Today’s guest post is from Anonymous Former Bishop.
The following is a heavily edited version of a letter I sent to Elna Baker of the radio show This American Life:
Dear Elna Baker,
I recently listened to the This American Life podcast “But That’s What Happened,” which focused on your exploration of bishops’ youth interviews within the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The episode bothered me a great deal, and I felt like I should respond to you. I don’t normally do this sort of thing, but I keep thinking about it, so here goes.
I am an active, believing member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and I was released as a bishop a couple years ago. Your piece did bother me enough that it’s been several days since I heard it and I’m still thinking about it. I am familiar with some of your work going back several years, and I have followed your transformation from “Mormon girl in the big city” to “former Mormon with the inside critique.” I feel I relate to and sympathize with you. So, I’ve had to consider that the reason I was so bothered by your critique of the bishops’ youth interviews might be that “the truth hurts.”
I’ve thought of all the interviews I did over 5 years. It’s really disturbing to think that maybe I made some kid feel as uncomfortable as you and others describe. Don’t get me wrong, I didn’t talk about sex with Beehives (12, 13-year-old girls) or ask people if they masturbated, but I definitely had some ashamed young women confess to me, and it wasn’t always immediately clear what they were confessing. Some could hardly speak when it sounded like all they had done was make out, but others had done things that would make any parent cringe, such as giving blow jobs at parties. As bishop, if you’re going to help them navigate through these things, you have to ask — you can’t just assume. Clearly, the way you do that can affect people.
I can’t deny that these young women who confessed to me were vulnerable. But that same vulnerability that opens them to harm also opens them to healing. The idea that bishops’ interviews can lead to healing may sound crazy to you, but your world view has changed a lot since you were young, particularly with respect to sex. The culture that you’re immersed in now has the attitude that when it comes to sex, anything and everything is okay between consenting individuals. From this perspective, a bishop’s interview is reduced to a coercive power differential.
The emotions associated with sex can be very powerful (especially for the young and inexperienced) and tie into a sense of well-being, self-worth, and connection. Misuse of sex can lead to misery in all of those senses, even when no coercion is involved. Continued misuse can lead to a desensitization to the human bonding that is supposed to come from sex. I believe God gave us sexual expression specifically to reinforce marital bonds, and that engaging in sex with one’s spouse and not engaging in sex with anyone else contributes to a better sense of well-being for individuals and connectedness for couples.
I felt like, as bishop, I was given a unique opportunity to help young people navigate their experiences, sometimes including their budding sexuality. For example, as her bishop in a private interview, I tried to help the young woman “guilty” of passionate making-out understand the emotional component of her sexuality, defuse the shame she didn’t need to feel, recognize her passion as a good thing, and suggest she might be happier saving it for her someday fiancé, since actual sex was reserved for her husband. I was also able to help the young woman giving blow jobs at parties understand that by trying to increase her value in other people’s eyes, she was lowering it in her own. I assured her she was both loved and lovable, and with my encouragement she shared some of what she was going through with her parents, who then gave her more support. These private and confidential interviews provided these young women a safe place to talk through these things. I can’t say for sure how much I helped personally, but there is a sort of ceremonial aspect to “talking to the bishop” that can be helpful in and of itself.
Most bishop’s youth interviews don’t involve confessions or questions about sex (other than the simple “Do you keep the Law of Chastity?”), but those that do are each unique. The easy confessions were the ones where people were truly penitent and humble, genuinely wanting to put themselves right with God. The Spirit was always present during these interviews, and I felt like I always knew what to say. The hard ones were when people confessed as a matter of form or requirement, or just to assuage some guilt, but weren’t truly repentant. They’d often hold back. “Yes, I saw some pornography on my phone one or twice. I feel bad about that. I won’t do it any more,” a young man might say. But even if a kid feels badly about that, most wouldn’t confess to his bishop, he’d just stop doing it. Unless, of course, it was a bigger problem than what he originally let on, and it was really weighing on his conscience. What do you, as bishop, do? You ask. You try to understand how big of a problem it is. Masturbating to porn on the weekdays and blessing the sacrament on Sunday is a kind of hypocrisy that isn’t good for the soul, and yet isn’t uncommon. A half-baked confession isn’t going to help resolve this kid’s internal conflict, or help him feel right before God, and as a bishop, that’s your goal.
