifiable by the Holy Ghost, Mormonism was demonstrably objectively true. Now they apparently they don’t even bother: a burning in the bosom is enough I guess.
If the reason for the restoration was that churches were making mistakes and God needed to restore a perfect church, as apparently past church leaders argued, yeah, that’s kind of game over.
If the reason was that the direct authority from God had been lost or corrupted over time and it needed to be restored, I don’t think claims of infallibility are necessary.
No, you can’t empirically prove that these practices or keys were missing, or that your authority is somehow demonstrably objectively more valid than another church’s. That comes down to the burning in the bosom thing, hence a pretty heavy emphasis in the church on these big spiritual conversion experiences/Moroni’s Promise, etc.
As someone who hasn’t had that conversion experience, trying to defend the church’s truth claims has been a fun thought exercise, but I don’t want to threadjack any further, so this will be my last comment on this subject. :)
Not that your quote has anything to do with the question at hand, but FYI, the Epistle to the Hebrews is not one of the Gospels.
“By their fruits we shall know them” …. I guess their “fruits” just aren’t very reliable eh, if they are just figuring it all out?
Also, if they are “just figuring it all out”, doesn’t that mean they are not telling the truth when they tell us they are “speaking with God regularly” and “being told by God what to say and do”?
They never could really answer that question. I always assumed the prophets were god like due to the majority of lessons taught are if how amazing these “leaders” are and how we should “follow the prophet.” I thought the mantra with the church is that the truth never changes or evolves. Why then would you have a government style system that constantly changes? And then when it does, I.e: allowing gay scouts, the members get way pissed and throw a fit and declare that the church bent to practices that are just a fad and “hip” for now. So god allowed all these kids to suffer and then said, hmmm, now is the time where I shall reveal that the practice of one on one interviews should be abandoned.
This article is less than useless. It thrives on vaguarity and innuendo.
What where you asked?
You can read through the comments for a plethora of examples of inappropriate questions and traumatic experiences. But honestly, why do you need to know exactly what was asked? Are there explicit questions about a 12 year old’s sex practices that you think ARE appropriate to ask in that setting? Are there questions you think would be inappropriate? Does it bother you at all to know that there are NO safeguards in place to keep those questions from being asked? Fundamentally, is it appropriate or safe for minors to be required to sit down alone with an authority figure and be drilled about sex? If this is contributing to the kind of anxiety and shame described in the OP and subsequent comments, do you really think that’s just ok and we shouldn’t try to make it better? Forgetting policy changes, isn’t there value in suggesting that our attitudes about sex and mandatory confession for sexual sins might not be doctrinally necessary/the best way of approaching things? “Less than useless?” Really??
Considering the overwhelming response of people who have been hurt by this policy, and the courage it took to write about something that was so traumatic in the OP’s life to begin with, I find it disheartening to read responses like yours. Essentially, “your pain and personal experience is unworthy of consideration or empathy.” I think you need a healthy dose of “What Would Jesus Do?”
It doesn’t matter what is asked. Regular, mandatory, private, clergy-driven inquisitions into the nature and frequency of individual congregants’ sins are abusive no matter how you frame them.
D.L. –
Age 12. Asked if I was masturbating. I didn’t understand the word.
Ages 12 – 18. Repeatedly asked about masturbation, self-gratification, self-abuse, etc. Was told to stop. Every relapse incurred publicly noticeable punishment.
Age 19, just prior to mission, a priesthood leader pulled out a notebook and asked me to describe in detail EVERY sexual transgression ever committed – INCLUDING the ones I had already confessed to. He writes in detail, in pen, on his notebook, what I tell him. He asks for more detail with every confession.
Age 19 – whilst in the MTC, asked to repeat above, and this time include any episode of French kissing.
So, I did it. I honestly confessed to everything, shamefully, embarrassingly, fearfully. Whilst at the same time, as it turns out the spiritual giant of our family, my future brother in law, had been sexually abusing his sister, my future wife. Never confesses. He’s seen as the can-do-no-wrong stalwart of the family.
You, my friend, maintain the exact attitude that drives people out of this church, never looking back. Thanks for confirming the best choice I ever made for me and my family.
Another big problem with mandatory inquests into personal worthiness is that there is no institutional guarantee of confidentiality. A Catholic priest who breaks the seal of confession is an ex-Catholic priest. Most other churches similarly discipline their clergy who violate confessions made in confidence. Mormonism has no such policy or requirement. People need to realize that what they confess to the Bishop can and will be discussed with other church leaders when the Bishop thinks it’s necessary. Other churches do not do that, and yet, they still manage somehow to have good pastoral care…
Thank you so much for writing this blog and for bringing up the subject! Reading through this comment section has been like therapy for me. I hope it sparks some kind of change.
This is a subject that really hits me hard. My comments are probably a little off topic and likely not too many people will read them but I just felt like typing them out here.
I was sexually molested by a neighbor who was a couple of years older than me when I was 8-10 years old. Because of family problems, divorce and domestic violence I in turn molested my three siblings from the time I was 10- 12 years old. None of the sexual events were ever severe or involving rape or penetration. Just touching in inappropriate ways. When my mother found out she went ballistic. I had just been ordained a deacon and hadn’t even passed the sacrament yet. She made me speak to the bishop about it. The bishop decided the incidents needed to be reported so he did and I was prosecuted and I was ordered to receive a year of counseling. The bishop prohibited me from passing the sacrament. It was embarrassing. None of my friends knew why I couldn’t pass the sacrament and I wasn’t going to explain it to them of course. The bishop had me meet with him every week to talk about how serious my actions were. It made me so uncomfortable every time I met with him. I felt like throwing up inside and I couldn’t look at him or talk because I was so embarrassed and scared. He told me that I would have to keep meeting with him until I could show him that I had remorse for my actions and that meant that he wanted to see me cry about what I had done. I never could get myself to cry in front of him like he wanted me to. After six months my mom finally asked the bishop to let me pass the sacrament and he let up and allowed it.
In my teen years my mom found porn in my room a few times. Each time that happened she would flip out and tell me that I hadn’t ever truly repented of what I had done and that continued masturbation and looking at porn were an indication of that. Other bishops during that time told me the same thing, that if I didn’t stop masturbating that I really had never repented of my sexual sins because I hadn’t forsaken them.
I had a great mission president who was very loving and understanding of a 19 year old with a high sex drive who continued to masturbate as a missionary. While he never threatened to send me home over it he would still emphasize that the spirit couldn’t be with me if I was masturbating. I always felt horrible about it and the ridiculous self destructive thought was always at the back of my mind that until I forsake masturbating completely all of my sexual sins are still hanging over my head.
All through college I had self esteem problems that really held me back in many ways. The women I married and had two kids with became the most vocal persecutor. She would tell me that she knew I was masturbating in the house because she felt the presence of evil spirits in the house at night and she could not feel “the spirit” in our home. She would have the bishop and home teachers come over and give a blessing on the home any time she found out I had masturbated or looked at porn. I attended the church’s addiction recovery program where I was force fed the label of being a pornography addict, the blanket label they place on everyone in those meetings from the 19 year old boy who has to stop masturbating to go on a mission to the 65 year old man who is facing a jail sentence for molesting a neighbor child.
The message has been reiterated over and over again through my whole life. You are not worthy of God’s presence if you masturbate or look at porn and that there is something wrong with you for wanting to do so.
Granted, porn and masturbation addiction are real things. I even fully accept the fact that I was using porn and masturbation to cope with anxiety and stress and that there are more effective and more appropriate tools to deal with problems than to go rub one out. It is interesting though that once I decided to seek therapy for my stress, anxiety and depression and I dealt with the underlying issues, the coping mechanism of masturbation and porn no longer had any appeal for me. I’ve learned much healthier ways to deal with my mental health. The most effective thing I’ve done is to remove myself from being exposed to all of the messages of unworthiness and inadequacy. I have replaced those voices with voices of positivity and self worth telling me that there is nothing wrong with me. Even if I do choose to masturbate on occasion, there still isn’t anything wrong with me. I haven’t lost some sort of pseudo- sobriety or caused the spirit to leave my presence. I am inherently valuable because I exist and I feel gods presence every day.
I’ve never been happier than I am now. As my children have experienced their first interviews with bishops to determine worthiness for baptism I have been vocal about not wanting them interviewed alone. I will definitely continue this request of their leaders. I never want them to go through the judgement and messages of unworthiness that I have gone through.
Hallmark of a Cult: permits, encourages or legitimizes behavior that would be inappropriate or illegal in any other context. In what other context would it be OK for an adult to ask detailed sexual questions alone to a minor? In most cases, to discover that this happened would generate an immediate call to the police — even if it occurred WITHIN ONE’S EXTENDED FAMILY.
KAM, thank you for this post. I couldn’t agree more.
I couldn’t figure out how to reply to Mike H above, but my wife had an experience with the bestiality question that I blogged about (see link below). So sad.
http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2013/06/01/lions-and-tigers-and-bears-oh-my/
Yikes, sorry to hear about your wife having to go through that. Again, that was very counter to what Pres. Tanner directed. And, I know that was not a unique situation.
Until the bishop started grilling me when I was 12, I’d never heard of much of what he was asking about. He continued to ask very specific questions about where boys had touched me, what I’d done, what they’d done — even when I had no physical contact with boys, wasn’t dating yet, and had no boyfriends. I once tried to explain that I’d had no opportunity to do anything, but he kept coming at me with very specific questions about what part of my anatomy some boy might have touched. I hated, hated, hated the interviews and now decades later refuse to discuss anything personal in detail with any church authority. As a teenager, I consciously decided that if I ever did anything outside the church’s limits, I’d plan it so that it happened immediately after the hideous interview with the bishop. I didn’t dread sin, I dreaded being grilled about sin. (And never mind that he never asked if I cheated in school, stole things, drank alcohol, smoked cigarettes, or used drugs — which are things a person my age might actually have done that would be deleterious. He also never asked if I were being abused, which would’ve been a good question for him to ask friends in my ward who *were* being abused and felt they had no one to tell.)
Now as a grownup of sorts, I cringe every time our bishop insists that a young person hug him when being given an award at the pulpit. Because of my history with those wretched interviews, I find it creepy and offensive when a bishop insists he has a right to hug a young person. I don’t even know what they ask these days in interviews.
Kam – I would love to thank you for your bravery & articulation on this issue. It has become too pervasive and too acceptable. Twice I have dealt with several bishops who went completely over any acceptable boundaries during my confessions. The first happened when I was barely 18 – I was raped by my then-boyfriend. The experience traumatized me so thoroughly that I felt I needed spiritual help. Instead of receiving that help, I was barraged with questions like “How far did he penetrate you?”, “Did your hymen break?”, “Did you or he achieve climax?”. I can’t recall if I answered these questions thoroughly, I was just too shocked. It was a few years later that I went in for a confession with a different bishop – I had become intimate with my fiance and was again looking to receive spiritual guidance before getting married. Again, I was met with the same inappropriate questions about oral sex, hand penetration, if I “got wet”, etc. It is because people like you have the courage & wisdom to speak out that future young women & men will know that this behavior is not acceptable on any level. The church rhetoric that these untrained individuals hold our salvation & blessings over our heads until we provide intimate sexual details needs to change.
“The church rhetoric that these untrained individuals hold our salvation & blessings over our heads until we provide intimate sexual details needs to change.”
Well said.
