. . . and will be examining it, I am being informed, when the opportunity arises (other reporting projects are currently being worked on, apparently).

Below is what I sent off today (any other recommendations from RfM posters would be appreciated as possible additional avenues for the reporter to pursue relative to Romney's Mormon trail):
_____


A couple of other matters:

--The first is a potentially delicate issue involving Romney's duties as a Mormon bishop.

As a Mormon bishop, [it] would have been part of his [Romney's] regular duties . . . to conduct what are referred to in Mormonism as "worthiness interviews" of the young people in his ward, particularly of teenagers.

These interviews are conducted in secret, in the bishop's office, and focus, among other things, on the private sexual behavior of the young person being interviewed.

Mormons adhere to a strict, puritanical view of sexual relations. One of the typical questions asked by the Mormon bishop of LDS ward youth in these interviews centers on whether they have been guilty of masturbating. (This act is considered a serious moral sin in Mormon teaching).

Given the attention in recent years to sexual abuse of minors (both in and out of religious institutions), the question could be raised as to whether it is appropriate for a Mormon bishop to be inquiring in secretive confessional sessions about the private sexual behavior of young teenage boys and girls. Since Romney was an LDS bishop and thus would have conducted such interviews in which such questions were asked, he might be approached to offer his opinion as to why he felt it appropriate to do so.

A well-known sermon in Mormonism on what the LDS Church considers to be unacceptable, sinful sexual self-abuse was given by current Mormon apostle, Boyd K. Packer.

It was originally delivered at the LDS Church's annual General Conference held in Salt Lake City, Utah-in this case, the speech was given to a male-only audience during the priesthood session. Subsequently, it became available to Mormon ward members (and their bishops) in the form of a pamphlet. The title of the sermon was "For Young Men Only." Here is a transcript of Packer's original LDS conference speech:

http://www.lds-mormon.com/only.shtml

P.S.--The Mormon bishop interviews of LDS youth in which sexual matters are explicitly brought up to confront these young people actually can (and do) occur as early as age 12. That is the age, for example, when Mormon male youth enter the LDS priesthood ranks at the level of deacon. Sexual matters brought up by the bishop to his captive interviewees not only involve what I specified [as to masturbation], but other sexual activities as well, such as questions about personal “heavy petting” and “fornication.”

_____


--Romney insists that he is a Christian (for the record, I am not a religious believer of any sort).

The Mormon Church officially teaches that after Jesus was crucified and rose from the dead and before making his final ascension into heaven, he (Jesus) visited the Western Hemisphere, where (according to the Book of Mormon) he set up his church and designated twelve apostles to run it. Eventually, according to Mormon lore, these believers were wiped out in huge battles with an evil, cursed-by-God dark-skinned people who the Mormon Church teaches were the ancestors of modern-day Native Americans.

This may be relevant to your reporting, in that you might consider asking Romney if he thinks social evangelical Christians (whose votes he is actively seeking as a self-described fellow Christian) would regard this Mormon storyline as being in keeping with their views on traditional Biblical Christianity.

For official LDS explanation of this unusual teaching of Christ having come to America, see its treatment at the Mormon Church's official website:
http://mormon.org/learn/0,8672,948-84,00.html

Here is the Book of Mormon's scriptural account of Jesus visiting the Americas:
http://lds.org/scriptures/bofm/3-ne/11?lang=eng

For a Mormon Church youtube presentation of the LDS claim that Jesus has previously traveled to America, see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqdnZ6Ii5j4

The Mormon Church puts on a yearly pageant commemorating the resurrected Jesus' purported visit to the Americas, highlighted here:
http://lds.org/placestovisit/eng/pageants/hill-cumorah-pageant

Finally, here is a defense from a true-believing Mormon contending that Jesus came to the Western Hemisphere, as the LDS Church claims, to set up his true church:
http://www.crazymormonbeliefs.com/restoration/book-of-mormon/jesus-christ-visits-america

(End of send)
_____


For the content of what the Globe reporter has already received (with valuable assistance from participants on this board), see:

http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,346353,346353#msg-346353



Edited 11 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2011 06:54PM by steve benson.

I know that many of us are in recovery or trying to make that final step away from the church, but at what point do we just let it go and walk away? I respect your opinions, but I am just wondering if you are going to go on the record with this in the article, or simply just passing along information to help try and bring a good man down. Mitt is not the carbon copy Mormon some may think, the guy is actually what our country needs right now. Do I like that so many LDS people seem to think he is a God, no, but I do like what he has done in Mass, in business, and with the Olympics. Better than any of the other canidates I have seen so far. For what it is worth, I am not in favor of trying to bring people down based on what their church believes. Just my 2 cents.