Taking this example, let’s see where the story can end up going: 1) the young man confesses fully, establishes practices to change his behavior, receives support, improves, and feels cleaner and happier; or 2) he may or may not confess fully, may or may not try to change his behavior initially, but eventually decides he’s not giving up masturbating to porn and that he shouldn’t feel bad about it because it’s completely normal [1]. So what becomes his perspective on his bishop? In the first case, the bishop is a helpful and supportive sounding board who probably won’t figure prominently in the kid’s future memories; in the second, the bishop is an institutionally empowered busybody sticking his nose into a young person’s personal business and making an unhealthy religion even more unhealthy. The bishop’s behavior could be exactly the same in both cases, but the resulting narrative is dramatically different depending on the teenager’s perspective.
That’s not to say that bishops are always guiltless, or that none of them are ever tempted by titillating details. As part of your radio interview, there’s a story about a young woman confessing a sexual sin to her bishop and him coming around the desk and putting a hand on her knee. As described, the bishop sounded voyeuristic and creepy as hell. It made me nauseous. But was he really being creepy or was he attempting to give comfort?
Shortly after I was called as bishop, an email went out from the stake president to all the bishops in the stake. One of the bishops in the stake had hugged a woman in his office and she’d felt he’d been inappropriate. We were given no details, but we were instructed not to hug women from then on. For the next three years I made it a point never to make physical contact with any woman I met with behind closed doors. Time after time, I would meet with women struggling with personal or family problems, baring their souls, desperately seeking for some sort of guidance to make things better, and some of them doubting whether anybody including God could ever love them again. After talking, I’d open the door, shake their hand, and wait for them to leave. It felt cold and clinical. I eventually decided that sometimes you have to risk being misunderstand and simply allow someone to cry on your shoulder while you assure them that God loves them and that they are not alone. After all, I did that with the men. I decided I needed to do that with the women too.
I was wary and careful, usually opting for a one-armed side-hug. I don’t think I ever misjudged and made anyone feel uncomfortable… but how could I really know? Somebody might have been grateful in the moment, only to second guess it later. When it comes to that bishop’s hand on that young woman’s knee, I have no idea whether whether it was meant to be reassuring or was as creepy as described, and probably nobody would know except the bishop himself. [2] And we can’t know his side of the story.
The part of your radio piece I found unfair, is when you challenged the church spokesperson to issue an apology for how you were subjected to bishop’s interviews growing up. You wanted to know why the Church didn’t instruct bishops on exactly what they were allowed to ask. The Church representative maintained that bishops were directed not to probe too deeply, but that what was appropriate depended on the situation. You wanted him to acknowledge that there was a problem, or else the church wouldn’t have changed the policy to allow parents to participate, and that he should apologize on the church’s behalf for that problem. This he declined to do. He only said the church was trying to improve things. You again requested an apology, and the silence hung.
Let me ask you a question. Do you believe that the objective of the Church leadership was to give middle-aged men voyeuristic power over vulnerable young women? Or do you believe they were genuinely trying to put in place policies and practices they felt would benefit the Church’s adherents? I suspect you believe the latter, but consider church leadership to have been arrogantly negligent about the harm they were enabling. You believe there should be an apology for this negligence. Knowing that you’ve publicly expressed that you have left the Church and that you feel the Church’s doctrines and practices have harmed you, have you asked your parents to apologize for raising you Mormon? If not, why not? Were they not just as arrogantly negligent? My guess is that you still believe your parents tried to do their best for you, even if you feel they were mistaken.
