Recovery Board
: RfM
Recovery from Mormonism (RfM) discussion forum.
I frequently see comments here that condemn Mormon leaders, bishops in particular, for the questions they ask members, especially in interviews with youth and with those who confess to certain "sins", such as sex outside of marriage, but especially in cases of rape or sexual abuse. There seems to be consensus that the individual bishop is a deviant and/or is using the opportunity to ask personal questions, usually relating to sex, for his own purposes.
As it seems so prevalent, that many bishops, in all different areas and countries, often or always ask such questions, to all age groups, I conclude that Mormon leaders (bishops, SPs, etc) have been instructed to proceed this way, rather than that so many of them are individually and separately doing this on their own. But there may be factors I am unaware of.
So my question is: Are Mormon leaders (or leaders-in-waiting) instructed to proceed this way in the face of certain events (YM/YW interviews at certain age levels, after a member has "confessed" to certain proscribed activities, in situations such as rape, etc)?
I assume they are so instructed, rather than that many individuals over decades have independently all engaged in this behaviour.
Also, I recall that during a bishop's interview, as a new convert, I was asked questions about "the Law of Chastity" as it related to my life. The bishop, also an adult convert, blushed as he apologized for the questions, saying "it's in the book" ["so I have to ask you whether I want to or not or whether it seems necessary or not"]. In particular, he asked me if I knew that "oral sex is sex". As a nurse, a longtime Christian familiar with the idealized moral standard, a living, breathing human being, I thought "duh" but merely bowed my head and said yes (haha).
I'm just checking my impression that bishops in particular are instructed to ask these questions, rather than that multitudes of bishops down through the years all independently, and creepily, and selfishly, have thought on their own to take every opportunity to ask questions of a sexual nature in every encounter possible.
Here is the post/thread that in particular has made me revisit this question I've had now for a long time. I'm just using it as an example of comments I have read here many times before about how bishops ask these questions for their own personal satisfaction. Too, I wanted to answer this comment, and query the premise, out of curiosity, not raging disagreement or judgement, but wanted to avoid hijacking or diverting the thread it was on, as my question is not pertinent to the OP (which is about a young Mormon woman having been raped):
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,865580,865793#msg-865793
I guess what I'm basically asking is whether that many Mormon bishops are acting out some perversion on their part or are they (some or most of them) proceeding as instructed by church officials/leaders. I do believe there is a major difference in the causes of each and it's important to me to know which way it goes. I know the result is the same, men in positions of leadership asking inappropriate questions that are potentially harmful in sensitive situations. They are likely being non-therapeutic and potentially damaging to the members who are expected to see their bishop regularly (at reaching certain age levels and other times of Mormon milestones, such as applying to go on a mission or needing a TR). Especially is this true of members who are conditioned to seek out their bishop when they encounter problems, from financial difficulties to spiritual challenges to incidents of abuse and rape. But as we know, bishops are untrained and not equipped to handle most or any of the major life issues that people grapple with daily. No wonder many bishops are forced to go by the book, literally, and no wonder members are not only not helped by their bishop's "counsel" but as in the situation described in the thread linked above, members are badly hurt by these untrained, unsupervised men who are called to be bishop, a crucial position well outside the bounds of the education, training, knowledge and life experiences of most of the men who act for years in this capacity in Mormon wards all over the world.
The bishop in the ward I attended, for instance, was a printer by trade, and a convert, so this calling was particularly challenging for him. On one occasion, facing a tough situation affecting three wards that I found myself inadvertently in the middle of, I went to ask his opinion and advice and the best he could do was tell me that I would need to talk to the bishops of the other wards as it was outside his area (bizarre, as two of the wards met in the very same building and the third was just up the street) but I wasn't allowed as I had to always go only to my own bishop, he said, and he wasn't about to discuss things with the other bishops either as it would break confidentiality, he said, so basically I could do nothing and he could do nothing, even though the situation was adversely affecting me and I was seeking a solution.
