|Subject:||Legal issue of Mormon church officials asking sexual questions of minors.|
|Date:||Feb 16 13:09 2004|
|The thread on getting asked "private
questions" by the bishop has prompted this post.
Here is the scenario: A 14-year-old girl (or boy) is in a closed office, alone, with a grown man (aka bishop). He is asking her/him questions about her/his "chastity." She/he admits to experimenting sexually and the bishop wants details.
Does this strike anyone as SICK AND WRONG? I would also think it would be illegal. If this were a business, he would be sued for sexual harassment. Are "clergy" exempt???
Why in the HELL would any parent allow this type of interrogation to happen to their MINOR child? I, for one, would never subject my children to the voyeuristic nature of these predators.
|Subject:||Re: Legal issue of church officials asking "sexual" questions of minors.|
|Date:||Feb 16 13:15|
|I agree completely. Recently, I refused to let my 8 year old son be interviewed without a parent present. And I made it clear that no private questions were to be asked, and that this would be my policy for all of my minor children, until they reach age 18.|
|Subject:||Re: Legal issue of church officials asking "sexual" questions of minors.|
|Date:||Feb 16 13:26|
|I have always had issues with the mormon church on
this aspect. I still remember when I was around 16, and full of raging
hormones. As i recall I was involved in some heavy make out sessions. The
bishop than wanted to know specific details. Did you reach or obtain an
orgasm? How about your partner did she have an orgasm? Where your
clothes on? Where did this happen? I just remember thinking, what a
pervert. Why does he need to know these things. And I thought our sins
were forgiven through the atonement of Christ. I actually asked him if I
needed to talk specifically about these sins in order to obtain
forgiveness and enter into the celestial kingdom. He said that it was
necessary. So I guess I am going to hell unless I tell the bish about my
orgasms, or specific details about what I did what bunch crap. The other
problem is that you know that the things that you tell a bishop don't
stay to himself. My father-in-law also in the bishopric would say things
to us that only the bishop should have known. This can create enormous
problems to someone who though what they were telling their spiritual
adviser would be held in the strictest of confidence. I hope that the
church get sued for allowing older men to ask personal questions of the
sexual activities of the teenagers in thier community.
|Subject:||I imagine that the church could claim that the parents,|
|Date:||Feb 16 13:29|
being aware of the nature of such interviews (as
is indeed often the case) have given implied consent, by their failure
to object or to refuse to allow their children to be interviewed.
Many parents who frequent this board have insisted that they be present, and/or that questions on masturbation or other sexual practices not be asked of their children in these interviews. I would love to hear if there are cases where Bishops have gone ahead and asked such questions (without a parent present, obviously), after parents have insisted that they not do so; there, you'd have a good foundation for legal action.
|Subject:||Too much trust (little cuss)|
|Date:||Feb 16 13:33|
|The last time we talked about this, a father who had
been a convert to the church got very upset to learn what happened in
these bishop interviews. Don't forget, as converts we haven't been
through all the youth stuff so we don't know what is taught in the
lessons and we're not socialized the same way as BICs. It's not so
ingrained in us to have temple weddings as a goal and if you don't
achieve it your world falls apart, and that sort of thing.
Regarding the regular interviews with the bishop, the annual ones for the kids' birthdays, those to extend callings, those set up if they think you're slacking or "have a problem", it's all very unexpected to converts as that doesn't go on in other mainstream (i.e., "normal") churches.
In particular, the probing personal questions about one's sex life, even to teens, is absolutely so far out in left field that many convert parents just don't know it's going on. In the case above, where the father got so upset to read about it on this board, he checked with his kids (now in their 20s) and they confirmed it happened but they just went along with it, too embarrassed to talk to their parents about it (not unusual).
It's completely outrageous that this is occurring, but for BIC parents, they went through it so many have a looser boundary than non-mos about this kind of thing - they've never known that it is highly questionable and OK to say no (cuz it doesn't feel like it's OK to say no to a church leader about anything).
