My Post:
Parent's, do you want your children learning about "bestiality" from your bishop? Talk to your leaders and your children!

Link to "Zelophehad’s Daughters | Lions and Tigers and Bears, Oh My!"( http://zelophehadsdaughters.com/2013/06/01/lions-and-tigers-and-bears-oh-my/ )

Comments
----------

(Offended TBM "friend") JB: Do you seriously think this happens everywhere? It doesn't. This is not a church issue. That was a problem with THAT individual. Yes, it's a known fact that some people tend to go overboard focusing on certain principles sometimes. This is no different than some Bishop asking if you drink caffeine. People have strong opinions. The church constantly hold many leadership meetings all the way up the chain to help train and teach people how to be better leaders. People in these callings are not perfect.

Sorry, but at this point you're just trying to find justifications for your actions and grab some attention. It's the equivalent of my daughter slamming the door over and over when I send her to her room. We get it! You have had issues and would no longer like to be associated with the church. But I highly doubt this was one of your issues. Why go down attacking others and burn bridges and relationships? This type of "information" you find and share has been around for years and your crusade to inform the "brainwashed masses" isn't anything new and is generally offensive.
--
Jonathan Ross (me) : No, I know it doesn't happen everywhere. Did you even read the article, at the bottom the mother explains positive actions the church can take to prevent bad apples from spoiling the pot. My goal here is to spread awareness that parent's need to be aware of what could happen and has happened several times in the past. Church policy can be changed to prevent putting children in dangerous positions!

---------
Some people!

The comments continue
--------
Uncle M : How about finding out about beastyality from your post? Why bring up something that is not a real problem? You have yet to answer any of my questions I posted for you. Oh but you won't cause that would mean that you would have to be honest and come up with a real reason for your nashing of teeth. Nothing you post has any value. Oh and since your a NOOB at being a parent.. I don't think ill worry about what my daughter will hear coming from my bishop. I am FAR more concerned about people like you, and kids at school trying to twist truth and make good things seam bad and bad seam good.
--
Jonathan Ross (me): You presume you deserve answers from me. I owe you nothing Uncle M, especially with the way I feel I've been treated by you. You said I would be a son of perdition, which puts me lower than rapers and murders, and I feel you are a deplorable human being for saying that to me. You have refused to read any of the material I posted which are the real reasons I left.
--
JB: I did Jon. Sorry I meant I address that but then I realized I was late for my carpool ride to work this morning and had to take off I did like some of the suggestions made. The problem is a lot of church members are pretty passive with many things and don't care until there is a problem. Most of the time that's fine because there are a lot of great bishops who know where to the draw the line and nothing happens. Really the responsibility should be on the parents like most things. Unfortunately kids fine out about this crap as soon as elementary school.
--

And more
-------------------
Uncle M : No read again.. I did not say you were a son of perdition, I said it puts you in the short line for it, but not actual are.. I've only questioned your motives and your lack of real conviction. But you don't believe in a "son of perdition" anyways so why so upset? I love you Jonathan, your my first nephew.. I was so proud to be an uncle at age 8. I don't read the articles because they are very old news. Nothing of value I found in them ages ago when I read them by different authors. Your problem is you believe all your problems came from everybody but yourself.