When they talk about a double bind in Mormonism, I would add in a few more numbers, like it's a triple bind or quadruple, or whatever number comes after that and describes the ping-pong effect of so much in Mormonism that bounces around and goes nowhere and makes your head hurt.
I don't know if all bishops would have given the same answer or if it mattered in the long term or even if his answer was the wisest approach and I know this example doesn't come close to the anguish others have experienced when they have major life problems and their bishops can't help them, and neither does this mysterious book of instructions. But it's just one example of all the situations I encountered in my three years inside Mormonism that I guess I'm still trying to work out.
I also wonder if many Mormon bishops actually realize they are vastly undertrained for the role they are trying to fulfil? If so, that would be even a bigger burden to cope with, I'm sure.
So, I vote for it being a case of being ill-equipped and undertrained and not so much that there are that many freakazoids in positions of leadership.
But I could be wrong.
(Edited for clarity, that's all).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2013 10:31PM by Nightingale.
As it seems so prevalent, that many bishops, in all different areas and countries, often or always ask such questions, to all age groups, I conclude that Mormon leaders (bishops, SPs, etc) have been instructed to proceed this way, rather than that so many of them are individually and separately doing this on their own. But there may be factors I am unaware of.
So my question is: Are Mormon leaders (or leaders-in-waiting) instructed to proceed this way in the face of certain events (YM/YW interviews at certain age levels, after a member has "confessed" to certain proscribed activities, in situations such as rape, etc)?
I assume they are so instructed, rather than that many individuals over decades have independently all engaged in this behaviour.
Also, I recall that during a bishop's interview, as a new convert, I was asked questions about "the Law of Chastity" as it related to my life. The bishop, also an adult convert, blushed as he apologized for the questions, saying "it's in the book" ["so I have to ask you whether I want to or not or whether it seems necessary or not"]. In particular, he asked me if I knew that "oral sex is sex". As a nurse, a longtime Christian familiar with the idealized moral standard, a living, breathing human being, I thought "duh" but merely bowed my head and said yes (haha).
I'm just checking my impression that bishops in particular are instructed to ask these questions, rather than that multitudes of bishops down through the years all independently, and creepily, and selfishly, have thought on their own to take every opportunity to ask questions of a sexual nature in every encounter possible.
Here is the post/thread that in particular has made me revisit this question I've had now for a long time. I'm just using it as an example of comments I have read here many times before about how bishops ask these questions for their own personal satisfaction. Too, I wanted to answer this comment, and query the premise, out of curiosity, not raging disagreement or judgement, but wanted to avoid hijacking or diverting the thread it was on, as my question is not pertinent to the OP (which is about a young Mormon woman having been raped):
http://exmormon.org/phorum/read.php?2,865580,865793#msg-865793
I guess what I'm basically asking is whether that many Mormon bishops are acting out some perversion on their part or are they (some or most of them) proceeding as instructed by church officials/leaders. I do believe there is a major difference in the causes of each and it's important to me to know which way it goes. I know the result is the same, men in positions of leadership asking inappropriate questions that are potentially harmful in sensitive situations. They are likely being non-therapeutic and potentially damaging to the members who are expected to see their bishop regularly (at reaching certain age levels and other times of Mormon milestones, such as applying to go on a mission or needing a TR). Especially is this true of members who are conditioned to seek out their bishop when they encounter problems, from financial difficulties to spiritual challenges to incidents of abuse and rape. But as we know, bishops are untrained and not equipped to handle most or any of the major life issues that people grapple with daily. No wonder many bishops are forced to go by the book, literally, and no wonder members are not only not helped by their bishop's "counsel" but as in the situation described in the thread linked above, members are badly hurt by these untrained, unsupervised men who are called to be bishop, a crucial position well outside the bounds of the education, training, knowledge and life experiences of most of the men who act for years in this capacity in Mormon wards all over the world.