As far as convert parents, I think many just don't expect this - they have not been through it, they don't know about it, they can't imagine it, as it just doesn't happen in other churches, even with adults, never mind kids. It is NOBODY's BUSINESS or RESPONSIBILITY to check up on the sex lives of other church members, it doesn't happen elsewhere in this way and many people just are not expecting it, don't know about it and the kids don't say anything.
So, when convert parents "allow" it, it's a case that they likely just don't know about the personal questions (that they probably don't even ask their own kids). When BIC parents "allow" it, maybe it's just that that's the way it's always been for them and they don't know they have a choice to decline (Do they even have that choice? Would they be seen as problem cases? Would there be consequences if they don't toe the line? Like, maybe being seen as "unworthy"?).
As for each individual going through it, if "obedience" is something you value and aspire to and/or if you accept the "authority" of the bishop, you're likely going to submit to the program and answer the damn questions, BIC or convert. Heck, I've even seen investigators, lots of 'em, get all wide-eyed with the intrusive questions but nevertheless, respond to them. I did it myself during a missionary "discussion" when they asked me if I would commit to being chaste, right in the middle of dinner at my TBM friends' house and I nearly fell off my chair at the extreme intrusion that just came out of nowhere, but still, I answered them, sheesh.
Back to the kids alone with church leaders, I think parents trust the leaders too much and grant them way too much authority over the minutiae of their lives and those of their kids. It's the way the church works.
It's just like everything else in the Mormon church that makes you feel uncomfortable - everybody else is doing it - so you think it's OK and if you don't like, you're the one with the problem.
So, we trust too much and think too little perhaps?
Wasn't it you, Empowered, in the other thread whose bishop described "necking" as any kiss lasting more than 3.5 seconds? IS HE KIDDING????????? Who settled on this 3.5 second rule? Can't be 3 seconds, can't be 4, has to be 3.5??? And 3.5 is OK but 3.6 is a sin? It's incredible, it's outrageous, it's really really sick.
Imagine focusing on such things instead of actually helping out those under your care who have real problems.
|Date:||Feb 16 14:08|
|This is SUCH an "AH HA" moment for me.
Having been BIC I hadn't thought how perverse this would seem to a
convert. What a shock it must be.
I have always been feisty, and prided myself on the fact that I didn't easily "cave" but when I look back at the strong-hold the church had on me and my family, it really surprises me how much "power" we gave them over us. Having been through it, I REFUSE to allow it to happen to my girls.
My daughter (17) was still fairly active in church about 2 years ago. EVERY SINGLE TIME she walked in the door, she was "stalked" by (sheesh...I can't even remember what they call the guy that makes appointments for the bishop) yeah...that person. He would follow her everywhere saying, "You need to see the bishop." He would call our home and leave messages with appointment times, and she wouldn't go...so he would come and find her. I was proud of her for asserting her right NOT to go. It finally pissed her off enough that she quit going (just ONE of the many reasons). Now, I would just call and say, "My daughter does not feel a need to meet with the bishop and please leave her alone."
Oh...and Nightingale...the bishop's response about the 3.5 seconds was just because he was caught "off-guard"...it was more of "joke" than anything he purported to be doctrine! It was funny, though! AND...just in case my TBM "friend" is reading this, I am referring to a bishop of MANY years ago in another state, so don't get all riled up and come in to defend!
|Subject:||Haha re the 3.5 seconds|
|Date:||Feb 16 15:21|
|See? That's what cricket and I were talking about in
another thread - how it's hard sometimes to tell the difference between
parody and actual Mormonism because you read a subtle joke or parody and
it sounds SO MUCH like EXACTLY what the Mormon church and leaders would
do/say/think that you believe it's true (and so miss the
I can well imagine a bishop gravely intoning the 3.5 second necking rule so I didn't for one second think it was a joke.
Mormonism is a lampooner's delight - that is for sure.
|Subject:||If school or social workers did this, they'd be fired.|
|Date:||Feb 16 14:56|
|Of course they'd also be fired for washing or
It is illegal, but members don't care.