First, when I left the Mormon Church in 1993 (where I detailed my reasons why I demanded that my name be removed from its membership and publicly confronted, in the media, Mormon LDS Dallin Oaks in his lies); and second, in 2007, when I was asked by the press about Romney's temple Mormonism and what affect it might have on his ability to lead the country as president. Third, there have been other interviews in-between.

As to what you think our country needs right now, that is up to the voters to decide. The more information they have to make a rational and informed decision in that regard, the better.

When it comes to the actual details of Mormon beliefs and practices, the LDS Church (and Mitt Romney) would clearly be of the view that the less information passed on to the electorate of the factually embarrassing and revealing kind, the better.

As far as my efforts are concerned, when asked for information from the press, that kind of traditional Mormon cover-up and misdirect just ain't gonna be tolerated.

Sorry to disappoint you, but knowledge is power--and a candidate's religious faith should be a matter both of record and discussion, as far as voters who wish to see the full embodiment of candidates is concerned. If that were not so, then why did Romney deliver a major speech on his Mormonism when he first ran for president?

Live by Laban's sword; die by it.



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2011 06:42PM by steve benson.

just wondering is all. I understand your explanation and agree that the public deserves to know a lot about canidates before they vote for them. I guess I just see the other canidates and my skin crawls. But, if it weren't for people like you, the mormon church would have wasted all this money on the youtube and advertising with the expectations of Mitt as the canidate and all the negative press soon to come on the mormon church.
So keep at it.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2011 06:36PM by steve benson.

You write, "... I am just wondering if you are going to go on the record with this in the article, or simply just passing along information to help try and bring a good man down."

I'm sorry to tell you this, but Mitt is anything but a good man. He is a compulsive and pathalogical liar. He is also destitute of sympathy and empathy.

If that's just what your country needs, then so be it.

...feelings of "heart-burn" rather than evidence!!!

I don't want a Prez who is NOT a critical thinker or free thinker.

I don't want a Prez who was simply told that you will ask little boys and little girs alone in your office if they masturbate...and thought nothing of the inappropriateness of that psycho-sexual abuse "coming-of-age" inquisition but rather just "went along with the program."

I don't want an easily controlled credulous man like that leading our Country into the next 4-years.

Get it? Got it? GOOD!

Or so it seems to me...

I really appreciate you including the worthiness interviews with children stuff.

If I can help you in any other way, I will.

I don't know Romney personally, but anything else, I would be more than happy to assist with.

I was able to contribute even in a small way. Please keep us apprised as to if the article is coming out.

Steve

I sugegst that you're more specific. Tell the reporter that bishops ask 12 year-old boys and girls about masturbation, sexual habits, etc.

Specify the age.

Please keep up the good work.

Cheers

Grey

and I don't think rumors of rogue bishops doing this is the same as Mitt.

I was in a bishopric and this is not in the handbook to do this, so if it was done, it is not sanctioned nor can be accredited to Mitt's time as a bishop. I was never asked about masterbation until I went to go on a mission. 19 was the first, and only time I have ever been asked if I masterbated. At 27 I was asked if I veiwed porn before I was called as councilor in bishop, and again at 35 asked if I veiwed porn before called as HC. Both times I said no, but my fingers were crossed and no spirit stepped in to tell anyone no. These questions are not standard, so to assume every bishop asks them only looks like people have an axe to grind with the church and they lose credibility.

. . . whether you supposedly were never asked them yourself. Do not project your claimed experiences (coupled with your stated desire that Romney be elected) on to a template that only serves to cover Mormon tradition and practice in these matters.

Otherwise, you are no better than Mormons apologists, in terms of the results you wish to produce; namely, support through ignorance.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2011 07:05PM by steve benson.

I am not trying to be an ass, but I know for a fact that the church handbook of instructions for the last 12 years does not talk about bishops asking these questions. I am not saying some bishops do anyway, but if you are going to attack someone, there needs to be evidence.

If it is not in the handbook of instructions, there is no way to know if Mitt did this or not.