----
Jonathan Ross : I'm referring to http://mormonthink.com/personalstories/A_Letter_to_a_CES_Director.pdf ("Letter to CES Director") , which is not old news, it's dated April 2013
----
Jonathan Ross And this http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fexmormon.org%2Fd6%2Fdrupal%2FLetter-to-Elder-Holland-Book-of-Mormon&h=SAQFPBaY7
("My letter to Elder Holland re Book of Mormon (very long) | Recovery from Mormonism")
----
Jonathan Ross : And if I said you were spiritually worse than a murderer, wouldn't you be offended. Wouldn't you take that as an insult? Belief has nothing to do with my offense of your statement, merely association with people who have committed murder or rape. I know it's doctrinal to you, but that doesn't make it any less offensive to say.
----
SL : Jonathan, You posted earlier that what you wanted to do was have an "intellectual conversation" about the church using "real facts". Unfortunately, you are not following those rules yourself. Posting one-off experiences like this are just completely ingenuous and not "real facts". Because the fact is 99% of church leaders are good men, doing their best and have absolutely no ill will towards the youth they lead. Frankly, it's offensive to someone like myself who has been in leadership positions in the church and has had the opportunity to interview and talk with youth one-on-one. My Father was a Bishop and I am yet to find a better more caring person in this world than that man. I know you understand these are one-off situations, but constantly posting and harping on a few one-off experiences that people have had gives off the impression to non LDS folks that somehow these leaders don't have the kids best intentions in mind, which I think if you were being "intellectually honest" with yourself you would know that that idea couldn't be further from the truth.
----
Jonathan Ross : I was requesting that about doctrinal and historical discussions. I don't see how this is non-factual, it is a personal account of something that really happened. I am promoting educating parents of opportunities for abuse. I very much believe that these subjects shouldn't be approached in any sort of detail by bishops and parents need to know what could happen if they don't insist on being present for ALL of their childrens interviews. We've seen bad stuff happen in the Catholic church with it's priests, why is it impossible for that to happen in the LDS church, especially when the excuse for misdeeds is always "They are just imperfect men". There are currently 29,014 congregations in the church, with that many people there are a lot of opportunities to have bad apples.
----
SL : Nobody is denying the fact that with a church as large as ours, there could be a few bad apples out there. But frankly Jonathan, there are way more instances of sexual abuse from family members or neighbors than there have ever been from LDS Bishops. Does that mean you should never let your kids visit their grandparents, uncles, cousins, etc. on the off chance they could get abused? The likelihood of Mormon youths being abused or treated improperly by their Bishops is so minuscule it's simply is not a worry for me. Of course it "could" happen, but I choose to not live my life in constant fear of what "could" happen. The "non-factual" part of this is the intellectually dishonest idea you are trying to perpetuate that church leaders are pedophiles that can't be trusted. I too don't think Bishops should ask a 12 year old girl about beastiality, but I am also positive that this is again a "one-off" situation that 99.9% of youth in the church will never experience talking to their Bishops. It is painfully obvious that Bishops do much, much more good than bad for youth during one-on-one interviews. So why deny youth that beautiful opportunity to get counsel that could bless and direct their lives for good because of a few bad apples?
----
S_C : Please explain, with intellectual honesty, how you have any stake in how the Church conducts youth interviews, when you have made it clear that you intend to deny your own children the ordinances that would require them to sit through such an interview. Is it not better for parents of children who could possibly be affected by this to decide what is best for their children?

You claim to not want to start a religious debate, yet have done nothing but go out of your way to smear the Church and its leaders. Could your own life choices stand up to the microscopic scrutiny that you are imposing on the Church and all its leaders? Could you say that, before you left the Church, your own adherence to its teachings was so unassailable that your failure to live up to them could not have played a role in your disaffection? Since you ceased to believe in them, have you been so true to your new principles, whatever they may be, that no man could find fault with you?

Don't listen to them dude. You are dealing with brainwashed cultists that don't know any better. It is actually really sad.

Finally, a voice of reason, he's never been a "Mormon" but he's been around a lot of them:
----
T : I think that everyone here has to take a step back and realize that there are 3 areas in which people are commenting about: Religious doctrine, business side of church (and by business I mean running a church), and members. Unfortunately when the word "Mormon" gets mentioned in an article, and someone (Jonathan in this case) reposts it on their Facebook it could apply to all 3 areas, or it could apply to just one. The sad part is, how many of you would have commented had it said "Catholic" instead? Jonathan posts things about "Mormon" for the exact same reasons you all are commenting about his posts. It is something that is close to him. He feels inspired to share his experiences, much like you all get inspired to share yours. Regardless of the content, it's still inspiration. Why is his inspiration deemed negative church bashing, while yours deemed divine? Is inspiration only ok if it is in line with what you think? Be inspired regardless.

I love my non-member friends that have lived next to mormons :)
-------
J: To inject my two cents, here.

Rather than straw-manning Jonathan's argument here, I think there is something to be questioned. I have always found it FAR more appropriate for private counseling to be restricted to gender.

Spiritual advice is not diluted when given in front of more than one person. If the counseling session involves personal details that are intended to keep private, then I would argue that same-gender is the most appropriate.

I'm not targeting an interview between a female and a Bishop specifically but rather questioning the restrictions in place. I find it more responsible to err on the side of caution by establishing policies that protect all parties.

Granted, I know very little of the policies so I'm speaking quite generally here. The arguments made in this debate are just painting a picture that's a bit concerning to anyone that doesn't know the intimate details.

Anyone who has been in the church long enough knows that these questions--not just "are you morally clean" or "worthy"--are asked. The fact that a few bishops refrain from being inappropriate or that only some bishops cross such lines proves the very point of the FB page. KIDS SHOULD NOT BE BEHIND CLOSED DOORS WITH UNTRAINED ADULT MEN WHO HAVE FREE REIGN IN QUESTIONING THEM. ESPECIALLY WHEN THE KIDS ARE TAUGHT THESE LEADERS SPEAK FOR GOD. I know a young man who confessed masturbation to his bishop, who in turn tattled to his father in the stake presidency, who in turn began daily questioning of said son. It was SO psychologically destructive to him. As a college student I confessed masturbation and was made to stand and recite the YW's values. It was incredibly demeaning.