The bishop in the ward I attended, for instance, was a printer by trade, and a convert, so this calling was particularly challenging for him. On one occasion, facing a tough situation affecting three wards that I found myself inadvertently in the middle of, I went to ask his opinion and advice and the best he could do was tell me that I would need to talk to the bishops of the other wards as it was outside his area (bizarre, as two of the wards met in the very same building and the third was just up the street) but I wasn't allowed as I had to always go only to my own bishop, he said, and he wasn't about to discuss things with the other bishops either as it would break confidentiality, he said, so basically I could do nothing and he could do nothing, even though the situation was adversely affecting me and I was seeking a solution.
When they talk about a double bind in Mormonism, I would add in a few more numbers, like it's a triple bind or quadruple, or whatever number comes after that and describes the ping-pong effect of so much in Mormonism that bounces around and goes nowhere and makes your head hurt.
I don't know if all bishops would have given the same answer or if it mattered in the long term or even if his answer was the wisest approach and I know this example doesn't come close to the anguish others have experienced when they have major life problems and their bishops can't help them, and neither does this mysterious book of instructions. But it's just one example of all the situations I encountered in my three years inside Mormonism that I guess I'm still trying to work out.
I also wonder if many Mormon bishops actually realize they are vastly undertrained for the role they are trying to fulfil? If so, that would be even a bigger burden to cope with, I'm sure.
So, I vote for it being a case of being ill-equipped and undertrained and not so much that there are that many freakazoids in positions of leadership.
But I could be wrong.
(Edited for clarity, that's all).
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2013 10:31PM by Nightingale.
It sounds like the Handbook of guilt and shame though is probably vague enough to cause wide berth of interpretation.
The bishop I liked the most and is still a friend of mine asked questions about my whoredoms, not because be wanted to. But to ensure that I could "properly repent."
If you put someone in charge who really gets off on confession - you are heading for major trouble.
The bishop I liked didn't like asking details, but he felt he needed to. That should be a red flag to anyone. Knowing that a nice guy feels obligated to make himself and myself uncomfortable. We both deep down knew it wasn't any of his business.
But that programming....
The bishop I liked the most and is still a friend of mine asked questions about my whoredoms, not because be wanted to. But to ensure that I could "properly repent."
If you put someone in charge who really gets off on confession - you are heading for major trouble.
The bishop I liked didn't like asking details, but he felt he needed to. That should be a red flag to anyone. Knowing that a nice guy feels obligated to make himself and myself uncomfortable. We both deep down knew it wasn't any of his business.
But that programming....
Thanks, RJ. I value your opinion.
Raptor Jesus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The bishop I liked didn't like asking details, but
> he felt he needed to. That should be a red flag to
> anyone. Knowing that a nice guy feels obligated to
> make himself and myself uncomfortable. We both
> deep down knew it wasn't any of his business.
>
> But that programming....
That is exactly how my bishop seemed, very uncomfortable but compelled to follow his calling's requirements to the letter, in this case literally, words from the book.
I specifically asked my bishop when is a person forgiven. His response? "When you ask to be". That didn't seem Mormon to me, not including the seemingly mandatory "process" of repentence so rife in Mormonism. I put it down to the fact that this bishop was a convert too. I liked his answer in that it fit with my previous understanding and beliefs from mainstream Christianity.
Too bad this bishop was distinctly in the minority when it came to being more hands-off and lenient when it came to people in crisis.
I was in his office to get a TR, not to confess. I doubt I would have done so, even if mandated, as I didn't believe in it. If I wanted to confess my innermost secrets to a man, I would have gone Catholic.
Or got married, I guess.
Raptor Jesus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The bishop I liked didn't like asking details, but
> he felt he needed to. That should be a red flag to
> anyone. Knowing that a nice guy feels obligated to
> make himself and myself uncomfortable. We both
> deep down knew it wasn't any of his business.