I turned 12 in 1986, so I have had to go through the twice a year interviews with bishops for a long time, and never was I asked until I turned 19 and put in my mission papers. I was involved in bishoprics starting in 2000 and never did any of us ask about this in any interview that I am aware of. I have been away from the church for just over a year, and as someone who was on the fence for a while, when I would hear or read claims that I knew were not widely practiced nor condoned passed off as fact, it kept me in for longer than I should have. I know for a fact many mormons stay away from things they consider anti if they see things like this used and talked about like it is common and approved by the church.


Stick with the facts is all I am saying, no need to bring in opinions and speculation when talking about him specifically is all.

. . . which you are attempting to impose as a model for every single Mormon or ex-Mormon out there.

And by the way, your 12-year Handbook argument doesn't apply. Romney was reportedly a bishop starting back in 1981.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2011 07:32PM by steve benson.

not saying it doesn't happen, just saying not all bishops do it as it is not required by their manuals. There is plenty to put that keeps the credibility of the facts, without rumors and limited experiences by the few is all. Again, just my opinion as if I were active, still in church leadership and saw this in the story, it would not stand up with me and I would use it to discredit the story is all. My 13 year old son has yet to be asked this by any bishop either, as I just asked him about it.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2011 07:23PM by steve benson.

KC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If it is not in the handbook of instructions, there is no way to know if Mitt did this or not.

There will be if he did this and one or more of his former young charges is willing to talk on the record about it.

Given Mitt's appalling attitude toward women as a bishop/stake president, it wouldn't surprise me if he did ask these types of questions.

KC. I was 36 when you were 12. Mitt is older than I am, slightly. Basically, it was a question asked when I was in MIA as a teen girl. Also, if I had ever broke the law of chastity with a boy. Then, as an married woman, I was asked the oral sex question of from the Spencer W. Kimball years. I left Mormonism through the excommunication door in 1978 over Black PH ban and ERA, something you did not see through adult eyes. The questions of a supporter of the ERA women were even more intrusive in my court of love. Remember, these were just my my neighbors, not some boss giving me interview. HI grew up in Utah, and would be told by his 1st couns. to go to the bishops office for an interview after Sunday School. No one asked my parent's permission, nor did I think I had an option to say no to the bishop....who we always were told was the father of the ward.

If you, KC, did not get asked about masterbation as a teen... consider yourself lucky. Men neighbors should not be in closed door rooms with teen girls (or boys), asking about something many of us sheltered Mormon kids didn't even known what the word meant, in those days. I asked my boyfriend what masterbation was when I was 14 as a result of this.

Perhaps the CHI does not have an outline, but please don't think all of my friends and I did not know we would have the squirm factor in those interviews.

KC, we've had numerous reports on this board from current and former LDS who have been asked this question, often repeatedly. We've had reports of this happening from as young as age twelve and through the teenage years.

I have no doubt, based on these reports, that it is far from being a "rogue" experience. It may not have been your experience, but it is not uncommon at all.

Based on this question and other intrusive and inappropriate questions, some board members are now insisting on sitting in on bishop interviews with their minor children. I encourage that practice.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2011 07:09PM by summer.

I was a single, adult, Christian woman when I joined the Mormon Church. I wanted to experience all there was and so from day one planned on going to the temple when my one-year wait was up. In order to receive a TR, the bishop (also an adult convert) asked me all the usual questions about what I believe and who I associate with. He then asked me if I was keeping the Law of Chastity (which I thought was self-evident as a single Christian but yeah, I was naive) and went further to state that the LoC includes oral sex, as if, as a Christian, not to mention an adult, and a nurse, I wouldn't already know that. His face got all red and he apologized for asking, saying "I have to go through the written list", which outlined the specific questions he had to ask every member, no matter gender or background or current circumstances.

I think as a convert he had more of a clue than many bishops that his remarks were inappropriate and intrusive.

I had been a JW (as repressive in its way as Mormonism) and had attended a "fundamentalist" EV church, Plymouth Brethren, where they were very strict about women not speaking in church and covering their heads, as well as more mainstream EV groups that were nevertheless still "Bible-believing", i.e., strict on the fundamentals. In exactly zero of those churches did any male leader or any other member, male or female, ever once get anywhere close to asking me questions about my sex life (it would have been a short conversation!)

My take on the Mormon bishop was that he was obviously uncomfortable asking me such personal questions and even that he felt it was unnecessary but he was bound to jump through the hoops and obey every command. That's one of the big downsides of fundamentalist-type religious thinking: it blurs the boundaries of what is appropriate and entices people to ignore their own instincts and sense of propriety. That is how you get people doing and saying astonishingly inappropriate things. That hold that a church org has over its leaders and members, that the one would act or speak inappropriately on command and the other would submit to that, is one of the big scary things when it comes to deciding who is fit to hold high office or any other position that requires integrity and rational thinking, if said candidate is duty bound to bow to the dictates of their religion over and above other basic considerations.