Our family ended up leaving the church after the bishop accused our 18 year old daughter of preparing to commit a sexual sin. This was because she was speaking to someone in the USA. She had never even met the guy, never mind had sex with him. Disgusting!
Can’t this also carry into the young men/young women program and not just rest on bishop’s interview? When I was 12 I had a teacher take it upon himself to teach us that masturbation was wrong and go into explicit detail DURING CLASS. We were all mortified. Needless to say I honestly didn’t even know what masturbation was until that day. The guilt and shame I felt after that lesson were the beginning of a nearly obsessive effort to not “slip up”.
No more abuse of children. I’m on my way out of the church at this point but if my children choose to stay you can bet that I’ll be at every interview.
A teacher going into explicit detail in class is probably also inappropriate, but it’s not the same thing as mandatory, private personal worthiness interviews.
I actually question the reasons why you called this post, “This Must Stop: A Call
to End Sexually Invasive Interviews Between Priesthood Leaders and Minors in the LDS Church”.
No matter what I appreciated it!Many thanks,Julio
Let me just add some brief thoughts – as a recently released Bishop with around 20 active youth.
I made it a point to meet with the parents of each youth, before the annual birthday interview. I would discuss with them any concerns they may have, that I might be able to help with – and I would outline the basic content of the interview that I was planning to hold. Part of that would include an indication of the level of discussion around chastity – depending on the age of the youth. Regarding chastity, nothing of any note would be discussed before the age of 14, or maybe even 15 depending on the individual. Just a general encouragement to adhere to the standards in “For the Strength of Youth” – and to respect theirs and others’ bodies.
I tried to be sensitive to the situation at hand, but I certainly wouldn’t shy away from discussing sexual matters in an appropriate way. Often this was needed to make up for a lack of parental teaching. That was always only one part of many more things that we would talk about – and certainly not a focus.
Judging by many of the comments on here – some Bishops have gone WAY beyond what I would consider appropriate. Discussion of topics such as beastiality seems particularly unnecessary.
All that being said though – I do feel like our regular interviews were an integral part of my relationship with the youth, one I cherish even now. Only once we had relationship of trust were they ever able to discuss areas of their life where they may have made mistakes – or have things that needed to be repented of.
Ultimately, everyone has the freedom to choose how to live their live, and they should never be made to feel like that isn’t the case. We may be disappointed in the decisions of others, but that shouldn’t change our love, support and encouragement for them.
Hope that made sense, and helped someone.
Wouldn’t it have been just as beneficial to have a yearly check-in that’s really just a check-in, and not an interrogation? I hear what you’re saying about developing a relationship with the youth. So what if you had a birthday meeting (not interview, not confession) where you just said, how are you doing? What’s going on in your life? Is there anything you would like to talk to me about? And then have the door open to offer counsel and guidance if they need it and are comfortable. The Bishop is in a position of spiritual authority, so when they cross lines and ask something we aren’t comfortable sharing, there is significant pressure to answer honestly anyway. It takes the ownership and agency for confession away from the confessor. Because of the inquisitorial nature of the interview, it feels like it’s more about control than confession to me.
I’m sure you were a wonderful Bishop and made a positive impact in the lives of many people. Based on your comments, it seems like you recognize that not every Bishop has a sense of appropriate boundaries (they definitely did not in my experience…even those I really liked), and as such, some serious changes to this policy are warranted.
Bingo. Does the Bishop really have to interrogate the youth to develop a close relationship with them? Because I’ll go ahead and give this one away: no.
I appreciate your concern, Danny, and your efforts to connect with children/youth and their families in a responsible, thoughtful manner. But this: “I certainly wouldn’t shy away from discussing sexual matters in an appropriate way. Often this was needed to make up for a lack of parental teaching.” is a problem.
If the issue is truly “lack of parental teaching” then that is a matter for discussing with the parents. Point them to resources about development or appropriate expressions of sexuality, but tell the parents to teach the kids.
There are lots of ways to develop relationships with teenagers that don’t involve sitting down with them one-on-one in a private office, questioning them about their sex lives (or lack thereof).
As a trained therapist I find that I am extremely conflicted about this. Typically I take the stance that we (members of the LDS church, families, and people in general) need to talk more about sex and sexuality. Though this certainly can be done poorly–as you have experienced. But if I just let people come into my office and talk about what they are comfortable talking about few people would get what they need and what they pay me to do. While a bishop is not trained as a therapist much of what they provide is the same. I think there does need to be more training about interviewing people–especially youth–and there should be some sort of check and balance system.
I’m sorry that you felt so violated (and as far as I know from your article actually were), that should not happen.
While I think the “two-deep” idea is good in a quality assurance setting, I think it would likely prevent honesty comfort. People typically feel teamed up on when there are more than one persons interviewing them.
I agree that we should be teaching people to question authority, their beliefs, everything. Through asking questions you find answers.
My biggest fear is that the shame associated with sex and sexuality would increase by not talking about it. Shame is already so prevalent in the culture especially around topics of masturbation, sex, and sexual fantasy/arousal. No one should be shamed for experiencing what is part of being human; nor should anyone be violated/exploited by an authority figure getting his/her rocks off by asking inappropriate questions. There is an appropriate way to talk about sexuality and an inappropriate way. The most inappropriate way is not allowing the interviewee to feel like there is choice–that is abuse and manipulation. That needs to be avoided. (Sounds like there needs to be more training and more discussion of these topics).
I agree with Quentin that there could be better training regarding sexual topics. I disagree with the point about extra people present as a requirement – but if it’s requested by the individual or minor, sure.
I wasn’t raised in the Church, but I’ve had feelings of shame and guilt about my sexuality all my life.
I am honestly a full believer in the fact that commandments ARE ranked. Sin is sin, just as the bible says (James 2:10). ‘Small’ sins and ‘big’ sins are all sin and will bar you from heaven. That said, we live in a material world where repentance is quantifiable. If i brake a window playing baseball in the backyard, even if my parents told me not to, It may be a month’s allowance to pay it back. If I play with matches (a la Pres Monson) in the basement, even after my parents told me not to, and the entire house burns down and my brother dies – there is no retribution i can mete or deliver.
This is why we have the temple interview questions. I COMPLETELY disagree with the blog post’s sentiment that the ranking of sexual sins over certain others, and below others, should stop. As a victim of rape and sexual abuse, I disagree. Certain crimes bear more damage to the soul than others. Simple as that. Don’t forget that Christ himself ranked commandments (Matt 22:34-40). Sexual sins, withholding tithing, failure to recognize the living prophet, and failure to recognize the Book of Mormon, the Bible and Doctrine and Covenants as scripture represent EXPLICIT violation of these. More so, let’s say, than gossip, road rage, and casual swearing – which are also bad and warrant repenting of. However, in my own life, I find the prioritization of the temple covenants and temple worthiness questions an excellent heurestic for my daily life.
Don’t get me wrong – abuse is always wrong. And I’ve felt comfortable as an adult disclosing my personal issues with my bishop. It’s been some of my most important experience within the Church. However, there are limits to what Bishops can do, and LDS Family Services does not always have qualified people that Bishops can refer people to. I think THAT’s the best solution to the problem – not removing such discussion altogether. What the Church needs is not more qualified bishops per se, but a resource of trained LDS Psychologists, Psychiatrists, etc. However, in places where Church populations are small, this is more difficult. I”m lucky to have recently moved to a place where there are such resources, and my bishop is humble enough to say “You know what, I’d still like to meet with you each week, but I think you should also meet with Dr such and such about these problems”. That takes REALLY following the spirit.
Author of the blog post, I’m sorry about your trouble. But this warrants less a doctrinal change in the church, but more a change in church members, how they think, and how they approach life. I’m sorry if I got a little preachy – with my recent personal experiences, the topic of this article really hit home. Thanks for bringing it up Author, even though I don’t entirely agree with your view. Worthy topic of discussion, and I’m glad everyone on this blog is so civil and well spoken.
God Bless.
To me, there is a difference between ranking sin in terms of the potential consequences to your life, vs. the potential consequences to your soul. The consequences of playing with matches vs. intentional arson are the same, but the type of sin is VERY different. Sins stemming from hatred and pride are significantly more damaging to your soul than sins of passion. Rape and sexual assault do not belong in the same category with masturbation and pre-marital sex. Sexual assault is in the diabolical sin category. And honestly, I don’t know how you can even make the argument that something like drinking tea or coffee, or not paying 10% in tithing, is a “worse than average” sin from ANY perspective other than that it impacts your ability to participate in ordinances. And “failure” to have a testimony of any kind isn’t even a “sin” to begin with. Sorry, but this whole ranking discussion just seems to really betray priorities that are very, very different than the ones the Savior told us to have when He said that the most important commandment is love. I agree with the OP and C.S. Lewis on this one.
When I was a minor, I had a bishop who used dehumanizing analogies when talking about men women and sex. This experience fell far short of what most Mormon women would consider inappropriate i.e. sexist. My father did say that I had to see the bishop if I wanted to visit my boyfriend in LA during a MIA trip to Disneyland. I flatly refused because of previous comments. So knowing how unlikely it was that I was going to back down, he explained the problem to the Bishop’s first counselor and arranged me to see him weekly for 6 months. It was a good solution. My father knew I would not give in because he was physically and verbally abusive from the time I was 3 or 4 or so. He had PTSD from the war and had problems with any chaotic or unpredictable situations. Life with two or more children is always chaotic. I had bruises, plenty of them. I could have left home when I was 16 or so but I was the oldest and was too responsible. I was strongly bonded to the younger children. In those days there was really nowhere to go. You could get married or move out and live with older girls. I had a part time job. I could lie about my age. Many options but all involved abandoning the younger children. This was in the late sixties.
The inappropriate bishops interviews happened after 18. It was the dark ages in Mormonism and this is why we are more aware of what is happening in our children’s bishops’ interviews. Very few LDS will see this page but if we can form a nucleus that may bring change to the church for the children and adults who have no one to stand up for them.
Excellent article, very insightful and right on! I absolutely agree a change must be made. How do we as a group go about making a change? Commenting on the blog provides an avenue to vent, some need strokes (Glen, yes,,,you must have been wonderful -stroke stroke) others need to find comfort. How do we channel our voice? To the author, thank you for sharing personal information.
I have to say I couldn’t agree more with this letter. My husband and I were discussing this and I as a convert really didn’t get interviewed much until I was in college and then it was really really awkward.
I LOVE how our bishop handles youth interviews. For worthiness interviews for the temple and such he simply sets all the kids down together in the chapel and reads the interview questions aloud. He talks briefly about them each with limited detail, and then tell the kids that if any of them feel they are having problems with any of the questions, and feel like they need to talk to him before they could sign their recommend, that they should come speak with him. If not, he asks them if they feel worthy to go to the temple and has them sign their name. As I understand it when the kids go in for their bi annual interviews they simply talk about how life is going and how the feel about where they fit in to the ward. He lets them lead the discussion and is very much driven by what they feel the need to talk about. This to me is how it should be done.
As for my 5 boys, when the time comes, if my husband or I am not available for whatever reason to be with them, I plan to simply teach them that it is absolutely okay to say yes to the chastity question when its asked and if any, more pressing question are ask to either respond with, “Bishop, my parents have taught me what the standards of the church are for purity, and I have answered your question.” or “Bishop, my parents have always taught me that it is never okay to discuss questions of personal sexuality alone with anyone, unless I am the one to bring it up. I don’t feel I should be talking alone to another adult about this without someone else here.” And if the leader has a problem with that, tell them they need to come talk to us.