>
> But that programming....
That is exactly how my bishop seemed, very uncomfortable but compelled to follow his calling's requirements to the letter, in this case literally, words from the book.
I specifically asked my bishop when is a person forgiven. His response? "When you ask to be". That didn't seem Mormon to me, not including the seemingly mandatory "process" of repentence so rife in Mormonism. I put it down to the fact that this bishop was a convert too. I liked his answer in that it fit with my previous understanding and beliefs from mainstream Christianity.
Too bad this bishop was distinctly in the minority when it came to being more hands-off and lenient when it came to people in crisis.
I was in his office to get a TR, not to confess. I doubt I would have done so, even if mandated, as I didn't believe in it. If I wanted to confess my innermost secrets to a man, I would have gone Catholic.
Or got married, I guess.
This is just my opinion, based on personal experience:
I think there are some genuinely good men who are bishops. However, the vast majority I have had contact with, are full of their own visions of the "power" they hold as judges in Israel. For some of these men, imo, the blend of having control over someone's religious life plus the temptation of voyeurism (via forced "repentance"),into the bedrooms of members, (especially women/girls) is basically a free pass for all kinds of abuse. Spiritual, emotional, physical, sexual, you name it.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The fact that there is no check on priestcrafthood power= recipe for disaster.
Throw in the M of F., and well.....
I think there are some genuinely good men who are bishops. However, the vast majority I have had contact with, are full of their own visions of the "power" they hold as judges in Israel. For some of these men, imo, the blend of having control over someone's religious life plus the temptation of voyeurism (via forced "repentance"),into the bedrooms of members, (especially women/girls) is basically a free pass for all kinds of abuse. Spiritual, emotional, physical, sexual, you name it.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The fact that there is no check on priestcrafthood power= recipe for disaster.
Throw in the M of F., and well.....
I don't know much about the inner workings.
I always excuse myself due to having been a convert or more exactly, a short term member, as I didn't exactly convert in that I could never consider JS a prophet. They told me, from the bishop down to the mishies, that it didn't matter.
All righty then.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2013 08:29PM by Nightingale.
I always excuse myself due to having been a convert or more exactly, a short term member, as I didn't exactly convert in that I could never consider JS a prophet. They told me, from the bishop down to the mishies, that it didn't matter.
All righty then.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/18/2013 08:29PM by Nightingale.
Miracle of Forgiveness. Or It'll be a Miracle if You're Ever Forgiven.
Dirty book.
Dirty book.
when a bishop uncomfortably questions because he is instructed, it says a lot about leadership qualities.
rubber stamping is not leading.
rubber stamping is not leading.
Good question. You'd think they'd be getting pretty gun-shy of exposing themselves to lawsuits stemming from sexual abuse and pedophilia...
In the early '80s, the substitute teacher of a class I'd never taken felt free to ask me in private if I touched myself 'down there' for physical pleasure when 'interviewing' me for a necrodunk TR. He seemed as genuinely uncomfortable as I was. But I was 13/14 so I can't give too much credence to how well I read him. For all I know he was a consummate actor trained in the pedophilic arts and I was just an innocent, trusting kid with a misplaced trust in the word 'bishop'.
A few years after that, the fast-food franchise owner who asked me if I 'kept the law of chastity' (without further elaboration or description) when I was 17 seemed far less uncomfortable than the substitute teacher. In him, I sensed it was far more about rigid obedience and authority -- as in, he wouldn't necessarily get off on whatever detail I might have to confess as much as he'd swoon over the chance to shame, lecture and threaten me, regardless of the subject matter. Again, I have no idea if my first impression was correct, but that's what it was.
I lied both times, mainly out of the fear of my parents finding out about my minor - and normal - teenage indiscretions.
In retrospect, I'm continually gratified in knowing that such childhood 'dishonesty' was utterly appropriate in that none of it was any of their goddamned business in the first place.
