What are they talking about here?

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/12/12/statement-from-the-lds-church-on-mormon-bishops-interviews/

Like discouraging bishops from asking about specific sexual actions? I assume they are talking about sex.

Like, would you jack it in a box? Would you jack it with a fox?

And then there is the whole encouraging parents to be in the foyer? Like that makes it okay to be with a minor alone in a position of authority over them grilling them about their sexuality.

It's basically a statement saying they're not going to change anything.

They just put flowery words around their refusal to change (or to acknowledge that such interviews are ridiculous in the first place, and have resulted in abuse in numerous cases), that's all.

And, of course, much insistence on relying on the imaginary "holy ghost," a stand-in for "whatever the bishop thinks."

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's basically a statement saying they're not
> going to change anything.


hie, maybe I am misunderstanding your post, but are you saying the petition and march (this month) will not change anything?

I read the article linked and understood it is from late 2017. Great post, OP, btw!

carameldreams Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> hie, maybe I am misunderstanding your post, but
> are you saying the petition and march (this month)
> will not change anything?

I don't know if they will or not.
However, as stated, the church's position is that they're already doing everything correctly, and there's no need for them to change how interviews are done.

That doesn't, of course, mean that efforts to get them to change should cease. The church has a history of asserting they won't change over and over again, until enough pressure builds up that they DO change. The more pressure, the better!

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That doesn't, of course, mean that efforts to get
> them to change should cease. The church has a
> history of asserting they won't change over and
> over again, until enough pressure builds up that
> they DO change. The more pressure, the better!

I whole heartedly agree. It pains me to think that religious beliefs trump child endangerment risks. This is invasive and traumatic and governments look the other way. The marrying of children because of cultural and religious beliefs is in the same vein. It is barbaric.

When society condones an individual as a child being questioned about their developing sexuality they do the individual a huge disservice and is detrimental to that development. Nothing like sexual repressions, shaming, and guilt creation to keep individuals controlled and regressed into being lifelong mental children when it comes to sex.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> When society condones an individual as a child
> being questioned about their developing sexuality
> they do the individual a huge disservice and is
> detrimental to that development.

But it isn't 'society'. The 'world' that LDS claims is against them is a lot more tolerant and loving, in general. Or just too busy to focus so much effort in creating commandments and controlling others.

'Society' in America would object to teens interviewed for a TR. But 'society' also rightly recognizes no one is forcing families to participate.

This is a free country when it comes to religious participation. It is never society's job to patrol religion. The child's consenting caregiver sends the child forth into religion. Not government or society.

The church cannot make anyone do anything. Does a Bishop pick up the child at their home for the interview? Drive them home afterward?

carameldreams Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 'Society' in America would object to teens
> interviewed for a TR.

I don't know. This is a grey area I think for many religious people. This is why they can get away with it.

> It is never society's job to
> patrol religion.

Often it does. What about religions wanting to do illegal things?

> The church cannot make anyone do anything. Does a
> Bishop pick up the child at their home for the
> interview? Drive them home afterward?

How is that relevant?

I'm giving my opinion. You seem not to agree. Okay.

Elder Berry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> carameldreams Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

> > It is never society's job to
> > patrol religion.
>
> Often it does. What about religions wanting to do
> illegal things?

Are parents handing over minors for an illegal activity? If so, why isn't this mentioned in the petition?

How are 'illegal things' relevant?

The Bishop can only interview teens who are brought to him. Willingly, or unwillingly, doesn't matter when you are a minor. If kids want to bring legal action against their parents for forced participation in illegal activities, there are no shortage of attorneys who would represent the teen(s).

But for something that is voluntary on the part of the parents, it will be a hard sell to 'society'. And the church knows it. Society would have to rescue kids from their parents, at best, and since there is no 'abuse', as defined by state and federal law in the current format of Bishop interview, there will likely be no changes.

The law judges deeds, not moral philosophy.

carameldreams Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are parents handing over minors for an illegal
> activity? If so, why isn't this mentioned in the
> petition?

I don't know where you are going with this.

> How are 'illegal things' relevant?

I think governments police religions based on legality.

> The Bishop can only interview teens who are
> brought to him. Willingly, or unwillingly,
> doesn't matter when you are a minor. If kids want
> to bring legal action against their parents for
> forced participation in illegal activities, there
> are no shortage of attorneys who would represent
> the teen(s).

Ok.

> But for something that is voluntary on the part of
> the parents, it will be a hard sell to 'society'.
> And the church knows it. Society would have to
> rescue kids from their parents, at best, and since
> there is no 'abuse', as defined by state and
> federal law in the current format of Bishop
> interview, there will likely be no changes.