As a mother of boys in the church, I believe it is imperative that we arm them with as much of this information and education as we do our girls, because these boys will grow up to be the future Bishops and Stake Presidents of our church. If we don’t break the cycle in them, then it will never change.
This is an excellent article as are most of the comments. It IS sad that there are ecclesiastical leaders who ask for details that are not important. and I think your suggestions are valid. Pres. Tanner obviously knew what he was talking about…and would probably be very upset to think this type of interviews are still going on. My husband was a bishop and is a counselor in a stake presidency and he thinks this is a GREAT article and asked me to forward it to him. He NEVER asked for details- even in a disciplinary court. He said that the Lord would inspire them without them asking for the “dirty details”. He also never interviewed youth in the manner that so many of you describe. He did say- as we discussed this- that if he had heard that a bishop had inappropriately interviewed one of ours that he would have gone to talk to the bishop and if that didn’t resolve it go to the stake president. He did know a bishop that asked inappropriate questions to some of the married sisters and that bishop was released. These guys are human- and are subject to temptation to do wrong as well as any of us. I understand more why we should pray for our leaders as well as others. Satan is not leaving ANY church alone and his desire is to make people distrust and leave religion.
BTW- With regard to the “book 1” of the handbooks: When I wanted to see what was written in it about a certain subject I just asked. I have done this several times and only once did a bishop balk at showing me. When I asked if it was a “secret” he relented that it was not and allowed me to do so. I know that I have had mostly good experiences as opposed to others…but we can’t paint all bishops with the same ugly brush. We do have to protect our children though and it just may be through change and training re: interviews.
I think the lack of clear cut guidelines actually does a disservice to those Bishops and leaders who are genuinely good and trying the best they can … unfortunately, only a set of explicitly detailed instructions on the subject will solve the problem of a) Members (& children) knowing when a situation is inappropriate and b) Bishops/leaders knowing what lines they should not cross.
This post is absolutely ridiculous. It is a clarion call for attention. It isn’t that I don’t sympathize with the concerns raised, it is the manner in which they are presented here. If you have a problem with your teenager visiting with the Bishop alone, go talk to the Bishop and work it out with him. If you are not satisfied, go talk to the Stake Presidency. If you feel the Bishop is asking you questions outside of his role in determining worthiness, discontinue the interview, and meet with the Stake Presidency to discuss the extent to which you feel the Bishop is potentially going beyond his bounds.
You don’t air your dirty laundry in a forum open to the public to gain sympathy, and you don’t post something for shock value to engender unwarranted suspicion, or seek public support to change how the church operates. “I’ve heard of similar things happening to others. This makes me believe that it’s a relatively widespread problem…” – Really? an extrapolation based on a few instances of hearsay???
This post = shock value.
Tim Barker, seriously? That’s your “solution”–women need to go talk to the men in charge and everything’ll get worked out just fine?
Thank you for illustrating the problem for us.
Heather – your dismissal of my argument is an oversimplification of what I asserted. Please re-read what I wrote, and think through what I’m actually saying. Do you really think this is the proper forum for trying to change how the church operates?
Thanks,
Tim
Honestly, I have no idea what is the “proper forum for trying to change how the church operates.” It seems to be set up so that it is above reproach and largely impervious to change.
What are members to do? We’ve been told that if we write letters to express our concerns, they’ll just get routed right back to our local leaders–which is where many of these problems seem to stem (judging from the comments here). So it’s a circle that goes nowhere.
Speaking with individual bishops or stake presidents is a good thing. But at what point do we admit that the policy requiring multiple people to speak up to multiple bishops and stake presidents multiple times in their lives is bigger than just an individual (member, parent, bishop, branch president, stake president, mission president, Seventy, Apostle)?
Christ would have us leave the 99 and seek out the 1 lost in the wilderness. In the wilderness of confusion, betrayal, embarrassment, pain, suffering, and abuse, we have thousands “out there” wandering right now. We have the responsibility to share and lighten their burdens, being baptized members and all. And our leaders have the added responsibility of succoring and protecting the weakest among us as those leaders are shepherds.
Rather than turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to those who are in pain, writing them of as “exceptions” to the rule, we should be finding a way to prevent further harm. After all, “If anyone causes one of these little ones–those who believe in me–to stumble, it would be better for them to have a large millstone hung around their neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.”
Offenses are taking place, children are being harmed and men are earning some large millstones because we have a policy that is too easily misused, whether by accident or purpose. It needs to be changed.
@Tim Barker – you say Parents should just go and work things out with the Bishop … what you fail to mention is that for real True Believer members, the Bishop has been selected and God (through inspiration of higher leaders), and as such is utterly above any criticism. In fact, members are told it is evil to even question the actions of their leaders, since the Lord “will not allow them to lead the church astray”. Sure, there are a few members who don’t take this seriously … but they are not the real “True Believers” are they (even though they tend to be the more educated and realistic members). This leavers TBM parents and teens with the horrible choice, of feeling guilty for daring to question the church leadership, or feeling guilty for not following the leaders directives perfectly … and since this has already been drilled into them from earliest childhood, it doesn’t even matter what you or anyone else here says … unless the high level leaders actually came out with a clear policy that would remove all the speculation, looking beyond the mark, and fear.
John P – what you are doing here is called a caricature. You are misrepresenting things as they really are to bolster your argument based on false premises. I’m a “true believing member” and every other “true believing member” I have ever known would never view things from your posited paradigm. Try describing things accurately and then maybe we can have an intelligent discussion.
Thanks,
Tim
Tim, if you’re truly attempting to have an intelligent discussion, perhaps you could start by not beginning your engagement thus: “This post is absolutely ridiculous.”
Intelligent conversations begin when there is more listening, less snap judgment, less defensiveness, and more willingness to examine the issue at hand from multiple angles.
None of your comments demonstrate that you understand the nature of the problem; and moreso, they feel to me as though you’re unwilling to seek to understand the nature of the problem.
It saddens me that you are so fast to dismiss my experience, and the experience of those who have shared their pain, as “a clarion call for attention,” “shock value,” and the “airing of dirty laundry.” These kinds of sentiments feel like trolling and dismissal to me, and not the start of a thoughtfully engaged dialogue.
Kam,
Thanks for your comment. I understand the nature of the problem, please re-read what I wrote. My argument is the modus operandi in which you’ve engaged this problem, not the nature of the problem itself. Have you talked to your Bishop about this? Have you talked to your Stake President about this? If so, what did they say? If not, why not? Why are you seeking public support and attempting subversion? Is your goal to fix a problem, or is your goal to incite controversy? If you want to fix a problem, go directly to the root of the problem and address it with the Bishop and the Stake Presidency. If you are trying to imbibe an atmosphere of suspicion and generalizations against all Bishops with outrageous extrapolations, and encourage unwarranted criticism on a scale beyond the measure of the merits of the argument, then congratulations – your post has succeeded.
I’m not dismissing your experience. I’m sorry you felt that you were put in a position that was beyond the scope of what a Bishop should be asking. What I’m not sorry about, is dismissing your post with all of its broad-sweeping implications. Your post is shock value. That’s it. Had you written it in a more mature way, perhaps it would have appealed to a broader demographic then primarily to individuals seeking to ‘steady the ark.’
Tim
Tim, you get that you’re engaging in almost textbook gaslighting, right? Calling people’s sincere, genuine experiences “shock value,” “immature,” and “steadying the ark” is profoundly dismissive. And no, there’s not a distinction between dismissing “my experience” and dismissing my post with its “broad-sweeping implications.” I shared my story because this is a problem that others experience and that is far too pervasive. The two cannot be divorced. As the Doctrine and Covenants commands, we are to “waste and wear out our lives in bringing to light all hidden things of darkness.”
This isn’t a local problem, it’s a systemic problem. While I am in touch with my local leaders on these issues, thank you for asking, I seek public support as well because that’s how one affects change for systemic issues.
As a friend of mine says, “Sunlight is the best disinfectant.”
I won’t be engaging you further, but I do wish you well.
Kam,
You can dismiss my arguments by labeling it however you want, you call it gaslighting, I call your deferral ad hominem. I’m not arguing that you are crazy, or that your experiences are disingenuous. I’m arguing that your approach is problematic, and it is calling for problems, not solutions. You seem to be unable to differentiate your emotions tied up with this issue to the way in which you’ve attempted to vet this issue. There is a difference, and they can and should be divorced. Having troubling and problematic experiences doesn’t license somebody to extrapolate their experience in broad generalizations. I’m simply calling this post out for what it is – I’m not calling your experience shock value – I’m calling your approach to this issue in your post for shock value. Your post engenders suspicion and unwarranted criticism. It doesn’t resolve anything. It subtly introduces a false paradigm of “bad bishops” when that is a sweeping generalization. You assume that this issue is pervasive based on your own limited perception, nothing actually concrete that would support your presuppositions.
As far as the use of public support to change systemic issues – you are making two false assumptions here. First, the idea that this is a systemic issue – again this is your preconceived notion, not a fact that has been proven to be pervasive by any means at all. Second, you assume that popular opinion is the right way to approach problems with individuals in the church. This is my problem with your post. You seem to think that your experience justifies you in reaching out for public support in demanding the church address Bishopric behavior. It seems that you are oblivious to the training that Bishops actually receive, the guidance outlined in their leadership manuals, and to the fact, that MOST Bishops and Stake Presidencies are concerned about the Saints in their wards and stakes and would certainly be sympathetic and interested in resolving concerns like these. Instead, you’d rather initiate, if possible, a false paradigm of stereotyping Bishops in general – why? For shock value.
Show me one place where the OP stereotyped Bishops as people. She has only ever addressed the *policy* being fundamentally detrimental, regardless of individual Bishops’ behavior. She has given Bishops’ intentions the benefit of the doubt at every turn. You seem to believe that it’s wrong to have an open and honest discussion about church policies that are problematic, as if saving face in the church is more important than honesty and mourning with those who mourn. The idea that you should pretend problems in the church don’t exist unless you’re behind closed doors with a Bishop or Stake President isn’t really helping your point here.
Problems don’t get solved by sweeping them under the rug. This post should be public for reasons that have nothing to do with attention-seeking. It can’t be solved on an individual level, because it isn’t an individual problem. It’s calling for specific changes to policy that would be safer and less harmful. There are suggestions for parents, who may not have considered the potential harm of this practice, to protect their kids. I have shared this post and had many friends with kids comment to me personally that they will now make sure to be present for their kids’ interviews, where they wouldn’t have thought about it before.
You keep saying that we have no evidence that this is a widespread problem. Ok. Let’s just ignore everyone’s experience in this comment thread alone. The policy itself specifically tells Bishops to talk to youth about sex twice a year, one on one, behind closed doors. You still have a system where there are no checks to prevent sexual abuse, and where we know at least some people are being significantly hurt and traumatized. Are you ok with that? If so, fine. Say that. Say “I think Bishops should be able to ask youth explicit questions about sex in a private setting at required interviews, regardless of potential harm and abuse.” If you don’t think that’s ok, you shouldn’t have a problem with a forum where we openly discuss why it isn’t ok, and make suggestions to improve the policy and/or cope with it until it is improved.
As much as you try to act like you’re making a completely ration-based argument here, you haven’t actually engaged the argument at all. All you have done is attack the author’s intentions and essentially tell her to shut up. You’ve been nothing but dismissive. I understand the impulse to protect your religious paradigm at all costs, but I hope you can take a step back from your emotional response and approach the issue more thoughtfully (not to mention compassionately).
