The church should put rules in to the handbooks that bishops are required to adhere to. The specific questions that any bishop may ask someone, should be listed in the handbook. If a question isn't in the handbook, it shoudn't be asked of anyone. The members should be educated about what questions the bishop is limited to asking. Parents should be told in their interviews with the bishop, what questions will be asked of their children when they have their interviews. If a bishop exceeds his limits by asking questions of a minor that are not in the handbook, then the parents should sue the bishop personally. The church could then point to the handbook when they throw the bishop under the bus in court.
No surprise whatsoever. I especially related to his comment that he was afraid to tell his parents for fear he would get in trouble.
As an adult, I realized that I had been verbally sexually abused by my bishop when I was 17. I will never believe that he wasn't getting his jollies behind his desk while we were talking. At the time, all I could do was come out of that interview and cry and pray that I never had to go through another one.
I wanted to tell my parents that I didn't understand why he had to know so much--and I won't even get into the things he asked and the things he proceeded to tell me about sex. Years later when I talked to the guy who was my boyfriend at the time (because unfortunately he became my husband), he kind of laughed and said, "You think THAT was bad, you should have heard the things he said to me."
But he was a friend of my father's (later his business partner) and I knew that I'd get in trouble for even saying anything that sounded like I thought the bishop had done something wrong. My parents probably would not have believed me and even if they did, it didn't matter. He was the bishop and he was (in their eyes) a good man. And if holey the ghost told him to talk sexual to me, then he was inspired. I would probably have been the one who got a beating.
More years later when I was commanded to be at then-hubby's high council court I was so sickened by the things those men had to know so they could determine how "repentant" (Ha!) he was. I mean they couldn't determine that without knowing every sexual detail that I hadn't even heard up to that point.
The encouragement of sexual repression by the cult and the proliferation of the patriarchal superiority mindset is a dangerous combination and gives many of these guys what they feel is a safe setting and sexual outlet--be it interviews for YM/YW, temple recommends for baptisms, dance cards or anything else. As long as they can do it under the guise of it being part of their penishood duties, they justify it.
In the 1970's my sisters had to go through their "worthiness interviews" with the bishop. They were only 13 or 14 years old. Both were horrified at the questions, some of which they had no idea what the bishop was talking about. Questions about masturbation, oral sex, orgasms, etc. My little sister jumped up and screamed at the bishop, "I don't know what the fuck you are talking about but this is wrong!" "Fuck you!" and she walked out. When she got home she slammed the door and told our mother that she will never go back to that "g--Damned church." And she never did. My other sister had a similar experience and she also left the church as a direct result of that interview. How can anyone or any entity justify asking such intimate, personal questions of young girls? I hate this church and what it does to people- especially those who think they have authority over me or others. I remember the interviews I went through. I was terrified because of the questions I knew I would be asked, and I was asked about masturbation and all that. When I was on my mission, the mission president never asked me about how things were going, was I happy or anything a normal person would ask. No, the only question that asshole asked was "Do you have a problem with masturbation?" WTF?