Yeah, things are hard sometimes to do which are for the good of people.

> The law judges deeds, not moral philosophy.

Judging deeds involved moral philosophy. The law is people.

ificouldhietokolob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> carameldreams Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > hie, maybe I am misunderstanding your post, but
> > are you saying the petition and march (this
> month)
> > will not change anything?
>
> I don't know if they will or not.
> However, as stated, the church's position is that
> they're already doing everything correctly, and
> there's no need for them to change how interviews
> are done.
>
> That doesn't, of course, mean that efforts to get
> them to change should cease. The church has a
> history of asserting they won't change over and
> over again, until enough pressure builds up that
> they DO change. The more pressure, the better!

Thanks for clarifying. The church also has a history of not changing, despite pressure.

The minority of LDS parents are against the Bishop interviews in their current format/content.

Like many who posted before on other threads, we did not know what masturbation was until the bishop asked about it.

Many of us had the bishop tell us how it was done. Leading to curiosity and experimentation, for many, long before we'd done it on our own.

For specific sexual actions.

Pity the fool that says they petted or made out.

Bishops then ask....

Did you touch her breasts? Over or under her clothing?

Did you touch her elsewhere? How long? Did she have an orgasm? Did you ejaculate?

Who did you sin with? Where do they live? Will your stories match when I call her bishop?

Etc etc etc

when I was dealing with bishops about my gay boyfriend/husband. Too much sex talk with older men. If you knew me in person, you'd be shocked that they did this to me. I'm not someone who can comfortably talk about sex. THAT IS PERSONAL AND PRIVATE. I don't pray in front of people either. There are things I don't think are for public knowledge.

So when I went to get my TR from my stupid cousin as I was living at home. I had moved home to get away from the situation I was in--away from my gay boyfriend. It was killing me. So when my boyfriend decided to get married, then I had to deal with my cousin, who knew NOTHING of what had been going on. I felt extremely guilty for anything we had done such as French kiss.

And so he proceeds to ask me more questions than are listed including about things like "was there contention in our family." Here he was my dad's nephew. He was doing this on purpose. He always thought we were not as good as he was. He asked a lot of questions not on the list. I was traumatized. He wanted to postpone my wedding while my ex flew through his interviews with flying colors as he went to the bishops who knew what was going on. But me, I was made to feel like a piece of shit. Me. I had done everything right. I even questioned the bishop many times on his assignments and chose not to do what he asked for the most part, while he kept telling me we had to do it this way.

So my stupid cousin made me feel worthless. Later, I told him how wrong he was and I told his mother what he had done (she was really close to me as her daughter 3 days older than I had died from cancer at age 37 and so she turned to me and we were best friends). His attitude changed after that.

I loved it when he came to my parents' home and I was there, and he begged my dad to convince his mother that he wasn't a bad guy. ha ha ha ha I loved it.

But the damn bishop when I was growing up asked about masturbation every damn time. I didn't know what it was, especially at age 12. I thought if touched yourself "there" that was masturbation even if you were cleaning yourself or if by chance you had a damn itch. No lie.

Oh well. The damn bishops don't go by their stupid list and the GAs know they don't. I am really shocked they haven't been sued for this yet.

Being the proper authoritarian institution that it is, Mormonism doesn't want to encourage curiosity about ANYTHING. Don't wonder, don't ask questions. Only obey.

Love it. Don't be curious about your sex organs but don't be curious about ANYTHING related to your body, brain, existential angst because God.

Only be curious in the bounds God's servants have set which means never questioning your religion without protection of rubber biases. Wouldn't want a mind or body pregnant.

Heartless: totally!

TLC (The Lying Church): Interviews are held for a number of reasons, including for temple recommends, priesthood quorum or Young Women class advancement, callings to serve in the church or when a member requests to meet with a priesthood leader for personal guidance or to help them to repent from serious sin.

Member REQUESTS, or IS MADE to "confess"? Guidance to help them REPENT, from "Serious 'Sin'"? Who NEEDS HELP (growing up)? No one. JS didn't! He talked for God. Why talk to a man that claims to talk to God and spreads gossip like wildfire?

The LDS 'church' needs to REPENT from it's SERIOUS sins. Close down.

When are BISHOPS going to be interviewed, interrogated, vetted? When are children going to ask them about their petting/ pets (pet peeves)?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/16/2018 11:00AM by Tevai.

readwrite-LO Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When are BISHOPS going to be interviewed,
> interrogated, vetted?

Never. It would diminish their deluded grandiosity of "priesthood."