Jen,
Please re-read what I have written. You are misrepresenting key issues, as well as my position here. First, it is not church policy to engage in invasive sexual questions. It is policy, however, to determine worthiness. If SOME Bishops are out of line, you don’t call out to the public to reprimand Bishops at large or to change church policy, especially when the relevant guidance in church policy has apparently not even been read. The Church policy is posted by LRC below – please read it, and then re-read it – as your comments illustrate your own misconception as to what the policy actually says. (For instance, where does it ever say anything about closed doors? The fact is that it doesn’t.)
Kam is guilty of extrapolating her incidents as being a pervasive problem with Bishops at large, which is ludicrous. Arguing that this thread illustrates representation is hardly convincing. What this thread illustrates is the fact that SOME Bishops have exceeded their boundaries. Secondly, she is conflating the issue by extrapolating her incident as being systemic – again – read the policy posted below. She has created a straw man argument which you seem to have bought in to. The issue she is actually portraying doesn’t exist.
The real issue, the one she is trying to address, the one that I am not critiquing is that SOME Bishops exceed the boundaries of their calling. They should be dealt with through the Stake Presidency. This isn’t sweeping things under the rug, as you say, rather, this is actually dealing with the issues head on. Calling out for a support group and petitioning public sentiment for change against something clearly not understood is absolutely ridiculous – my initial comments on this post.
Thanks,
Tim
On another note: This idea that parents insist that they sit in with their teenagers in interviews is also in my opinion, not going to help the matter at all. There is absolutely zero chance that I would have ever confessed anything to the Bishop with my parents in the room when I was a teenager, unless my parents knew beforehand of my transgressions. The Bishopric interview is in part, to allow the individual their own privacy and confidentiality in expressing and confessing transgressions, and further to encourage their spiritual growth. Jen’s assertion that the “Bishops…talk to youth about sex twice a year,” is a gross misrepresentation. The interview is for talking about all things concerning spirituality, and if the law of chastity has been transgressed, then it is the Bishop’s responsibility to foster spiritual growth and repentance.
If you want to teach your children about what is allowable and what is not, you should first get to know your Bishop and gain trust in them, second, you should be more involved with your children and foster an enviroment where they can discuss anything at home with both parents, and third, they should be taught appropriate boundaries, so that if ‘invasive’ questions are an issue, it can be taken up to the Stake Presidency.
Tim, by definition, a systemic problem is one in which a problem is due to issues inherent in the overall system, rather than due to a specific, individual, or isolated factor. In this case, we’re not talking about a few rogue bishops. We’re talking about a system that allows this problem to replicate itself throughout the church, even though the vast majority of bishops are good men who do not seek to be abusers. I do not believe that my bishop was getting off on what he was asking me. I believe he was partially victimized himself due to a bad system.
Here is how the system allows for, and perpetuates, abuse:
1) Teachings that confession of sexual sin is necessary for forgiveness
2) Explicit policies that youth are to be interviewed 1-2x/year
3) No clear-cut guidelines about what sorts of questions are appropriate and which aren’t
4) Bishops called from the local congregations for a temporary period of time (this means that inexperienced people will be called frequently, sometimes without any inherent spiritual gifts of compassion or pastoral care)
5) No in-depth training on pastoral care and counseling to help bishops understand appropriate and healthy relational, emotional, and sexual boundaries (no, people aren’t born with this knowledge; it requires time and often specific training to learn this sort of stuff, and many people never develop these vital skills, which spells disaster in pastoral counseling situations)
6) No safeguards in place, such as 2-deep interviews, an anonymous feedback mechanism for youth or other members of the congregation to voice concerns about their interactions in the bishop’s office, windows on bishop’s office doors, whatever, to ensure propriety
7) Constant teachings that emphasize “following leaders,” so that youth and even parents feel shame or unease about raising concerns over inappropriate questions or experiences
8) Lack of teachings for youth and adults about healthy sexuality and the empowerment to say, “NO, this isn’t okay”
There are probably more systemic issues that I haven’t even listed here that combined make perpetuating this kind of harm shockingly easy. In fact, the system is so obviously flawed, it’s a testament to the goodness of our bishops and stake presidents that this sort of stuff doesn’t happen more often than it does.
Stop crying straw man and that we don’t understand your argument. We understand your argument: you don’t see a systemic issue and so you think this is better handled on a case-by-case, local basis.
I just happen to think think you’re absolutely, 100%, completely, totally wrong about that.
1) Teachings that confession of sexual sin is necessary for forgiveness
It is
2) Explicit policies that youth are to be interviewed 1-2x/year
Nothing wrong with that at all – they don’t have to come.
3) No clear-cut guidelines about what sorts of questions are appropriate and which aren’t
There are guidelines, as has already been posted from the handbook
4) Bishops called from the local congregations for a temporary period of time (this means that inexperienced people will be called frequently, sometimes without any inherent spiritual gifts of compassion or pastoral care)
The Lord qualifies those he calls, so to a degree I don’t agree with that – although the real art is knowing when something falls outside of your abilities, and referring it to someone else.
5) No in-depth training on pastoral care and counseling to help bishops understand appropriate and healthy relational, emotional, and sexual boundaries (no, people aren’t born with this knowledge; it requires time and often specific training to learn this sort of stuff, and many people never develop these vital skills, which spells disaster in pastoral counseling situations)
We had regular training from qualified professionals, who also made themselves available for guidance on specific issues. There is a load of accompanying reference material too, so I don’t agree with that one.
6) No safeguards in place, such as 2-deep interviews, an anonymous feedback mechanism for youth or other members of the congregation to voice concerns about their interactions in the bishop’s office, windows on bishop’s office doors, whatever, to ensure propriety.
I don’t agree with 2-deep, as I dont believe anyone would be truly honest in that sort of environment. Youth can always feedback through friends, youth leaders, parents etc. All Bishops office doors that I’ve seen have glass panels, specifically to address the issue of impropriety. We’re also counselled not to hug or touch inappropriately those we interview, even when someone is emotional, and a hug seems like a good idea.
7) Constant teachings that emphasize “following leaders,” so that youth and even parents feel shame or unease about raising concerns over inappropriate questions or experiences.
I don’t believe anyone who has ever served as a Bishop or Stake President etc thinks that much of themselves, to the point that they would be above criticism. If there’s a feeling in the church that a Bishop is on a similar level as the Prophet – then people are seriously deluded!
8) Lack of teachings for youth and adults about healthy sexuality and the empowerment to say, “NO, this isn’t okay”.
I do belive that more could be done from an educational point of view – many in the church are pretty afraid to talk about sex, or sexuality. I still think that Parents hold the key in this area though, and the chuch certainly shouldn’t have to make up for a lack or parental guidance on the subject.
There will always be those who abuse positions of power and authority (D&C 121) – but I do believe that the vast majority of leaders are honest, and striving to do the best they can to help others come unto Christ.
Says who?
Given (1) they are minors and don’t get to decide what they do or where they go and (2) explicit Church teachings about the consequences of rebelling against your priesthood leaders, that’s a pile of rubbish. There are plenty of things in the world that are coercive without putting a gun to your head.
Says who?! Seriously? Ask any primary child what the steps of repentance are.
“Given (1) they are minors and don’t get to decide what they do or where they go and (2) explicit Church teachings about the consequences of rebelling against your priesthood leaders, that’s a pile of rubbish. There are plenty of things in the world that are coercive without putting a gun to your head.”
If a minor didn’t want to meet with their Bishop, they would only have to speak with their parents who would take the appropriate action on their behalf.
(1) Yes, seriously. Where does it say that confession of to a Bishop is necessary for repentance for all sexual sin? “Ask a primary kid” is not a good response.
(2) What if the minor’s parents are faithful Mormons who believe that rebellion against your priesthood leaders is a serious sin? Or what if the minor’s parents just don’t take the minor seriously? Saying they don’t have to go because they can ask their parents not to make them is ridiculous. If their parents say they have to go, they have to go, and their parents are likely as not to merely defer to the Bishop’s authority.
That’s OK, we can perhaps simply focus on discussing how it is that parents and children should feel free to challenge/criticize their Bishops, in light of all the scriptural and prophetic teachings against criticizing them in any way?
Tim, if people see a systemic problem, addressing it individually won’t solve it. For example, it turns out that there has been a widespread amount of sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests. When it was being brought up on an individual basis, and priests were quietly taken out of the priesthood, or put into other roles, the problem did not stop. And it turns out the problem was more widespread than an individual basis, and only publicly bringing it to light has done any good (hopefully) and made the victims hopefully feel less shamed and alone.
Have you ever been the victim of sexual abuse of any kind? I have. It was before I joined the LDS church, so completely unrelated to the topic. But I was sexually exploited by a man who was dating my mother when I was 12 years old. Nobody believed me. I had to deal with that all alone, including living with this man as I was too young to leave. The amount of dirty you feel, even when you know you haven’t done anything wrong, is unbelievable. Showers can’t make you clean. Fun doesn’t seem fun anymore, because the innocence of youth has been tainted. I can only imagine how much this would multiply if it was perpretrated by an ecclesiastical leader.
The fact of the matter is, it is inappropriate for a grown man to take a preteen or teenage girl into an office and ask her questions about her morality. If I found out that one of my children’s teachers was asking them about sex, I would do my best to get an injunction against that person and put them behind bars.
The whole point of this blog post wasn’t to paint bishops in an unfavorable light, as far as I read it. It was to point out an incredibly abusive, systemic problem in the way that confession of sins in handled, specifically with the youth, but probably expanded to everyone. Aside from the potential for direct, intentional abuse, the situation itself is abusive on its face.
Do you want your 12 year old children to be asked by a grown man if they touch their vaginas and penises? Even in the most gentle of interviews, that line of questioning is inappropriate.
Yes, many parents fail to educate their children about sex. That is certainly one of my biggest pet peeves. That said, I don’t know where in the LDS scriptures it says that the bishop is also a sex educator.
Katyjane,
I am truly sorry for your traumatic experience, sincerely. I’m sure it has and continues to be a very difficult and sensitive topic for you. Please note that my criticism of this post is in no way intended to trivialize this issue, especially your experience. You have brought up something, however, that is much more serious then what I’m critiquing. If a Bishop were to ever physically sexually assault anybody, that should be taken straight to the police – not to a Stake President (although the Stake President should certainly know about it as well).
In regards to questioning youth, I was interviewed by my Bishop and was asked about morality when I was a teenager, and I did not personally feel violated, and I did not feel that my Bishop(s) inquired beyond what was merited.
I simply disagree with you regarding these interviews. It is entirely appropriate for a Bishop to interview church members regarding worthiness, but you seem to be implying that the purpose of these interviews is to discuss and educate individuals on sex. This is simply not true. This, again, is another misrepresentation (or a straw man argument). The purpose of these interviews is to foster spiritual growth, provide a confidential forum where individuals can confess sins (in accordance with scripture), and to encourage repentance.
I’m not sure why you think I’m ok with Bishops asking sexually-explicit questions. I never once indicated that I think it is justified. My argument is in how this issue is addressed. I advocate dealing with the issue directly (which Kam thinks I’m “100%” wrong about – a completely baffling position to take).
You seem to think that the Bishop asks explicit questions in every interview with the youth. You are simply wrong, and the handbook of instructions does not imply any such thing. Again, this isn’t a systemic problem – this is a case by case problem, as every Bishop is trained, every Bishop receives guidance, and every Bishop is to seek the inspiration of the Lord. Their own shortcomings can hardly be generalized to the church as a whole. Doing so is only compounding the use of logical fallacies already employed throughout the post, and the numerous comments on the post.
