Seriously flawed thinking from some of the TBMs in my life. I was saying how I thought it was inappropriate that a middle aged banker/lawyer/businessman with no training in religion or counselling could take my teenage son or pre-teen daughter behind closed doors and ask deeply personal, sometimes sexual, questions of them. The response I got back "Well, it wouldn't bother you if you didn't think your kids were doing something wrong. They shouldn't be upset about answering the bishop's questions unless they have something to hide." The implication of this is, that if I object to letting the bishop interview my children, it's because I know they are breaking the commandments and the only reason it's upsetting is because they got caught. Innocent people have nothing to fear from any question that the bishop poses.

I've resorted to taking another angle on this and saying, "I'm surprised the church allows this, with all the times the Boy Scouts have been sued, and the Catholic priest scandal, and the way they are so careful about two-deep leadership in Primary. You'd think they'd do something to protect their bishops from false accusations too." That messes with their minds a little. But it's totally annoying - the idea that if I resent being interrogated it's because I've got something to hide, not that the bishop and the questions are way out of line.

The people saying these things fail to recognize a critical point:

Our children our sheltered from questions of a sexual nature not because we fear they are actually doing something wrong but because we don't want them dwelling and thinking about it. THEY ARE INNOCENTS AND WE WOULD LIKE THEM TO REMAIN FULLY INEXPERIENCED AND KNOWLEDGEGABLE UNTIL THEY ARE ADULTS!

All the child needs to be asked in a worthiness interview is "Are you keeping the laws of chastity?" There is no need to go in depth on all of the sexual acts and deviances that a person could engage in. Only a pervert or sicko asks these questions. There is nothing "holy" or "sacred" or "dutiful" about this action!

As an ADULT I don't want to be asked those questions, so why in the world would it be ok to ask a child these questions?

The ultimate question here is: Would Jesus ask these kinds of questions of a child? NO! Would Joseph Smith ask these kinds of questions of a child? Yes, Most likley.

And therein lies the problem...

A person, child, whoever should learn to get their worth from themselves. The should not need anyone else, most especially a man with fake authority, to judge if they are worthy!!! What does that even mean? Worthy of what? Gods love? Blessings? Worthiness interviews serve a purpose of teaching the children to look to the church or some other outside source for the source of their self worth. THIS IS SO BAD FOR THE KID!!!

I think it is the most damaging part of the mormon "church."

No one should have a worthiness interview. Disgusting practice.

The situation and tone of the questioning give kids the wrong message.

That's the point.

The sweetest, purest, most innocent kid on earth is put in a situation of having to prove they're not guilty of something they wouldn't even be thinking about except for the probing questions of a rank amateur cleric who is in a position of power to protect the organization over the needs and sensibilities of kids.

I object to this practice because it sets children up to be potential victims by establishing the belief that any adult has the right to control the agenda on intimate personal issues and the child has no right to refuse.

My smart son, the one who left the church first, realized the harmful potential a 'confession' could do to his standing in the church.
The Bishops whom he'd known all his life as electricians, School principles, ranchers, etc. would have gossiped and held him back from any real progression in the leadership of the church. He would have been 'profiled' and he knew it.
Also he is an upright honest sort of fellow and you just can't be straight up and truthful in the church and get along.
The TSCC does not like forthrightness and persecutes it while claiming to be honest and liking the 'truth'.
Why I never could be a 'good Mormon'. . . I had too much honesty and integrity... both will get you no where in the church real fast!

I agree. That is stupid thinking on their part. No one without counseling training has any business speaking to children about personal/sexual issues when they are still in the stages of growth. And then as adults I say all of them are stupid to sit and answer any question by a Bishop of that nature. YOU (active Mormon )are the stupid one. I would never attend in the first place and sit there as a lowly individual that needs to be questioned. These issues are between you and God. No middle man.

Anyone who would say that would probably stand there and watch your children be abused and do nothing about it, even justifying it by saying it's for their own good.

I'd keep my children the hell away from the influence of people like that.

"It wouldn't bother you if ..." is used to justify the violation of rights or boundaries in the name of in the misguided attempt to keep people in line.

Yeah, "it wouldn't bother you if...you're not a terrorist (Jew, gypsy, commie, gay, masturbater, apostate, etc. )."

Fascism and theocracy---both go for total control.

Interestingly enough, I had a bishops interview that relates to this subject. Thanks to an extremely confusing and sub-par "Talk" with my mother, she led me to believe that masturbation included thoughts about sex. When I was 12 I became convinced (obviously) that I was masturbating. No inquiry on my family's part, or discussion that masturbation entails ACTUALLY touching oneself, just an appointment with Bish. "Where does it happen?" "How often?" "When?" Those were the questions I was asked, and in retrospect extremely creepy coming from a 55+ year old man. Sickening... it has taken me a long time to get over that.

A few years ago, when Bill O'Reilly was defending the 'warrantless wiretaps' that were being conducted during the GWBush administration (and maybe still are), he said, "What's wrong with them listening in on your conversations? If you're not doing anything wrong, what do you have to hide?"

I thought it was very ironic and strange that O'Reilly pretends that he wouldn't mind other people knowing what he's saying (and doing) while he was on the telephone, considering the trouble he had (and what it co$t him) when he was talking dirty and mastubating while on the phone with one of his female employees...

I tell people who think these private interviews are okay that, as an attorney, I would never agree to having my husband serve as a bishop.

Why? The potential lawsuit that could arise out of a one-one-one situation behind closed doors where dh, a mature man, is speaking with an underage teenage girl about sex. Good heavens! Who in their right mind thinks that is a legally defensible situation? How would dh defend against a baseless accusation of abuse by an underage girl? It's a total "he said, she said" situation, and the average juror is going to believe the girl.

We would never put our personal assets on the line for him to serve. We know TSCC would never be there with money to settle. And our homeowners' liability policy would not kick in due to the intentional nature of any alleged indiscretion.

It's unbelievable to me that, in this day of lawsuits over everything, any man puts himself in this situation and any wife lets him.

Many of them are things I didn't think to bring up with them, although reasoning with these particular TBMs is always an exercise in futility. I think it's outrageous how they try to make you feel like you are bad when you try to set boundaries. As if there must be something wrong with you if you demand to be treated with respect and want personal space.