One person at an exmo conference related an incident that still haunts me. He said as a very young teen, the bishop made him open his pants and demonstrate how he had masturbated.
It's sick to ask girls, boys, adults, married couples, anyone those questions. Some bishops might think it's part of their job. Others most certainly are perverts.
Unfortunately, it will continue until members put a stop to it.
|Subject:||The church's complicity|
|Date:||Feb 16 15:34|
|I really hate that the church's fallback position is
to say some rogue bishop, SP, MP, was just doing their own thing and
it's not sanctioned by the church.
If the church knows about it and says nothing, they are complicit. If they issue a directive which later changes, they should issue as strong a directive saying so, making it clear to every member what is or is not official doctrine.
As for supposed urban legends about doctrinal matters, that lead to so much uncertainty about what is or is not "OK", that's the church's fault too. If the vast body of church membership believes that a teaching has come down from their prophet, and this is not so, leaders need to speak right up and set the record straight.
That they do not clearly state their doctrine, stand behind it and correct errors about it is very suspicious behaviour. That they know this type of intrusive behaviour is rampant throughout the church and they do nothing means they agree with it and/or are guilty by association, because they have the power to change it and they do not.
Even as an adult, I found bishop interviews intimidating and embarrassing, and that was with a bishop I thought was a nice man. I cannot imagine my humiliation as a teen being asked such questions.
If young people are continually forced to submit to something that makes them feel ashamed, embarrassed, humiliated, "unworthy", it's very psychologically damaging. It can pass over the line so far as to be abuse and/or criminal. And it should be considered so. The fact that it occurs in church increases the degree of the leaders' guilt. They are violating trust. They are misrepresenting God. I think they know better. That makes them doubly guilty, IMO.
|Subject:||The church's complicity ends where the "masturbation pamphlets" and talks begin.|
|Date:||Feb 16 17:17|
|They drive it home in their literature and speeches from the pulpit. Masturbation is evil. Tell your bishop. God save the queen, and handcuff her right hand to the bedpost.|
|Subject:||WHY isn't this CRAP publicized?|
|Date:||Feb 16 15:28|
|I would think public outcry would be the best way to
put a stop to this kind of interrogation and exploitation of youth. OMG
Cheryl...that story makes me sick. Of course, TBM's will justify by
saying, "That bishop's actions were inappropriate and aren't
indicative of all bishops." I don't give a RAT'S ASS if it was one
or all. That ONE did irreparable damage and that was one too many.
Why can't the church be sued for this????
|Subject:||Re: WHY isn't this CRAP publicized?|
|Date:||Feb 16 15:56|
|Cheryl is right and her heading took the words out
of my mouth... I've been a high school teacher in central CA for 35
years and while I am one of the most open teachers in my school I would
NEVER DREAM of asking kids about such things... They might come and
confide something like that to me but I just listen and make no comment
- I wouldn't think of it. My God, there are privacy issues here and I
believe the Mormon hierarchy thinks itself above the law - or perhaps
they follow the style of a former principal of mine: "let's run it
up a flagpole and see if anyone salutes it." So, until they are
told to buzz off and threatened with legal action they simply continue
to do it. Someone mentioned mainstream churches here... yes, this would
be unheard of... I was raised Catholic though I have long ago fallen
away... but I remember that in confession the priest NEVER elaborated on
such things, one merely confessed with a minimum of detail and the
priest asked if there was a firm intention to avoid it in the future and
that was that. Hey, if anyone had ever asked any of my kids (all grown
now) anything about their sexuality I would have cut them a new one.
I'll finish off by saying good for you and good for your 17-yr old. If
you dont permit this kind of invasive bullshit it wont happen.
|Subject:||I think people really don't know that bishops do this|
|Date:||Feb 16 22:17|
|If I had had any inkling that bishops sometimes
asked this kind of stuff I would NEVER have let them interview my kids
alone. I never had a bishop ask me this kind of thing when I was growing
up in the 60s, and I had no reason to believe that kids were being asked
these things when they were growing up in the 70s and 80s.