PS: To ensure I got my main point across, the bishop had papers in front of him, which he consulted while he questioned me for my TR. He mentioned the list of questions he had to ask. Maybe he was a new bishop, I don't know, but he was making a big effort to do everything by the book, literally. He definitely had a list. He definitely felt uncomfortable with some of the questions but felt he had no choice but to cover each of them, with no room for varying it at all. Where did the list come from? The church I assumed then and now.

Even _if_ "rogue" leaders do their own thing, I still hold the Mormon Church responsible for what their in-charge people do. There are enough accounts from reasonable people about what goes on, some still members, some former members, that top church leaders should have a good idea about how things go. Enough church leaders are counselling members to leave their newly unbelieving spouses that it's a big issue. Top leaders could put a stop to that insanity, yet they choose not to. They could influence a lot of similarly wrong-headed "advice" or "counsel" being handed out by their untrained "clergy" yet they choose not to.

For that reason I choose to believe that the head honchos want things to be exactly as they are. This makes for contradictory, unfair, irregular leadership throughout the church. They must like it that way. More confusion, less accountability.

So, if bishops are asking inappropriate questions related to the sex lives of their members, starting in youth, following written lists of questions or going by word of mouth, that is coming from the top church leaders - they are either directing it or allowing it.

Who knows what horrendous tales of systemic abuse have yet to be brought into the light. Given the many examples throughout the rest of the planet, odds are that it also exists within Mormonism. Many personal accounts are told that foreshadow this eventuality.

Sorry for tangenting - that's just the way my brain works - absolutely *everything* connects to everything else!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2011 07:56PM by Nightingale.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2011 06:59PM by steve benson.

I suspect the press will come to a similar conclusion.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2011 07:24PM by steve benson.

I'd say that most religions don't like the idea of "any guy" performing roles of clergy, specifically determining and judging acceptable moral behavior (to Mormons, this mostly means sex).

So, not only did Mitt interview teens when he had the role of a layman church leader, he interviewed women and men. On a routine basis he questioned people to determine if they are following laws of chastity.

I don't think it would look very good for someone not trained as clergy or counselors in sexual behavior to shut themselves in a room with people and get the goods on what sex acts they might be doing in sin. He didn't even really know all the people he questioned.

It's creepy that Mormons are perfectly fine to allow random men in their organization to do this, yet they will NEVER allow a woman the same role.

Mitt held a church leadership job that required him to determine worthiness, including evaluating their sexual habits. He was OK with that and no doubt would be shocked that outsiders would see that as grossly inappropriate.

. . . in big-time denial over the LDS Church's tradition and practice of determining youthful sexual "worthiness" through the technique of invasive interviews of minors (not to mention intrusive questions flung at adults as to their own chaste comportment with the laws of the Mormon Lord).



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2011 07:54PM by steve benson.

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, not only did Mitt interview teens when he had
> the role of a layman church leader, he interviewed
> women and men. On a routine basis he questioned
> people to determine if they are following laws of
> chastity.

> It's creepy that Mormons are perfectly fine to
> allow random men in their organization to do this,
> yet they will NEVER allow a woman the same role.

When we lived in Michigan in the 70's and went for temple reccommends the Stake president asked me:- "Are you morally clean"

I said, "Yes."

And that bastard followed it with "And that means not sizing up Robert Redford."

Then the same bastard asked me why I didn't have any children.

But he never asked my husband those questions.

What an intrusive creep with an inappropriate sense of humor for that situation. Sheesh!

There is something about those "worthiness interviews" that destroys the ability to recognize boundaries.

I'm just angry that I somehow thought it was OK for some church clown to decide if I am moral at all.

Does Mitt still think this is acceptable behavior? How could he possibly answer that question and not have it be a problem?

I'd think it would be worth a reporter spending some time there to understand just how crazy mormonism really is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2011 07:41PM by knowitsfalse.

I was asked about masterbation in my baptism interview, when I was ordained to the aaronic priesthood, when I was ordained to the mel. priesthood, when I got my temple rec. by my BP and SP. and there were PH lessons on the subject of masterbation when I went to PH meetings. I heard it taught at PH general conf. several times. Who ever says that the church doesn't teach it is full of shit. Jim



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 11/21/2011 07:41PM by orphan.