It is true, as you stated, that many Church leaders have taught that sexual sin is next to murder in seriousness, but I believe that comes from a misinterpretation of Alma chapter 39. The prophet Alma had brought his son, Corianton, along on his travels to preach to a group of people, and while there, Corianton had abandoned his ministry and chased after a “harlot.” Alma wanted Corianton to understand the seriousness of his sin, but it wasn’t just the sex act that was so serious; it was that when the people saw Corianton’s behavior, they would not believe Alma’s words. The “sin next to murder in seriousness” was that Corianton, in his privileged and elevated position, had satisfied his own selfish desires in such a way that led others away from accepting the gospel of Jesus Christ. If you want more on this interpretation, see this article for a fuller explanation. [3]
I hope the number of bishops who are genuine creeps is vanishingly small, but that may not be the case. I suspect bishops who have indulged their creepiness, and caused those whom they were supposed to shepherd to abandon their faith, have themselves committed the sin next to murder in seriousness. I hope to God that I never did anything as bishop that caused someone to lose their faith–it is literally one of my greatest fears. Anyone who has been blessed with knowledge of the gospel, who then misuses that power and influence thereby leading others astray is guilty of serious sin, whether that’s Corianton, a bishop, a former church member, or one of the highest leaders.
I do believe that Church leadership genuinely wants to help people. I wouldn’t be surprised with all the changes the church has been making lately if there are further changes to bishop’s worthiness interviews. Maybe women will even someday be confessing to women. Having grown up in the church and been interviewed by many a bishop, and having sat on the other side of the desk for 5 years, I think there’s merit to the current process, even as it is.
As for serving as a bishop, it was a fantastic experience for me personally. Never in my life have I felt God’s love stronger than I have in one-on-one interviews in the bishop’s office. It wasn’t His love for me I felt — it was His love for the person sitting across from me. I was simply used as a conduit for that love because the person sitting across from me couldn’t feel it herself. It may genuinely be the most miraculous thing I’ve ever experienced, and I’ve never been more convinced of God’s reality.
I know this is a long letter. I don’t understand the compulsion I had to write you. I genuinely wish you well. Maybe 10 years from now you will have found whatever it is you’re looking for, and maybe the Church will have found a way to accomplish all the good that can come from bishops’ interviews without all the collateral damage. Here’s to hoping!
___________________________________________
Readers, what do you think?
- Did you listen to Elna Baker’s radio piece? What were your impressions?
- Do you think there are good qualities to bishops’ interviews as well as improvements that need to be made? Do you believe the church should discontinue them entirely?
- Which do you think is the sin next to murder: sexual sin or knowingly leading others astray through abuse of power?
- Should the church issue a formal apology for the actions of creepy bishops? For the entire practice of worthiness interviews? Are institutional apologies necessary when individuals did the best they could with the information they had?
- Do you think you would have been happier if you had been raised without the Law of Chastity or would you have been unhappy in a different way?
Discuss.
[1] There are clearly more possible outcomes, but these are the two relevant to this conversation.
[2] For the record, I never put my hand on a young woman’s knee, nor do I believe I ever hugged the youth (though I’m not absolutely positive).
[3] The only other person implied to have been committing the “sin next to murder in seriousness” was Alma himself, when he talked about “murdering” so many people when he was fighting against the church. He clearly had a knowledge of the gospel but did not accept/believe it. Obviously, the “sin…” is a concept introduced by Alma to illustrate a point; it’s not necessarily really a thing. It is, however, a concept heavily laden.
This is a great perspective. Thanks.
For my part, clearly there is a sizable group of people who have seriously been psychologically harmed by a bishop’s interview, and there’s no sense in trying to blame them for not getting what it’s all about (not suggesting that’s what OP was doing). So, it seems that the process ought to be modified to address some of these issues. Allowing another person in the room is a good first step. Requiring a window into the bishop’s office from the clerk’s office is something that I’ve put forward for a long time. Involving the Relief Society President or some other woman in the ward may be a good idea.
But I agree that being able to discuss things confidentially with a bishop has a ton of spiritual value.
I’ve never had a worthiness interview that was at all helpful. I’ve had a couple of get-to-know-you meetings with bishops that were good, and I’ve certainly had a few bishops who made a big impact on my life, but every worthiness interview has been a waste of time or worse.