In the early '80s, the substitute teacher of a class I'd never taken felt free to ask me in private if I touched myself 'down there' for physical pleasure when 'interviewing' me for a necrodunk TR. He seemed as genuinely uncomfortable as I was. But I was 13/14 so I can't give too much credence to how well I read him. For all I know he was a consummate actor trained in the pedophilic arts and I was just an innocent, trusting kid with a misplaced trust in the word 'bishop'.
A few years after that, the fast-food franchise owner who asked me if I 'kept the law of chastity' (without further elaboration or description) when I was 17 seemed far less uncomfortable than the substitute teacher. In him, I sensed it was far more about rigid obedience and authority -- as in, he wouldn't necessarily get off on whatever detail I might have to confess as much as he'd swoon over the chance to shame, lecture and threaten me, regardless of the subject matter. Again, I have no idea if my first impression was correct, but that's what it was.
I lied both times, mainly out of the fear of my parents finding out about my minor - and normal - teenage indiscretions.
In retrospect, I'm continually gratified in knowing that such childhood 'dishonesty' was utterly appropriate in that none of it was any of their goddamned business in the first place.
I've sat in on about 20 disciplinary councils. Information directly from the handbook is between the lines. My notes are prefaced with a #.
#The following is all the guidance there is on bishops interviewing members about transgressions:
----------------
A bishop interviews any member of his ward who confesses or is accused of a serious transgression. If the member confesses the sin, either on his own or as a result of an accusation from someone else, the bishop responds with love and understanding. He encourages the member to seek the Lord’s forgiveness, forsake the transgression, and make restitution. If the sin may be serious enough to require formal Church discipline, the bishop explains this to the member (see 6.7).
If a member denies an accusation that the bishop has reliable evidence to support, the bishop (or the stake president if the member is a Melchizedek Priesthood holder who is likely to be excommunicated if the accusation is true) gathers further evidence that would confirm or disprove the accusation. The presiding officer may conduct the investigation himself, or he may assign two reliable Melchizedek Priesthood holders to do so. However, leaders should not investigate individuals or matters while they are the subject of investigation by law enforcement authorities. For guidance in such circumstances, the stake president seeks legal advice from the Church’s Office of General Counsel or from the area office as instructed in 17.1.26.
Priesthood leaders who conduct an investigation should not use methods that are unbecoming to priesthood holders or that could result in legal action. For example, they must not use electronic surveillance devices, hidden cameras, or recording devices. They also must not maintain a watch on a member’s home.
----------------
#The bishop *only* needs to get enough information to find out if a disciplinary council should be held. Here are the things to make that determination:
----------------
When a Disciplinary Council May Be Necessary:
Serious Transgression
Abortion
Transsexual Operation
When a Disciplinary Council Is Mandatory:
Murder
Incest
Child Abuse
Apostasy
Transgressor Who Is a Predator
Pattern of Serious Transgressions
Serious Transgression That Is Widely Known
----------------
#Once a disciplinary council is to be held, the council only needs enough information to use the following considerations in making a decision of what to do:
----------------
Violation of Covenants
Position of Trust or Authority
Repetition
Magnitude
Age, Maturity, and Experience
Interests of the Innocent
Time between Transgression and Confession
Voluntary Confession
Evidence of Repentance
Judgments about the adequacy of a person’s repentance require spiritual discernment. Factors to consider include the nature of the confession, depth of sorrow for the sin, success in forsaking the sin, strength of faith in Jesus Christ, faithfulness in obeying other commandments, truthful communications to Church officers, restitution to injured persons, obedience to legal requirements, and willingness to follow the direction of Church authorities.
----------------
#As you can see, there really is no need to get a lot of details. Luckily the bishops I worked with were not probers. That got the information they needed to make the decisions. We had a women who was being disciplined for repeated forays with a menage a trois. If the bishop was kinky, he certainly could have asked some specifics. But he just asked the frequency and the names of the others if they were members (you're supposed to tattle on to their bishop).