About the time all my kids were grown I started learning about bishops asking voyeuristic questions and even abusing kids. I was really shocked.
Kids don't know what is acceptable for bishops to ask, so I think they are unlikely to tell their parents when a bishop is out of line. So parents are largely kept in the dark.
In all fairness, I asked my son if he ever got questioned about sexual matters by any of our bishops. He didn't until he went on a mission. Bishops are instructed to ask kids going on missions about masturbation. Ironically, the bishop was really pretty cool about it. If my son reads this he can tell you what the bishop said. But the bottom line was something like "don't tell the stake president, or he won't let you go." :-)
|Subject:||You know what's even worse than bishops asking those questions?|
|Date:||Feb 16 17:12|
|19-to-21-year-old missionary district or zone
leaders interviewing investigators before baptism and asking if they are
obeying "the law of chastity."
It's ludicrous that young men that age, who themselves are maturing sexually or are at their sexual peak, are allowed to ask people either younger or older than themselves about their sexual experiences. Discussing such personal things with people whom the missionary may have met only once or twice can be very uncomfortable for all parties.
|Subject:||Inappropriateness triggers those uncomfortable feelings.|
|Date:||Feb 16 17:25|
|Uneasy feelings are often a waving red flag
to the wise, "Stop! Don't go where you're headed!"
Mormonism makes people feel guilty for listening to their inner voice of wisdom.
|Subject:||Ya, tell me about it. While on my mission, here I was a young punk...|
|Date:||Feb 16 18:29|
|...interviewing a 65 year old woman for baptism,
asking her if she masturbated. God, I just wanted to apologize SO bad,
then get up and leave, not to mention crawl into a hole and die.
|Subject:||Did anyone ever get asked PRIVATE questions by their bishop? (like Oral Sex) *adult content*!!|
|Date:||Feb 15 23:26|
|Author:||not disclosing this time...|
|I was wondering how invasive the bishops were during
their "interviews" of you? Did they ever ask stuff like
"Do you and your husband have oral sex"?
Also, what is the Church's official stance on oral sex? Anyone know?
|Subject:||I was asked about my "virtue" by the SP!|
|Date:||Feb 15 23:50|
|I said, "What about my virtue?" He said,
"Do you keep the law of chastity?" I said, "Define the
law of chastity." He said, "Are you having sexual relations
outside of marriage?" I said, "I'm not married!"
He didn't know how to respond.
What I REALLY wanted to say:
"Damn voyeur! What? You're not getting any from your wife? You gotta live vicariously through me?"
I ended with, "My private life is NOT up for discussion with ANYONE!"
|Subject:||After his "voyeuristic conclusion", did he indicate that he would|
|Date:||Feb 16 05:29|
|send spies around to see if you were in a
fornicating relationship, then?
|Subject:||The LDS church's position on oral sex is one of supreme flakiness.|
|Date:||Feb 16 00:13|
|Twenty-two years ago, the First Presidency sent a
letter (copies of it are available on the web) to Bishops and Stake
Presidents (not intended for distribution to the membership at large),
including the statement that they (the FP) viewed oral sex as an
unnatural, unholy practice.
Several months later, the FP sent out another letter (according to several accounts, though copies of it don't seem to be nearly as readily available), which did not mention oral sex directly, but stated that Bishops and SPs should not ask about specific sexual practices in Temple Recommend interviews indeed, even if members asked about specific sexual practices between married couples, the interviewer should not weigh in with an official pronouncement as to whether those practices are right/allowed/tolerated/etc. Whatever the truth about this second letter, the current TR guidelines state that the only sexually-oriented question that should be asked is whether the interviewee is "living the Law of Chastity".
This second letter is viewed as a tactical retreat from the hard line, without actually retracting the earlier letter (since oral sex is not mentioned explicitly).
Of course, the church is lousy with Bishops and SPs who believe it is their divine duty (as well as a way to earn more Celestial Kingdom points) to hold their flocks to a higher standard than the membership at large; also there are undoubtedly plenty (just as there are in other faiths) who get vicarious thrills from knowing the details of the sexual lives of those in their charge. So, there continue to be reports of Bishops and SPs asking about (and/or condemning) oral sex in TR interviews, priesthood talks, etc.