If the same bad thing keeps happening in independent instances but under the same circumstances, that’s pretty much the definition of a systemic problem.
It is entirely inappropriate for clergy to conduct regular, clergy-initiated, private inquisitions into congregants’ sins, especially when there’s not already some sort of notice that something’s amiss. The power dynamic is destructive and inherently abusive. The fact that you are used to it doesn’t mean it is okay.
Preach the reality of sin, the availability of repentance and the power of confession, and let people know your door is open. I strongly suspect you will get about the same number and quality of confessions without having to hold a standing inquisition.
Kullervo,
This post is making it sound like it is pervasive, but were it actually pervasive, since this is how the church has been conducting things for over a century, this wouldn’t have been the first public instance of broadcasting a complaint of this nature (human nature being what it is). Therefore, some Bishops being off the mark, and some individuals feeling inappropriately questioned, does not imply a pervasive issue. That is Kam’s extrapolation based on no substantial evidence (remember, she made this extrapolation in her initial post before there were even any comments in agreement). Further, Kam’s ignorance of the actual content in the handbook of instructions further demonstrates that she isn’t even aware of how the Church guides Bishops in these interviews. As I previously mentioned, the purpose of these interviews is to foster spiritual growth, provide a confidential forum where individuals can confess sins (in accordance with scripture), and to encourage repentance and faith in Christ.
It is entirely appropriate for clergy to conduct regular interviews, but first of all you should note that these interviews are completely voluntary. If I don’t want to interview with my Bishop, I certainly do not have to. Anything I do, or don’t do within the church, is entirely voluntary. For ecclestiacial leaders to initiate these interviews is to attempt to strengthen testimony in Christ and build faith in the atonement, not to extract sexual deviance in youth or adults. Discussion of immorality is only a portion of the interview, if it is warranted and is prolonged only if there is reason to do so. Again, a Bishop here may err, but Kam’s generalization that this is a widespread, is just that, her generalization. You seem to be buying into the idea that these interviews exist for the sole purpose of talking about sex, this simply isn’t true.
Oh please. When an authority figure tells you to do somethingwithin that figure’s authority is always to some extent coercive. And given that Mormonism teaches that when you defy your priesthood leaders, your salvation and exaltation are on the line, that’s incredibly coercive.
You can take the “entirely voluntary” argument to absurd ends. If I put a gun to your head and tell you to give me your wallet, isn’t it entirely voluntary if you do so? You are in control of your body and are entirely capable of refusing my demands, aren’t you?
What they’re attempting to accomplish by regular, clergy-initiated, private inquisitions into congregants’ sins is irrelevant. The intent is not at issue here; the means is. And don’t say “ecclesiastical leaders” here because you’re not talking about clergy in general. You are talking about Mormon clergy only. Other churches’ clergy don’t do that.
Have you read the rest of the comments? Seems like more than one or two bad apples to me.
Nonsense. I have barely mentioned sex. I’m talking about clergy-initiated, private inquisitions into congregants’ sins of any kind, absent a reason to suspect that there’s a specific widespread problem that needs to be addressed.
Let me put it this way: it’s the police’s job to protect people from crime and the police have a high interest in preventing criminal activity. What if they did so by conducting regular, general interrogations where everyone was required to come into the station twice a year plus any time they had a major life transition to be interrogated about possible general criminal behavior? Would that be okay? It would be entirely voluntary.
Kullervo,
You seem to have a basic misunderstanding of Mormon doctrines, principles, and policies based on your comments scattered among this thread. You don’t consider regular interviews necessary, and that is your Evangelical position. I’m not particularly concerned about whether you agree with our policies, because you don’t share our faith. If you want to discuss whether regular interviews is appropriate, you should blog about it elsewhere. This post, and its discussion is related to ‘sexually invasive’ questions. You can dismiss my comments as you please, but I don’t feel inclined to further respond to irrelevant issues.
Thanks,
Tim
In addition to raising concerns about gross sexual abuses in an interview setting, this post is also about the general problems with Bishops asking sexually invasive questions to youth. And I’m telling you that Bishops asking sexually invasive questions to youth is merely a subset of the larger problem, i.e., all clergy-driven interrogations about congregants’ sins. So nice try dismissing my comments by saying they are irrelevant, but they’re pretty much relevant by definition. Try again.
Kam: Teachings that confession of sexual sin is necessary for forgiveness
Danny: It is
Kullervo: Says who?
D&C 58:43 “By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins-behold, he will confess them and forsake them.”
D&C 64:7 “…verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, forgive sins unto those who confess their sins before me and ask forgiveness, who have not sinned unto death.”
D&C 59:12 “But remember that on this, the Lord’s day, thou shalt offer thine oblations and thy sacraments unto the Most High, confessing thy sins unto thy brethren, and before the Lord.”
1 John 1:9 “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.”
Says who? All of us who believe that the Doctrine & Covenants and the Bible are scripture.
Read 1 John 1:19 in context instead of cherry picking it.
You are avoiding the point here – the scriptures, to Latter-day Saints, are pretty clear.
I am definitely not avoiding the point.
(1) The Bible doesn’t say what you are trying to make it say.
(2) The D&C also doesn’t say what you are trying to make it say. The verses you cited do say that confession is a part of repentance, but they don’t say that you have to confess sexual sins to your Bishop to be forgiven of them, which is clearly what KAM meant when she outlined how the problem is systemic. The reqirement that you privately confess your sins to the Lord in prayer is sort of obviously not a part of a systemic anything.
Kullervo,
“The Bible doesn’t say what you are trying to make it say.”
-Yes it does. I’m saying the Bible tells us to confess our sins, and that is exactly what the Bible tells us to do.
“The D&C also doesn’t say what you are trying to make it say…”
-Yes it does. It requires that we confess our sins (in D&C 59:12 it even specifically indicates confession to “thy brethren”).
What it doesn’t say, however, is that you can pick and choose what you want to confess and what you’d rather not confess. You may not care for the church’s policy and how this is administered, but I’m guessing that is only one of many church policies you don’t care for. I know from personal experience the redeeming grace that comes from the atonement following a candid confession of all of my sins as part of the repentance process. You might disagree, but I don’t much care. You don’t believe in the restored gospel of Jesus Christ; I do.
“…all clergy-driven interrogations about congregants’ sins.”
– Interrogation? (Or, as stated elsewhere on this thread – inquisition) Really? Really??? Good grief. Way to transform what actually happens in the interview process to a caricature. I would never consider one of my Bishopric interviews as an interrogation. You probably disagree, and you are fully entitled to your opinions, be they hostile and misconstrued as they might be.
“When an authority figure tells you to do somethingwithin that figure’s authority is always to some extent coercive.”
– Coercive means to use force or threats. If you truly believe your description is accurate, your former LDS experiences are far, far different than my own. I’d go out on a limb and suggest that most members would side with me on this issue. I never felt coerced into anything. And even if a Bishop seems to impose authority (which I do not believe to be pervasive or representative), that doesn’t mean the system has problems. It means a Bishop on his own accord has gone beyond his bounds.
“And given that Mormonism teaches that when you defy your priesthood leaders, your salvation and exaltation are on the line, that’s incredibly coercive.”
– What do you mean by defy? Do you mean by not doing my home teaching? Do you mean by not confessing my sins? What exactly do you mean here? You are creating a straw man argument here. Your salvation and exaltation depends on the mercy of the atonement of Jesus Christ, there isn’t a Mormon alive who understands LDS doctrine that would disagree with this.
“You can take the “entirely voluntary” argument to absurd ends. If I put a gun to your head and tell you to give me your wallet, isn’t it entirely voluntary if you do so? You are in control of your body and are entirely capable of refusing my demands, aren’t you?”
– No offense, but this is a stupid argument. It is irrelevant. My point is that if I feel a Bishop has exceeded his bounds, I would go to the Stake President. I have little concern that a member of the Stake Presidency would be unsympathetic to my concerns.
“What they’re attempting to accomplish by regular, clergy-initiated, private inquisitions into congregants’ sins is irrelevant. The intent is not at issue here; the means is. And don’t say “ecclesiastical leaders” here because you’re not talking about clergy in general. You are talking about Mormon clergy only. Other churches’ clergy don’t do that.”
– First, again you have described a caricature of something completely misrepresenting how things actually happen, generally speaking. Second, since the LDS Church is Christ’s church, “ecclesiastical” fits better in this context than in any other context. You are welcome to disagree. Third, what the intent is, is entirely relevant, you are skirting the issue here. Fourth, as far as the Church’s method in applying scriptures being at odds with your personal interpretation of scriptures is irrelevant.
“Have you read the rest of the comments? Seems like more than one or two bad apples to me.”
-I never said it was one or two instances. I said it wasn’t representative. Do you really think a thread on one blog represents the millions of active church members? Give me a break.
“Let me put it this way: it’s the police’s job to protect people from crime and the police have a high interest in preventing criminal activity. What if they did so by conducting regular, general interrogations where everyone was required to come into the station twice a year plus any time they had a major life transition to be interrogated about possible general criminal behavior? Would that be okay? It would be entirely voluntary.”
-Let me put it this way. This is a church, not the rule of law, nor is it governed by a federal, state, or local judicial or executive system governed by state and federal law. If you want to use analogies, try to use something relevant and applicable. The role of the Bishop is to help his congregation draw closer to Christ. Interviews should be spiritual experiences and should serve this purpose. They are not inquisitions, or interrogations. You have bought into these straw man arguments and have not made the slightest attempt to understand these interviews as anything other than invasive – a caricature drawn by the original poster. For me, and for millions like me, your explanations of these meetings do not exist.
None of those scriptures mention sexual sin specifically, or suggest that there are some sins “bad enough” to require confession.
Well some sins (sexual or otherwise) may, others will require some form of formal church discipline. I fail to see how you conclude that confession to a Bishop isn’t required. He is a judge in israel, and as such, is uniquely placed to assist those seeking to repent.
Nobody HAS to confess anything to the Bishop, and nobody has to believe the church and it’s precepts – but if you do believe, then the Bishop can really help you to unlock the power of the atonement.
Being that I’m talking to (presumably) a large number of non, or ex members of the church – I’m struggling to see the point in continuing this debate. If anyone is genuinely interested in the role of a Bishop in the repentance process, let me know and we can communicate separately.
I don’t think you have to be a Mormon to be able to talk about the role of a Bishop in unlocking the Atonement.
Yes, I suppose what the scripture means is that you should confess sins, except for the ones you don’t want to, or the ones that you aren’t sure if they are sins or not. Good point.
Tim,
I appreciate your engagement, you seem like a knowledgeable guy. Let’s end this here, though. It’s going around and around in circles at this point, and I think both sides have shared their perspectives articulately. It will be up to those reading and following the discussion to decide which they prefer.
Even though we disagree profoundly, I do wish you well. May God be with you.
Fair enough. This has been a bit exhausting. Kam, I likewise wish you the best. I am genuinely sorry for your traumatic experience(s), and hope your local leaders will help bring some resolution to your concerns.