So, from my experience, when the bishops asks in-depth details, they're most likely moving into the pervert realm.
#The following is all the guidance there is on bishops interviewing members about transgressions:
----------------
A bishop interviews any member of his ward who confesses or is accused of a serious transgression. If the member confesses the sin, either on his own or as a result of an accusation from someone else, the bishop responds with love and understanding. He encourages the member to seek the Lord’s forgiveness, forsake the transgression, and make restitution. If the sin may be serious enough to require formal Church discipline, the bishop explains this to the member (see 6.7).
If a member denies an accusation that the bishop has reliable evidence to support, the bishop (or the stake president if the member is a Melchizedek Priesthood holder who is likely to be excommunicated if the accusation is true) gathers further evidence that would confirm or disprove the accusation. The presiding officer may conduct the investigation himself, or he may assign two reliable Melchizedek Priesthood holders to do so. However, leaders should not investigate individuals or matters while they are the subject of investigation by law enforcement authorities. For guidance in such circumstances, the stake president seeks legal advice from the Church’s Office of General Counsel or from the area office as instructed in 17.1.26.
Priesthood leaders who conduct an investigation should not use methods that are unbecoming to priesthood holders or that could result in legal action. For example, they must not use electronic surveillance devices, hidden cameras, or recording devices. They also must not maintain a watch on a member’s home.
----------------
#The bishop *only* needs to get enough information to find out if a disciplinary council should be held. Here are the things to make that determination:
----------------
When a Disciplinary Council May Be Necessary:
Serious Transgression
Abortion
Transsexual Operation
When a Disciplinary Council Is Mandatory:
Murder
Incest
Child Abuse
Apostasy
Transgressor Who Is a Predator
Pattern of Serious Transgressions
Serious Transgression That Is Widely Known
----------------
#Once a disciplinary council is to be held, the council only needs enough information to use the following considerations in making a decision of what to do:
----------------
Violation of Covenants
Position of Trust or Authority
Repetition
Magnitude
Age, Maturity, and Experience
Interests of the Innocent
Time between Transgression and Confession
Voluntary Confession
Evidence of Repentance
Judgments about the adequacy of a person’s repentance require spiritual discernment. Factors to consider include the nature of the confession, depth of sorrow for the sin, success in forsaking the sin, strength of faith in Jesus Christ, faithfulness in obeying other commandments, truthful communications to Church officers, restitution to injured persons, obedience to legal requirements, and willingness to follow the direction of Church authorities.
----------------
#As you can see, there really is no need to get a lot of details. Luckily the bishops I worked with were not probers. That got the information they needed to make the decisions. We had a women who was being disciplined for repeated forays with a menage a trois. If the bishop was kinky, he certainly could have asked some specifics. But he just asked the frequency and the names of the others if they were members (you're supposed to tattle on to their bishop).
So, from my experience, when the bishops asks in-depth details, they're most likely moving into the pervert realm.
Satan Claus Wrote:
> So, from my experience, when the bishops asks
> in-depth details, they're most likely moving into
> the pervert realm.
I was the one who made the comment to which the OP is referring ... and this response backs it up pretty well.
No trained clergyman would behave that way. No one outside of a medical professional or law enforcement officer should be asking those sorts of questions. A trained clergyman would refer a rape victim to a psychiatrist/psychologist for professional counseling beyond what s/he is able to provide.
> So, from my experience, when the bishops asks
> in-depth details, they're most likely moving into
> the pervert realm.
I was the one who made the comment to which the OP is referring ... and this response backs it up pretty well.
No trained clergyman would behave that way. No one outside of a medical professional or law enforcement officer should be asking those sorts of questions. A trained clergyman would refer a rape victim to a psychiatrist/psychologist for professional counseling beyond what s/he is able to provide.