The TBM denials are incredibly dishonest. The TBMs all trying to push their sacred secrets under the dusty rug...deny, deny, deny. And...throw it all back on you, when the truth is that YOU are trying to look out for those left behind. If I were you, I would not respond to them, or if I did, with clipped words and absolutely no emotion. They are changing the subject. They are a distraction for the good you are doing and all their words say is that they are afraid your might be powerful and are trying to shut you up. Carry on!

The fact that even a "small percentage" of kids are being asked innapropriate questions would call for a change to protect even ONE child. The fact that mormons are more interested in protecting bishops than they are their own children screams brainwashed-unchristian-cult.

Exactly! Why would any parent want to wait and find out if their particular bish is the one that goes overboard??

This also doesn't touch on the issue of what happens when older teens commit sexual transgressions in the 16-19 year old category. I know plenty that have, and then have to go in an meet with their bishops to discuss so that they can become 'worthy' to go on missions in the future, or get married in the temple. Just because they are older teens, doesn't really make it any less inappropriate to ask about specific details of the sexual acts to ascertain how serious the punishment (ie. how long they have to wait to go on mission, or go to temple)



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/23/2013 12:25PM by dogeatdog.

I highly doubt it was just a few bishops that asked children/teens about masturbation and porn. I would say the majority of bishops asked about it. Should we create some sort of poll?

Even if they didn't ask it was implied that a child/teen should confess such things. Do you live the law of chastity? If you answer no to that question then of course a bishop will ask you to expand on that answer. A child/teen knows that masturbating and porn is against the law of chastity because it was taught to them again and again!

Bet this post and FB has created some phone call between senior executive management at the COB.

LDS legal should be reviewing RICO statutes right now.

Should not Chris Hansen from NBC "To Catch a Predator" be walking in the room during these bishop interviews?

Your uncle thinks it doesn't happen everywhere, eh? "The Church" rarely addresses such issues and would be unlikely to do so if it only happened once in a while. As far back as October 1978, N. Eldon Tanner addressed the issue in a General Priesthood talk entitled "The Blessing of Church Interviews."
_________________________

"Remember, you who conduct worthiness interviews are representatives of the Lord and you must conduct the interviews as the Lord himself would conduct them.

That is, there must be nothing immodest or degrading in your interview. Our interviews are not to be indelicate, or offensive, or pornographic in any way.

May I say here that occasionally we receive reports that a bishop or a stake president has been very indiscreet or indelicate in an interview, especially of married members.

It is not in order for a priesthood leader to list in detail ugly, deviant, or bestial practices and then cross-examine a member of the Church as to whether or not such things are practiced.

One of the General Authorities once interviewed a young man who had gone into the mission home who had made confession of a transgression which disqualified him from missionary service.

The General Authority was amazed at the sordid nature of what the young man had done and asked, “Where on earth did you get the idea to do things like this?” He was shocked when the young man answered, “From my bishop.”

During a preliminary interview for the young man’s mission, the bishop had said, “Have you ever done this? Have you ever done that?” describing every unworthy and depraved act he could think of. Such things had never before entered the young man’s mind, but they were in his mind now! The adversary put in his way the opportunity and the temptation—and he fell!"

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1978/10/the-blessing-of-church-interviews?lang=eng
_________________________

There's a lot of messed up information in that talk, but the point is, Tanner recognized this could be a problem way back in 1978. Some members will say, "See, 'The Church' addressed it. They've done their part." No, they haven't. As long as the questioning is required, encouraged, or tolerated by TSCC, they have NOT done their part.

The excuses of the faithful are repulsive. Like other posters on these threads have mentioned, if it happens once, it's one too many times. No one is expendable.

Perhaps one of the reasons members of a cult are protesting so aggressively is that the know this is an importent part of breaking down an individual so that it becomes strongly affiliated and aligned with the cult.

Taking their privacy, their thoughts, and feelings and reducing them to a checklist of do's and dont's by an authority figure inserted in between an individual and God. Thus if the individual desires to relate to god that individual must first please his agents.

The cult has power through the execution of this process. It seems that members and leaders of this cult would protest the amplification of their process to external observers and authorities and the suggestion to cult members that this is not proper for their children, thus giving them some thought to challenge their programming.

Well done.

...although we'd all like to ignore reality, we cannot ignore the consequenses of reality.


http://www.truthandgrace.com/mormonpredator.htm

http://www.charismanews.com/us/40000-mormons-boy-scouts-sued-for-sexual-abuse-of-minors

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865560897/Former-LDS-Church-employee-leader-charged-with-child-sex-abuse.html?pg=all

...there have been quite a few of these Church-related cases, many of which were not made public. Such as this jewel;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace_memorandum

...even thought the "State of Utah" found no "evidence" to support the charges, Pace himself believed there was merit to support, at least some of the accusations...read the actual memo to SCMC.

http://www.utlm.org/newsletters/no80.htm

People that turn a blind eye to abuse are just as bad as people that promote/execute it!