When people are called to a calling, they are placed in that position by way of the Lord. The congregation sustains the call and in doing so, they come forth to support the call, whether a nursery leader is sustained, or a bishop is sustained. Please allow me to make a point here: people are people. The Lord is perfect, we are not. Bishops, even Stake Presidents will make mistakes. I have seen such leaders “worshiped” by members in my ward and stake, because they fail to see that our leaders are NOT perfect and they are NOT in a divine position. People are called to positions because the Lord sees it fit. They may have been placed in that position in order to help someone learn a lesson, whether it be someone else, or the leader him/herself. I recently experienced a very traumatic experience. It isn’t an easy one to explain, but my Young Women leaders all caused me a great deal of pain every week, and to make matters worse, my bishopbrick got involved. It was THEIR choice to cause pain. They are humans, they have agency just as everyone else does. I can blame the system, or I can look to the real issue: People will make mistakes, some very horrible, but mistakes will be made. This life is a big, huge lesson. Not just a lesson, but a test as well. Through deepening trials the Lord will always be with us, and we must remember that “Charity never faileth.” I’m sorry about what happened to you, there is no way to get around it, it was horrible. I would just like to share my opinion.
Yes, we are all humans and we all make mistakes. Which makes it that much more important to set up a system that at least shields and at most prevents the possibility of mistakes which can cause lifelong pain, confusion and frustration.
The Church Handbook of Instructions already tells bishops, “When discussing moral cleanliness, the bishop adapts the discussion to the understanding of the youth. He also ensures that the discussion does not encourage curiosity or experimentation.” (Section 7.1.7, p. 78) And yet, this continues to be a stumbling block with bishops asking inappropriate, specific questions.
So, even better training and oversight on current practice and policy is needed. The instructions are right there for local leaders to read, and yet they still mess up. Because they’re human.
So, let’s make it easier to skip the mistakes.
But please understand, I am not making excuses for the wrongdoing of anyone. Wrong is wrong.
The problem is that the wrong may not know they are in the wrong unless someone points it out. If we attempt to silence whistle blowers, like many are doing here, then what? The problem just continues.
The problem Amy, is that this isn’t whistleblowing. This is griping to like-minded individuals so that a forum can facilitate negativity and criticism.
Kam,
Thank you for this important post. I’m a psychotherapist so have a bit of a different lens on this topic. I agree with you that having one male leader interview a potentially vulnerable church member (youth or adult) isn’t the best policy for the many reasons that you and others mention.
I’d like a little more information on your two-deep solution suggestion (i.e. having a witness in the room to protect both the person being interviewed and the interviewer – similar to having a nurse or med. asst. in the room during a physical exam by a physician). If the two-deep solution ended up with a bishop’s counselor as a witness in a bishop interview, for example, the power dynamic might be unbearable for the interviewee even though it would provide protection from any type of potential sexual abuse occurring. Note, the use of a witness protects both the interviewee and the interviewer on multiple levels.
I’m not sure what solution would be best for this potential power dynamic issue since having a parent present would be helpful for some youth and not for others, and having a friend present might be too embarrassing for many interviewees. There are boundary issues all around. Any thoughts on this part? I don’t mean to sidetrack the thread but thought this might be an important issue to cover as well. Thank you again for bringing these bishop’s interview concerns to light.
How about the youth involved pick the third person in the room – then the kid can feel like s/he is there, not with two authority figures breathing down her/his neck, but instead with a friend/ally.
How about the youth involved have an opportunity to speak with a woman (YW president, RS president, Primary President) rather than a man to begin with?
Here is the policy in question:
7.1.7 Guidelines for Youth Interviews
The bishop interviews each young man and young woman at least annually. If possible, he interviews each 16- and 17-year-old twice annually.
If this is not possible, he assigns a counselor to conduct some of these interviews.
Six months after the annual interview with the bishop, each young man and young woman ages 12 through 15 has an interview with the
counselor in the bishopric who oversees the Aaronic Priesthood quorum or Young Women class.
In large wards, bishops, acting with inspiration and wisdom, may adjust the frequency of interviews. Some youth may need added attention,
while others may need less frequent interviews than are suggested, though all should be interviewed at least annually.
Leaders encourage parents to stay close to their children and to counsel them, allowing the leaders to act in a supporting role.
Interviews are excellent teaching opportunities and can be spiritual experiences for youth. Members of the bishopric should express love
and listen carefully. They encourage youth to talk rather than doing most of the talking themselves.
Matters for discussion include the growth of the young person’s testimony of Heavenly Father, the mission and Atonement of Jesus Christ,
and the restored gospel. The importance of sustaining the President of the Church and other general and local Church leaders should also be
discussed.
Another matter for discussion is the importance of obeying the commandments, particularly:
1. Praying regularly in private and with the family, studying the scriptures, honoring parents, and paying a full tithing.
2. Being modest in dress and action, refraining from any kind of sexual activity, and refraining from viewing, reading, or listening to
pornographic material.
3. Obeying the Word of Wisdom and refraining from using illegal drugs and misusing other substances.
4. Refraining from using the name of the Lord in vain and from using vulgar expressions and other degrading language.
5. Attending priesthood and sacrament meetings, participating in other Church meetings and activities, and fulfilling assignments
given by quorum leaders or Young Women class presidency members.
Members of the bishopric may want to refer to the scriptures, For the Strength of Youth, and True to the Faith during discussions about gospel
principles and obeying the commandments.
While interviewing young men, the bishopric member gives special attention to their preparation for a full-time mission (see 4.2). He discusses
preparing spiritually by being worthy, studying the gospel, and building a testimony. He also discusses preparing physically, mentally, emotionally, and financially. Members of the bishopric should be sensitive to the circumstances under which young men are honorably excused from full-time missionary service (see 4.5.3).
The bishop and his counselors encourage young women to support young men in accepting mission calls. Young women of eligible age
who desire to serve a mission may do so, but they should not be pressured to serve (see 4.3.2).
Members of the bishopric ensure that youth understand the blessings of temple covenants and temple marriage and the requirements for
receiving these blessings.
When interviewing a young man for priesthood ordination, the bishop or his assigned counselor discusses the blessings of holding the
Aaronic Priesthood and the duties of the office to which the young man will be ordained, as revealed in Doctrine and Covenants 20:46-60 (see
also Handbook 2, 8.1.1).
In interviews with young men, the bishopric member emphasizes the importance of living the standards in For the Strength of Youth and accomplishing the purposes of the Aaronic Priesthood (see Handbook 2, 8.1.3). He evaluates the young man’s progress and encourages him.
When interviewing a young woman, the bishopric member emphasizes the importance of incorporating the Young Women values and
the standards in For the Strength of Youth in her daily living (see Handbook 2, 10.1.4 and 10.5). He also emphasizes the importance of completing the Personal Progress program. He evaluates the young woman’s progress and encourages her.
When interviewing youth of seminary age, the bishopric member emphasizes the importance of regular attendance at seminary and the
blessings that come from active participation.
When discussing moral cleanliness, the bishop adapts the discussion to the understanding of the youth. He also ensures that the discussion does not encourage curiosity or experimentation.
7.1.8 Interviews of Young Single Adults
The bishop or an assigned counselor interviews each young single adult. These interviews are usually held annually. However, acting with
inspiration and wisdom, the bishopric may adjust the frequency of these interviews.
7.4 Protecting against Misunderstandings
When a member of a bishopric or stake presidency meets with a child, youth, or woman, he asks a parent or another adult to be in an adjoining room, foyer, or hall. A parent would usually be available for a child. The leader should avoid all circumstances that could be misunderstood.
I have been a bishop and a counselor outside of the Church. I feel there is a much greater problem in the therapeutic community than in the Church, but that is another issue.
I have read through many of the comments, not all. I sustain the bishop’s interview process. However, I think each bishop and the members of his ward should consider the following:
1. Have a pre-bishop’s interview with daughters and sons using the questions the bishop will ask. They are easily accessible. Parents should tell children if they are uncomfortable with the interview process that they may ask for the parent to come into the interview.
2. If the parents have any worries at all about the sensitivities of their children, they should be invited into the interview, fathers with sons, mothers with daughters would be most desirable.
3.Bishops should only ask, “Do you live the law of chastity?” Bishops should refer questions about the details of that question back to parents. When I had a young person ask me a specific detail about chastity or morality I told them to discuss it with their parents. I was not there to be a sex educator (to put it bluntly).
4. If a member of the ward, adult or child is uncomfortable with the interview process, the bishop should tell them to think and pray and return later. My door would always be open and no force (physical, emotional, spiritual) should ever come from the bishop. The member also should not put the bishop in a bind such as making a significant confession and expecting to go to a temple wedding in two days.
When I served, there were a number of confessions over the years. Most were small and insignificant. When serious ones did happen, they always came to me voluntarily from the member. It was not my job to interrogate. That is made VERY clear in the bishop’s handbook. I always made certain that even in a serious confession, details were not discussed unless the member brought them up. When they did, I would tell the member that details were not necessary. I also knew in rare cases when people were lying to me. I figured that was their problem. The purpose of an interview is not to dig to get information, but to examine oneself before the Lord. The bishop is only the vehicle. Each time I gave an interview, I was also interviewing myself. Like most bishops, I was not a great bishop, but just trying to do the work. It was important to be open and friendly.
Lastly, there were a number of experiences where members made confessions that cleared up old guilt and cleansed their lives. They became better people for the process and led happier lives. A bishop’s interview can be a healing, therapeutic process. I wanted ward members to know that they had an individual on their side and never tried to make the process adversarial. My attitude was that we were friends, we’re dealing with a problem together and we’ll get through it together. I hurt inside as I read these example of instances where interviews did not go well and damage was done. Sometimes we need to share these feeling with the bishop, Relief Society president or stake president. When we look at our leaders as domineering icons who cannot be approached (and some leaders project that, unfortunately), we miss out on opportunities to grow and connect. Probably doing it in the comments section of a blog is not the most productive, although it may vent feelings. I’m not suggesting we can’t, but that our grief might be better sent in another direction (I maintain two blogs.). I suggest if these are burning issues that we go to our bishop, Relief Society President or stake president and vent them there too. Each of these individuals have interviews with their leaders and that’s how changes most often are instigated.
Lewis Craig writes: “1. Have a pre-bishop’s interview with daughters and sons using the questions the bishop will ask. They are easily accessible.”
Where would I find those questions? I don’t think I’ve ever seen any listing of them. Are they the same thing as temple recommend questions? Those aren’t “easily accessible” to the general membership. Would I have to ask the bishop for them, or does a clerk or the YW president have them somewhere?
Oh please, seriously? Unless they were getting off on it, or asking for graphic details, you really should have gotten past this. One of the reasons we feel guilty telling others about our sins is because it reminds us that we committed them. Sure, nobody likes to admit they have made mistakes (to anyone, not just the bishop), but life is about moving forward, not dwelling on the past. If your Bishop didn’t help you move forward then that IS a problem.
It seems like maybe you were very sexually active at a young age, and therefore DID have something to say and something to feel guilty about. It’s not your Bishop’s fault, and especially not the fault of the LDS church if you are screwing around at a young age. They attempt to keep people on the straight and narrow, and yes part of this is handled through fear of talking to your Bishop. But most of the experiences I’ve had with my Bishop when admitting sins have been pleasant. They have told me that they want me to do better, and are there for me if I need them. I KNOW that no matter what my Bishop says, my relationship between God is monumentally more critical than my relationship with my Bishop. But confessing to my Bishop is in a way confessing to God. Because we need a physical being to represent him. Confessing through prayer is WAY too simple. Confessing to a Bishop gives us a chance to understand that our guilt should only be felt long enough to help us realize we need to make a change. And if your Bishop isn’t doing that, then he is not the best Bishop.