Further, because the Mormon culture at large operates largely in absence of official doctrine, rumors are a major factor in how its members view oral sex and other sexual practices (besides masturbation, which continues to be condemned at every opportunity). Countless Mormons "know" that oral sex is wrong, because they heard it from their RS/priesthood friends/family/etc. even if they have never heard any sort of official pronouncement on the subject from a Bishop or Stake President.
|Subject:||link to Oral Sex letter by First Presidency ....|
|Date:||Feb 16 00:19|
|Author:||web surfer for truth|
|Subject:||I LIKED President Kimball: he was a very intuitive person--|
|Date:||Feb 16 05:46|
|he knew that "focusing on sin" only caused
people to focus on sin.
He essentially said that mature people WILL take responsibility for their own actions; and, that leaders can be grossly insensitive and "out-of-line" in what they do
(This is implied).
I liked him.
(I think he was a "man of the left"--not "liberal", but "on the left": as opposed to E.T. Phone-Home Benson, who was a paranoid ultra-rightwing conservative, whose J. Birch Society belief system included the [paranoid] thought that fluoridating the general water supply was, in fact, a Communist Plot!
Well, so much for his 1980 BYU Fireside Devotional and the thought he left with his listeners that "whatever spewed out of the mouth of GAs like him was Scripture"--Communist Plot and all, eh?
|Subject:||Eh I felt the same way (he was a long-time family friend), until I read "Miracle of Forgiveness"|
|Date:||Feb 16 05:48|
|What a vile piece of guilt-spewing trash that is!|
|Subject:||Yeah, well, it was a little "dense, in places"; but, I just glossed|
|Date:||Feb 16 05:55|
|over the guilt-inducing claptrap.
Nothing like inducing guilt in a perfectly sinless person!
(How some people can DO that, I'll never know!)
Maybe...just maybe...Prez. Kimball wrote that book because some--at the time--felt that they just simply could not obtain forgiveness (for farting in bed, for example--and in front of neighbors, too).
I grew up with the likes of Billy Graham preaching "hellfire and damnation": now, there is one old sick puppy!
|Subject:||So, does the First Prez still advocate what that letter says in the link??|
|Date:||Feb 16 00:35|
|That oral sex is an unholy, impure, abominable
Has anything more recent been written by them?
Some TBM's have heard that it is "their choice" what to do in the bedroom and I'd love to spill the beans! Might make them reconsider being members if they can't have oral sex any more.
Would it be wrong to send that letter from the link to them in the mail?
|Subject:||Officially, Bishops and SPs are only supposed to ask if you are following the "Law of Chastity".|
|Date:||Feb 16 00:39|
|But, by all accounts, many Bishops and SPs still go beyond that, and inquire into (and sometimes condemn) specific sexual practices between married couples.|
|Subject:||Oohh. Don't do that, I beg you.(very naughty pun)|
|Date:||Feb 16 01:09|
|Are you kidding? No one is going to leave the church
because they realize how "wrong" oral sex is, but think of how
many spouses would suddenly be denied oral sex!! Ouch. I wouldn't want
to be responsible for that. When I was married, I was a hard-core TBM,
but the "no oral-sex" thing was something I just couldn't
swallow. (tee hee hee) When I finally asked my bishop about it, he said
that it was between me and my husband, and that HE didn't do that,
because he and his wife didn't feel that it was respectful of each
I ask you - how is inducing extreme pleasure on your spouse being 'disrespectful'? I really don't get that.
|Subject:||The "respect" argument is ridiculous|
|Date:||Feb 16 01:50|
|It has often been used by men (of various cultures
and faiths) to justify, in the name of "self-respect", their
not giving oral sex to their female lovers, while insisting that the
females give them (the men) oral sex.
Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb. Giving oral sex is one of the most intimate, wonderful things one person can do for another. When there is consent, it is ridiculous to argue that doing so, or letting it be done to you, implies a lack of respect for yourself or the other person.
|Subject:||That letter in that link, though, has Pres. Kimball's signature on|
|Date:||Feb 16 05:50|
|Author:||I don't get it|
|it, as I read the thing.
|Subject:||Yes, it does. He was in charge, at the time. n/t|
|Subject:||The point is, that was the last official pronouncement that explicitly mentioned oral sex|
|Date:||Feb 16 06:21|
|Later decrees from the FP have said that Bishops and
Stake Presidents should not ask married couples about specific sexual
practices, but only if they are following the Law of Chastity. However,
those decrees have not specifically mentioned oral sex.
So, officially, the policy is don't-ask-don't-tell, but the statement that the FP considers oral sex to be an unnatural, unholy practice has never been retracted.
|Subject:||Exactly. That letter carries the same weight as the "Proclamation to the World". n/t.|
|Subject:||I remember when I had phone sex with my missionary...(swear + rant)|
|Date:||Feb 16 00:36|
|Who's now my ex-husband, I felt pretty bad about it,
but try confessing something like that to your bishop. I was like,
"We were talking about things that are pretty inappropriate."
And he made me get more specific, but I never really felt like he was
being too invasive. He just needed to understand what I was talking
about. He was actually one of my favorite bishops. He was the one I
confessed to when I ended up having sex with my ex-husband. He was very
non-judgmental, and I think he understood the pressure that my ex put on
me for sex. I truly felt very remorseful about the things I had done.
So when I asked my bishop how long it would take before I would be worthy to take the sacrament or go through the temple, he said, "That's between you and the Lord." So about nine months later, I was married with a three month old son, and I finally felt clean and worthy, so I decided to talk to the bishop about going to the temple. By now, I had a new bishop because I had moved when I got married. My new bishop had a lot of nerve. I asked him when I could go to the temple, and he pointed at my tiny son, "There's a problem with where he came from. You need to wait at least a year." What an asshole!!! I'd already cleared that all up with my former bishop, but this jerk figured it was his business to drudge everything up again. I tried for the next two years to go the temple, but they kept telling me to wait til my husband was ready, then when I got divorced, they told me to wait til I was married again. Asses!! I remember when I moved back into my home ward, my old bishop (the one I liked) gave me a recommend, but the Stake President wouldn't let me go! I'm glad now, of course, but now it seems even stupider. Jerks.
|Subject:||ok, so wait a freaking second *adult content..sort of*|
|Date:||Feb 16 04:50|
|when i was about 14 or 15, i actually had to go to a
bunch of confessions with my then-bishop. as i recall, he had me recount
specifically and in detail about some of the sexual
"experimenting" i had done (you know, second, almost third
base). i was a fifteen year old kid, and i basically sat there and
described in detail what i'd been doing and what had been done to me.
but i just read in someone else's post, that they're only supposed ask you if you "follow the laws of chastity" and what not. i mean, now that i'm 22 and away from it, i can see a 45 year old asking me questions about my specific sexual practices is clearly inappropriate (especially since i was legally a child), but was inappropriate even within the context of the church?
dear god. should i do something about this? i had actually just resolved to call him and confront him about our talks, should i bring this point up?
shit, i feel creepy right now. *shudders*
|Subject:||No, for annual Aaronic priesthood interviews, masturbation questions are fair game.|
|Date:||Feb 16 04:59|
|The "Law of Chastity" question is part of
the Temple Reecommend interview, and the "don't ask, don't
tell" official policy applies only to sexual acts between married
|Subject:||Re: No, for annual Aaronic priesthood interviews, masturbation questions are fair game.|
|Date:||Feb 16 05:02|
|hmmm...but i'm a girl, and they were more than
its ok. as a clear thinking adult, i know i have a right to feel violated, i just wasn't sure if him asking me a slew of things and making me describe stuff was even considered inappropriate by other mormons.
|Subject:||Sadly, Mormon leaders consider those questions appropriate for teens of both sexes, and even for unmarried adults.|
|Date:||Feb 16 05:11|
|And usually, the members just put up with it.