If there is a god, I hope these people burn in hell.

I laugh internally at these guys, they embarrass themselves and the church. I count the days until they remove their friendship from my Facebook. On the plus side, because I'm making these posts public I don't feel any guilt later posting these conversations on a blog, where others will know the crazy that is LDS.

Your Mormon facebook friends and family seem to be a bunch of wanna be intellectuals. They keep trying to use big words, but are using them wrong, and keep rushing back to gospel lore in order to argue with you. It is quite ridiculous

How do I find this FB page? I must not be using the right search terms, because nothing is coming up for me.

The Church of Scientology does something very close with their children. See http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/2012/06/katie_holmes_scientology_sec_checking_suri_tom_cruise.php

Look at the questions asked. This is all part of indoctrination and bending their minds. They actually have a scripted list of questions but based on the answers they lead to deeper questions. They are hooked up to a primitive lie detector, the E Meter vs LDS having God as the hammer. Same situation though, a person of unquestioned authority asks personal questions to teach subservience to the organization. By giving embarrassing answers you have given the organization control over you to some extent. Shame is powerful.

If I were a Bishop, I know I would never ever be with someone else's child behind closed doors. It looks so wrong and you never know if someone is going to claim something that is not true. think of all those bogus child molestation cases from day care centers in the 80s. This is why normal men don't do work with small children often. It is risky.

In the catholic confessional, there is a wall between the two people and it is anyounomus. The priest does not know who is in the other side and the priest does not ask questions but just listens to what the other party has to say and responds but they don't lead the process and it is not mandatory.

Oh! Just had a great idea... came from anther thread... one poster (gazelma?) asked WWJD... if jesus would sit these little ones on his lap and ask them if they masterbated.... if he wouldnt who do these non divine men think they are??
(paraphrasing)

Anyway....i have found sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words...and moaje shocking.... so....

someone should photoshop an artist picture of jesus with a little child on his lap with one of those cartoon bubbles asking if they masterbate. Now THAT would probably make the TBM mad as hell but the point is if they think that its blasphemy for thi.king that about the perfect savior....then its blasphemy for a normal man/bishop to do!!!

+1

And add the quote from N. Eldon Tanner that's noted in my post above:

"Remember, you who conduct worthiness interviews are representatives of the Lord and you must conduct the interviews as the Lord himself would conduct them."

How can they argue with one of their revered Brethren? Unless, of course, he was just speaking as a man.

http://www.lds.org/general-conference/1978/10/the-blessing-of-church-interviews?lang=eng

Question...since I don't have time to read all the posts...

Have any TBMs even addressed the subject of the FB page?? The sexual invasion/inquisition of 12yr olds???

Or are they conveniently ignoring -that- aspect of the FB page...that being the actual reason FOR the FB page.....

doesn't really matter if they've addressed it on the actual FB page...planting seeds is what matters most and a lot of TBM's won't comment publically anyway. I did see a comment on the original article from a TBM who said something like "well, you do have some interesting points I haven't thought about" Even if it takes awhile, I think it's worthwhile to keep sharing it

For Fallen Moroni

The campaign really needs a specific set of goals it's wants to accomplish too. That way it's not just an annoying page where everybody shares warm fuzzies for saying "This is baddd!", but something that we are trying to accomplish.

I agree about having specific goals and a call to action. Over the weekend I plan to draft key items for parents, for children (for those who happen to be on FB) and for the church itself.

I'm also thinking about drafting a petition.

Thanks,
Fallen Moroni

http://forum.newordermormon.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=32283

I know there has been some discussion here about updating the manual.

I think that is an awesome change that this TBM suggested. A few more drafts to cover things forgotten or missed, but that's an excellent start!

NOM's typically aren't TBM. Some are, most aren't. Just FYI. I think most of them find RfM to abrasive. I know I used to. A lot of them are in mixed faith homes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/23/2013 05:25PM by David Jason.

Thank you, missed that, saw that he was talking like a regular Mormon in his post, didn't consider the website's name. That's what I get for being enthusiastic (emotional). :-)

When a Bishop asks a young person, "Are you morally clean?" and the young person in candid guilt honestly says "No." what does the Bishop say next?

Can the bishop just ignore the negative answer? Of course not, the church would not allow it. The only thing the Bishop can do is pursue things. He will then ask, "What's wrong?" or "Do you need to confess something?" or "Tell me about it."

One way or another, If the Bishop doesn't directly ask a question about masturbation (or other sexual issue), the specific "sin" will still become an issue for confession, just as if he HAD asked about it more directly.

To argue that the church doesn't ask some specific sexual questions is a way of avoiding this reality: Specific sexual confessions necessarily follow from the general question, "Are you morally clean?"

It all results in the same outcome. A grown man, with no clinical justification or authority, asks a young person highly sensitive, sexual questions in a closed, unsupervised room.