This whole article reminds me of someone suing someone else for emotional hardship. Life is hard, stop blaming your problems on other people or organizations.
@Jose –
Sorry, I’m a little more skeptical of Church leadership, ever since I was traumatized (through fear for my eternal soul, and thinking that Bishops really receive inspiration from God to judge us, etc.) into “confessing” the fact that I was abused as a boy, and when I “confessed”, the only productive input my Bishop had was to ask “Was it fun?” (rather than encouraging me to seek REAL counseling, or to report the abuse, etc.). This man who I was taught was Holy and who had the authority and ability to completely ruin my life at that point, was suddenly responding in this confusing (I thought at the time, because I didn’t know any better) and (hateful? spiteful? belittling? scornful?) way … I was dumbstruck and had no idea how to respond. And indeed, what appropriate response could there be? The Church (especially the Church leaders) should have been there to help, but instead it just hurt worse. It still haunts me to this day.
I don’t tell this story to get attention, or create a lawsuit, etc. …. I tell the story, to show that it’s necessary for members to feel they should actually be free to think critically of their leaders and try to improve things, rather than simply blindly following in fear. I hope that other young people won’t have to go through the experiences I went through. There must be a better way.
This idea you spelled out, that “fear of talking to your Bishop” is a way of keeping people on the straight and narrow; etc., is a hurtful and damaging idea, shared by far too many members and leaders, and is how the cycle of abuse is perpetuated.
Whoa, Jose. Classic victim-blaming. Your comment is totally out of line.
Good grief, Jose. No, I wasn’t sexually active nor had I committed any type of sexual sin whatsoever.
But even if someone IS acting out at age 13, that has almost nothing to do with “sin” and more to do with the fact that there are probably some SERIOUS problem’s in the child’s life–abuse, neglect, etc. If there’s a sexually active 13-year-old, they need loving care, guidance, and advocacy, NOT shame and fear (your word).
Reading some of these comments, I realize that sometimes our culture is so freaking messed up I seriously want to cry. And then hit things.
And then work for change.
Perhaps confessing through prayer is way too simple for you, Jose. But there are other people for whom that is not the case.
And to assume that if someone has an abusive experience and tells about it means that they are actually guilty of much more is ridiculous.
It reminds me of when I have seen men leave the church, and was told they must have left because they were either cheating on their wife or addicted to pornography. That’s the only reason grown men leave the church. It’s absolutely ridiculous.
CHRISTIANITY FAIL.
I want to make a clarification. I actually don’t believe that having parents in the room is always the best solution. I recognize that there are many situations where parents are controlling, ineffective, or abusive themselves. As a parent, I will choose to be present in the room because I do not believe there are enough institutional checks and training materials in place to help bishops be appropriate. The anecdotes are too plentiful and the risk is simply too high.
It would be much better if a) it was simply understood as a matter of policy that bishops asking explicit sexual questions about masturbation, where hands were, if it was over or under clothing, whether or not people experienced sexual climax, etc., was extremely inappropriate; and b) there were institutional checks in place to ensure these sorts of problems never arose. But judging from more than a few comments here, where people are actually defending this harmful practice, we’ve got a looooooong way to go before I’d feel safe allowing my child to be put in such a situation.
Kam,
Do you recommend giving the son or daughter the choice of whether or not the parent be invited to attend?
That may be one solution.
At this point, I don’t think I’d let my two daughters be in the room alone, but I would be okay with them choosing another advocate–say a YW leader–to go in there with them. I would speak to the advocate about what our family’s boundaries are and ask her to ensure they were followed.
Ultimately, the church should create policies that protect children, though, because of the fact that some parents don’t care/aren’t conscientious enough to set appropriate boundaries.
Or, you mean they trust Church Leaders and listen to what they say, and therefore, don’t set any boundaries (since they are taught that God and his anointed Church Leaders come first and should be obeyed always, before considering Family, self, or anyone else). When Bishops tell people to get divorced, they get divorced. When Bishops tell battered women to stay with their Temple Married abusive husbands, they tend to stay. When Bishops tell the youth they must attend and pass interviews in order to participate with the group and be considered “worthy”, they do so, without question.
The doublespeak I’m hearing here is just a way for the Church and leader to try to dodge responsibility … i.e.-“Obey Church Leaders at all costs, at risk of eternal damnation” vs. “Oh, you weren’t supposed to actually think Church leaders know what they’re doing, it’s up to the Parents to make sure we don’t traumatize their children, and question everything Bishops say”.
You can’t have it both ways … so which is it gonna be?
This issue has all sorts of potential gender related problems, BUT, at the very least, I don’t think it’s okay for any man to question my daughter about her sexuality no matter who else is in the room.
One of the benefits of quickly throwing out the “abuse” claim is that you instantly create a scenario where you have a victim and a perpetrator. Then you can use the “don’t blame the victim” defense and all sorts of other convenient arguments.
The fact of the matter is that this is not a clear cut case of “abuse”. Have there been bishop/youth relationships that are abusive? Sure. That doesn’t make the 1 on 1 interview inherently abusive. I really benefitted from some matter-of-fact questioning from my bishop. It was embarrassing, but embarrassment does not equal abusive. Again, I recognize that some bishops may have crossed the line, but a much smaller percentage than represented here.
Isn’t the real question whether or not confession to the bishop is really a necessary part of repentance? If you believe it is not, then you don’t really believe that the bishop holds the Aaronic Priesthood keys to the gospel of repentance and therefore you don’t believe in the restoration of the gospel of Christ, and therefore you shouldn’t really care what the bishop does, because he’s just a guy in a suit and tie to you.
However, if you do believe, then help him exercise those keys in the life of your child. That means talk to your child. Then talk to the bishop and explain your child’s level of understanding instead of making him guess. A “how can I help” attitude will go a lot further than an “I’m the protective and defensive parent who will lay down the rules here” attitude. What good does the latter actually do? If the interview is completely run and defined by the one without the priesthood keys, then what is the value of the interview. Again, that’s only if you believe there are actual, useful keys in play. If not, then don’t bother with the interview.
By the way, there are very clear cut guidelines for reporting abuse. Maybe a local authority hasn’t followed it clearly, but if you’re calling for direction from the top down, it’s there.
You are correct; the fact that there have been instances of gross abuse is not what makes the one on one interview inherently abusive. Even if nobody goes off-script and everyone only thinks the purest thoughts, it is completely inappropriate for clergy to conduct regular, clergy-initiated, private inquisitions into congregants’ sins, especially when there’s not already some sort of notice that something’s amiss. The power dynamic is destructive and inherently abusive. It is an inappropriate and coercive violation of the congregant’s personal boundaries. The fact that you are used to it doesn’t mean it is okay.
No. Whether or not confession to the bishop is really a necessary part of repentance is not the real question. Even granting to you that confession to the bishop is really a necessary part of repentance (which I don’t believe), the issue is whether a policy of regular, clergy-initiated, private inquisitions into congregants’ sins is is an appropriate way to elicit confession.
I will also let you know the answer, because it’s easy: No. And the fact that it is rhetorically possible to reframe any bug as a feature doesn’t change it.
Logic fail. So, if I believe that between God and me, we can work out whether or not washing myself in the shower constitutes masturbation, or if I’ve kissed a boy to the extent that it crossed a Mormon line of propriety, then I therefore do not believe in the Aaronic Priesthood keys? And if I disagree with a church policy of eliciting that confession, then I therefore don’t believe in the restoration of the gospel of Christ? Really? You can jump from, ‘I don’t agree about a policy’ to ‘I don’t believe the church is true’ that easily?
And, let’s say I don’t believe in the gospel of Christ. Therefore I shouldn’t really care what the bishop does? Do you care about what the Catholic priests did to children? Do you care about your loved ones in the church who may be dealing with serious, long standing issues as a result of a practice that could be totally redone to be in alignment with the gospel of Christ without overstepping boundaries?
Nobody is saying a person shouldn’t confess their sins to receive repentance. I’ll repeat nobody is saying that people do not need to confess their sins to receive repentance. The issue is how those confessions are elicited, and if those methods are appropriate. And if they are not appropriate, or could be reworked to still be in alignment with the gospel but reduce the likelihood of people overstepping boundaries, shouldn’t that happen?
If there are two ways to walk my child to school every day, and one of them crosses a six lane highway without a pedestrian crossing, and one takes the same amount of time but avoids that six lane highway, shouldn’t I choose the safer option, even if it is unlikely that crossing the six lane highway would result in injury?
All this blog post is doing is calling into question a practice that could be changed while staying in alignment with the gospel and avoiding danger to others.
WHY ARE PEOPLE OPPOSED TO THAT?
All I can assume is that Mormons are so ingrained to defend the church at all costs, right or wrong, without even considering if there is merit to the argument. Mormons talk about ‘questioning authority’, but clearly from the comments posted here, many people aren’t willing to question whether the authority is appropriate. How many people who have commented here blaming KAM for her experiences, claiming that this is the only true way and anyone who doesn’t like it should leave the one true church that supposedly welcomes all, how many of you got down and prayed and asked your Heavenly Father if these practices are appropriate, or if there are better ways that this could be done while still being in alignment with church doctrines and principles? And how many of you who did got a clear and distinct answer that “THIS IS THE ONLY TRUE WAY THAT THESE INTERVIEWS SHOULD BE CONDUCTED”?
The people who write these policies are people. People. And we all have been taught that people are fallible. So, even if these people are divinely inspired, doesn’t it stand to reason that the practices are perhaps fallible, and could be changed and Heavenly Father would be cool with it?
I do not think the demand, “This must stop,” will solicit a change from Church headquarters in how bishop’s interviews are conducted, but if mothers and fathers do not allow their minor children to participate in the interviews and/or the children refuse to submit to them, then, in effect, this practice will stop.
Some additional observations relative to the topic. Adolescent girls have additional negative impact from this policy. They must submit to questioning from a male priesthood leader. This results in an extra measure of shame and potential trauma. Moreover, the difficulties of this practice extend beyond the potentially negative impact it has on minors. I, as an adult woman, do not want to submit to questioning about my sexuality, especially alone in an office with a man.
Excellent point. One of the reasons we stopped going to church was because of these types of interviews. Being a convert to the church at the age on 19, I wasn’t aware of the types of questions that were to be posed to adolescent/teenagers. It is to be expected of adults and this didn’t bother me. Of course it still was uncomfortable for me but I was an adult.
When my boys went to their first interview with the bishop when they were 12, I thought it was more of a “chat” with the boys than a worthiness interview. I mean really, what do they think a 12 year old is doing? I lied to my parents, I stole a cookie from the cookie jar. Then I found out that they were going to meet with the bishop twice a year for worthiness interviews and that one of the questions would be “Do you masturbate?” Whoa. While some bishops may not be so direct, I talked to enough people that knew first hand that this was a common question. The thought of a middle-aged man asking my 12 year old boys if they masturbate (behind closed doors) is NOT alright by me. It is completely inappropriate. But when I thought about it, why wouldn’t they be meeting with teens to see if they masturbate? That’s when they become more “familiar” with the practice. Considering that I believe it’s normal, even healthy, I wasn’t going to let someone lay a guilt trip on my young boys for that behavior. We insisted that we be present during the interviews, which was denied. We never went back to church again. My boys will never experience that guilt and shame that those other poor boys in our ward will experience. So unnecessary.