No one else in their right minds (i.e. not in a cult) would stand for that kind of prying.
|Subject:||I thought it was church policy to ask|
|Date:||Feb 16 11:26|
|In the later 90s, the bishop was asking me stuff
like this in TR interviews. He started with "Do you keep the Law of
Chastity?" Then he actually read a list of acts that violate it
(such as oral sex) and asked me again, "So, do you keep the Law of
Chastity?" He read it from a page in his bishop's manual and told
me he was required to read it to make sure I understood the question he
was asking me. (I had told him I was a Christian before my Mormon
baptism and I KNOW what chastity is - but no, we still had to delve into
It is unbelievable to look back and see what you submitted to. (Even though I thought it was intrusive, I still answered and accepted that he had to ask, in accordance with his bishop instruction book).
|Date:||Feb 16 05:46|
Anything you can do about it now? Probably not.
Even if you confront him directly, he'll do a little dancing, suffer from memory loss, and try to pin things back on you. You might have something if you could find several people who had similar experiences with him, though.
|Subject:||What parent, in their right mind, would allow their MINOR CHILD to be interrogated like this?|
|Date:||Feb 16 13:01|
|Seems to me there would be a legal issue here...and
adult male speaking to a minor child (female at that) about sex??? In
business, that would be considered "sexual harassment"...and
since LDS, Inc. is a business...then...
I won't allow my girls to go for "interviews", unless, of course, they want me present. And frankly, I would not subject my children to the voyeuristic nature of such predators.
I remember when I was about 15...my bishop asked, "Do you neck?" I said, "Do you?" He actually blushed. Then I said (Sheesh...the lawyer in me was coming out even then), "What is your definition of 'necking'?" He said, "Any kiss that lasts beyond 3.5 seconds." I replied emphatically, "THEN I NECK!!!!!!!!!" I was still able to do baptisms for the dead!
|Subject:||Re: Did anyone ever get asked PRIVATE questions by their bishop? (like Oral Sex) *adult content*!!|
|Date:||Feb 16 05:39|
|yes when i was first married the bishop asked if we had a problem with oral. i thought it was a bit weird but told him nope we seem to get it. anyway he just looked lost at that point and he started giving a lesson on budgeting or something.|
|Subject:||It's another example of whose WILL dominates...|
|Date:||Feb 16 10:55|
|...If you haven't seen it, go back and read Short Topics # 316 "Breaking the member's will". It's a matter of who takes charge of your life and how much of your will you give up to them!|
|Subject:||I had a bishop once who...|
|Date:||Feb 16 11:00|
|drove past the homes of single women in the ward early in the morning and wrote down the license plate numbers of strange cars in their drive ways. I never found out how or if he confronted the single ladies, but why do it in the first place?|
|Subject:||Tell the snooper this:|
|Date:||Feb 16 11:37|
|Maybe we do have oral sex, maybe we don't. But in
either case it is none of your f.....g business. Do you have any other
snoopy questions that I am not going to answer?
|Subject:||Back in the early 80s...|
|Date:||Feb 16 11:55|
|these questions were common. But not recently. See http://www3.telus.net/public/rcmccue/bob/postmormon.htm
and the "Effect of Mormon Temple Ritual" essay, from about
All the best,
|Subject:||How the cult maintains sex GUILT, here's how:|
|Date:||Feb 16 12:02|
|Release a statement in '82 saying oral sex in wrong
and basically evil and bad. THEN, update your handbook by only saying
that what a man and a woman do in their bedroom is up to them. They
DON'T negate the '82 statement, they allow that to hang in the air
forever, so NOW they say you can do what you WANT to do, but allow the
past to haunt you and make you feel guilty.
Works like a charm! My brother the bishop counsels people that HE feels oral sex is wrong and too carnal and bad. But he only says these things when he is asked for counsel, or when people experience problems and he finds out they do oral, he blames their problems on their carnal stuff.
Who can blame him? He's a morgbot like all the rest.