I agree with others here that think it shouldn’t be compulsory. Confession should be done when someone feels the need to do so. You know, free will and all.
However, this reason for leaving will never reach the ears of the Brethren, because who exactly will report it to them? I don’t even think our bishop actually knows that this was one of the reasons we stopped going to church. So, I don’t have any confidence that this practice will change any time soon.
“Considering that I believe it’s normal, even healthy, I wasn’t going to let someone lay a guilt trip on my young boys for that behavior.”
You were obviously truly converted then?!
Ahhh, the good old, ‘if you were truly converted, you would let your children be potentially abused when you were uncomfortable with an unnecessary church policy.’
It’s the shield of ‘they must have never really had a testimony’ that lets people ignore problems within the church, because if only you truly believed, you wouldn’t think they were a problem.
Yes I was. This argument had nothing to do with my conversion or my belief level in the church. I went on a mission because I believed so strongly in the veracity of the church. Whether or not someone believes they have no shelf, there is always something on their shelf or they’re in denial. Masturbation was, and continues to be, one of those things that was on my shelf. Again, trying to ignore the scientific community that says the practice is actually healthy. And so it became an issue I could no longer ignore, as it would affect the emotion well-being of my children. It is my opinion that the church has gotten this concept wrong, just like they have gotten many other concepts wrong and have eventually changed their stance on them. I feel I’m just ahead of the ballgame. They often seem to lag behind on various issues. Take the priesthood ban. Behind. Many of the members were thrilled when this policy was changed. But that’s another issue.
It’s time to change this one as well.
You are welcome to believe what you want, but as you can see, it is a huge issue to many members.
I think it is time for men to come out of the shadows on this one. Nevertheless, so much shaming has happened, it may not be reasonable to expect many male responses It isn:t just the girls/women who have experienced this kind of problem.
I have memories of a very creepy interview with a bishop who asked in detail what times, where and what I was looking at while, and how I masturbated. He had proposed weekly interviews to update him on my ‘progress’. It was two weeks before graduation, and I was so glad to shake the dust off my feet and be out of that ward.
I was a happy kid, but the mormon war on masturbation took away all the joy of my youth. I feel like I spent all of my youth miserable… focusing on trying to eliminate it from my life. Gaunt from fasting… I finally had the shred of confidence needed… that I might be able to submit my papers to go on a mission… a year late.
As an adult, I finally came to the conclusion that it was none of their business. I would rather suffer whatever consequences before God for not speaking, than submit myself again to such unproductive scrutiny.
I also believe it is one of those things that can sear into our souls and our psyches the fragile position in which we stand… as if naked and alone… before the brutality of absolute authority.
Probably I will be slammed down but this forum (yes I read the whole gosh durn thing!!) has some interesting things to say so why not? Can I submit, along with Bonita, that the Church’s stance on masturbation is one of a couple justified reasons that I haven’t been active in a year.? I know women who returned from their honeymoons feeling like they had been raped because they were so uninitiated into the ideas of sexuality. They had to go from never “kissing passionately” all the way to penetration in one night. That’s a transition that is way too fast for all but the most innately sexually knowledgeable to handle.
One girl on this forum referred to a comment made by her mission president who said that her exploration of her body was normal and healthy and, out of all the traumatizing, scary things that people have said here, that truly made me happy. I, personally, don’t see a problem with people exploring their bodies and their budding sexual selves via masturbation. If people wait till they are 22 to get married that’s a good decade of their lives that they are sexual beings without expression. I don’t think you could possibly go that long without damaging yourself. Deny yourself as a sexual being for a decade and that’s when you damage your ability to be a sexual being or begin to associate sexuality and shame.
All this being said masturbation, like everything else, can be done in excess. Eating is necessary for the body but obesity is an unhealthy practice. And I thoroughly frown on porn for reasons that go from A to Z.
During sex we expect two people to unite under the banner of fulfilling one another’s sexual desires. Sometimes people don’t know what those desires are when they haven’t had the freedom to explore themselves! Sexual partners ought to be sharing their bodies and desires with one another, but what good is handing someone your body like a slab of meat and hoping that they know what they’re doing cause you certainly can’t help them?
Forbidding masturbation means that the 70% of women who can’t orgasm via penetration are doomed to either shame or unfulfilling sex for the rest of their lives.
I know so, so, SO many people who have shamed themselves into Satan’s hands by feeling ashamed about their habits of masturbation. I would love to see it stop. This thread has caused people to question whether it is appropriate to let bishops interrogate/ educate youth on this topic. I don’t see why we are interrogating anyone about it at all. I would love for my daughter to be wise about her own body, and when the day comes to share it, to know the sensations she is going to feel and not feel that her sexual identity is an alter-ego about which she should feel ashamed. In that way I think she can honor sex in the purest of ways, by experiencing joint sexuality with an eye single to its uniqueness, what it brings her that doing so solo never could.
Well said. Much better than I did. I agree 100% on every point you made. I know a woman who has never experienced an orgasm. What a little masturbation couldn’t help there. I feel so bad for her. This is probably a little sensitive and may be out of place, but the only reason I’m mentioning it is because it demonstrates why bishops should stop telling people what is appropriate in the privacy of their own bedrooms. We had the 5th Sunday “Sunday school” meeting with all of the adults. Our bishop thought it was necessary to tell us that it was a sin to have oral sex, even if we were married. I never heard that the church considered it a sin within the boundaries of marriage. I was dumbfounded. He actually quoted from the Ensign. I couldn’t believe he just walked into my bedroom. I felt so sorry for his wife! Can you imagine having to confess this to the bishop? What?!!! Not in a million years.
Max, I really loved everything you said – the fact that non-passionate kissing all the way to intercourse in one night is too fast (so true!), and your analogy in comparing masturbation to eating – that eating is good for the body but obesity is an unhealthy practice. It makes a lot of sense to me and I am thinking that is the way I will teach my children.
Glen-
“Children should learn to educate themselves” seriously?? How? By praying? That is a definite way to know the truth hahaha.
When I was a teenager being interviewed, my bishop asked me if I was obeying the law of chastity. I told him the truth that I wasn’t and he asked me to give him details of the incident. He wanted to know the who, what, where, when and how! Yes, describing the sexy, juicy details! Is it really important to gather all the details? Was I uncomfortable? Yes. Was in inappropriate? YES! Could I go to my parents? NO. Like most Mormons are raised they are taught not to question or confront! All the answers to your problems are to pray and read the scriptures. Give me a fuckin break!
Well, finally got through all the comments. I do have a simple solution: The bishops are not to be allowed to interview any minor for any reason. There! Problem solved. Here are my beliefs:
1. Churches should not use shame or guilt to try to control their flock.
2. Children are children and don’t need to repent (not that I believe in sins anyway)
3. Follow WWJD if you really believe in jesus. Would jesus ask his children questions about sex? lol
Anyway, thank god, I don’t have to worry about any of this, I am long gone from the church.
This post has been an interesting and enlightening read for me. I have a few thoughts myself.
1. I remember the awkward conversations about chastity in these interviews in my youth.
2. If ever I am called to be a bishop, I will do everything in my power to conduct interviews with love and hope, not guilt and condemnation. I don’t know how this will be done, but that will be my goal.
3. We live in a world where sex and pornography are becoming increasingly blatant. The response to this trend can’t be to back off the emphasis for living the law of chastity. We must absolutely teach what is appropriate and inappropriate, including many of the smaller indiscretions which lead to the bigger ones. The human mind naturally drifts toward rationalization, so a vague “Live the law of chastity” type of message will not be sufficient. Youth need to be taught what that means, even if it is a very awkward conversation.
So, would it be sufficient to teach the principles in YM/YW, but let the interview itself be really vague? That might work, or allow the youth to express their own understanding of what it means to live a chaste life. I don’t know what level of detail is appropriate, but I worry that too many of the solutions expressed on this thread would amount to caving in to this threat to the youth.
David,
What you said was very powerful. I really appreciate your uplifting comment among all these downers! I agree with you, the interviews shouldn’t be condemning or explicit. But, I’m not a bishop, and so I don’t have the keys to take care of the sins of others like that, so I don’t know what is required. However, I do agree with you, the youth need to be educated.
I really like what you guys are usually up too. This sort of clever
work and exposure! Keep up the awesome works guys I’ve added you guys
to my personal blogroll.
I’m so thankful to everyone who have commented on this thread and I’m sure there are many more who have old wounds that have never healed. I hope they will speak out.
My bishop and I had real problems like my problems with my Dad. It wasn’t just his weird bargain basement analogy, which enraged me. “Where does a man look for a wife? Not in the bargain basement.” The bishop had a cow analogy–why buy a milk cow if the milk comes free?” That was not the last straw.
There was something called an individual award. To get one you had to have 100% attendance. I did. I did not miss Dysneyland to take the Sacrament to get a silly award and be commended from the podium.
I just didn’t and I didn’t want to talk about it. The bishop was befuddled and perplexed and I walked out. It wasn’t just the Cow and its milk, and it wasn’t the award. Phil Buchmiller was impressed and kept the program. He put it in the ward ephemera archive and I put it on Facebook. It makes me smile to see it there.
Actually no matter if someone doesn’t understand
afterward its up to other people that they will assist, so here it happens.
Look into my web page … Lady Gaga Artpop Album -Leaked
I’ll give my perspective as someone who has interviewed many youth in a Church capacity, both for worthiness (for temple recommends) and in a more informal capacity.
The author makes some reasonable points about the necessity for priesthood leaders to be extremely cautious and sensitive about what they ask and how they ask it. There is a reason that the questions for temple recommends are written they way they are. Unless very specifically prompted by the Spirit (or by a volunteered conversation with the interviewee), I think leaders should confine themselves to the questions as written in the recommend guidelines. The furthest I have ever gone as a follow-up to the chastity question is to simply ask when prompted by the Spirit (or by facial/body language cues): “Do you understand what the law of chastity is?” On a couple of occasions, I have had a youth tell me they were not sure what I meant by the initial question, at which time I explained the broad concept of the law of chastity (no sexual relations outside of marriage and avoiding pornography being my general explanation), then re-asked the question. I really believe that in 99/100 cases, that’s as far as any bishopric/stake presidency member should ever go with both youth and adults.
That said, I have serious concerns about the author’s tone (which seems to assume wrong-doing as the default motive), as well as her combative stance toward a religious relationship that should be trust-affirming and ministerial in nature. Insisting on being in the room with a young man/woman sends a message that Church leaders can’t be trusted, as well as very probably curtailing the desire to discuss or confess a personal matter.
As an example, my daughter went to speak to our bishop some time ago about a matter of moral concern to her. She had a good, positive interaction with him. I didn’t know she spoke to him until she told me later. There is simply almost no chance that she would have raised this issue with my wife or I in the room. And, thus, she would have been denied the opportunity to receive counsel and solace from a person whose special calling it is to comfort those in need of comfort.
So, I suppose what I am saying is that I both agree and disagree with the author. We can, and should, do better as priesthood leaders. The Church could do more to facilitate guidelines and give counsel to those in pastoral positions. Bishops could do better utilizing Church resources for difficult matters they have no expertise in. With that said, I think the author’s tone and some of her points are furthering misconceptions and sowing discord and distrust. My advice would be that if a parent really feels strongly about her son or daughter not being asked specific things, then speaking to their bishop and/or stake president in a kind way wouldn’t be out of order. But treating every interaction a youth has with a priesthood leader as a potential battle does nothing to build Zion or strengthen the saints.
THANK YOU for this!!