And yes, an adult in a closed room, asking a 14-year-old if he or she masturbates is highly inappropriate. I had a bishop who asked these questions, and I still regard him as a creep.
Yours is an interesting and valuable perspective. I think you captured pretty well the faithful point of view on the bishop’s role. I think you were a good bishop. Thank you for your service and your obvious desire to follow God and sincerely fulfill your responsibilities in a pure way. The more you talk, the more it seems like maybe we have a basic, systemic issue, though. It just doesn’t feel quite right for our teens to be talking to a man that’s not a parent or licensed professional about these personal issues. The upside benefit doesn’t seem to outweigh the downside harm resulting in mishandling and the (small) risk for something more malicious. This isn’t a burning issue for me. But I am leaning against bishops asking sexual questions at all.
I quit listening to NPR and no longer have a renewing donation direct from my bank account.
I did note the large number of ex-Mormons who work for the show This American Life.
I thought that was more telling than anything else about the framework and focus.
There is a major difference between the perspective of a person relating their views on their experiences, and a layman appointed to a position of Bishop attempting to use psychology and their training manuals to validate invasive questioning, whether it was prompted by another person or started by the bishop.
These questions wouldn’t be allowed to be investigated by any other person. And even the prophet is still human. So, how does becoming a Bishop somehow give you all knowing experience?
My thoughts:
Maybe we should look at the Catholic form of confession where confessor and “judge” are in separate and private “closets?”
Definitely we need women in more equal leadership responsibilities/roles.
And, maybe we need to instruct/teach parents about how to talk to their children about such matters.
Lastly, we need to stop treating people as ward “projects.” Talking about people,in a group setting, behind their backs, especially concerning private matters, isn’t right,
I had an honor code violation at BYU where I was required to see a professional counselor in addition to my bishop. That was actually very helpful. The professional counselor helped me deal with underlying mental and emotional struggles I had instead of just telling me that I needed to repent. I think too often Bishops just can’t solve the problems themselves and a psychologist is remarkably helpful. I recommend anyone to see an actual mental health care professional in addition to your bishop.
So here is my question. Does confession only work when the one being confessed to has priesthood authority? People outside of Mormonism confess all the time. They go to a buddy and tell them of a struggle, they go to a therapist and ask for help, they go to their priest and confess a sin, they go to their spouse, they confess in a group setting with other people with the same inclinations, or a kid goes to a parent. In all of these instances the person confessing is going to feel a weight lifted off of them because their secret is out and they have taken the first step of admitting they want to change. They are going to feel loved because presumably the person listening is going to offer some kind words. So back to my question of if God only forgives if you confess to someone with keys? If you think that is the case, then bishops interviews need to continue. If that is not the case, then we can definitely do better than just picking some random dude with the hope that he doesn’t mess up our kid too bad.
“Do you believe that the objective of the Church leadership was to give middle-aged men voyeuristic power over vulnerable young women?”
Yes, that was exactly Joseph Smith’s goal.
Is it just me or do others find it ridiculous that a person who wants to lecture others posts this anonymously. I believe Wheat and Tares shouldn’t allow this type of article to be anonymous. It is weak sauce.
For the most part I really liked your letter. I have been fortunate to have never had any inappropriate worthiness interviews – if there were questions of chastity they were brought up by myself and they were handled sensitively. However I do disagree with you on the paragraph where you discuss sexual impurity being next to murder. Maybe it was incorrectly taught in my experience because I often remember receiving just that same message and feeling terrible angst over very minor situations and thought I might just go to hell. And then we have Pres. Kimball’s book – The Miracle Of Forgiveness – which was full of such messages.
Thank goodness for the likes of Elna, who, because of courage and talent, earn platforms for these issues to get heard and to draw out defensiveness. And thank you former bishop for bringing your stance here, where it can be openly discussed. Don’t you think though, anonymous bishop, that such discussions belong not just in a place like this but, even more importantly, between members in general and the general authorities? Instead, the people who so speak out or who attempt to approach these topics with the ruling patriarchy get butchered, like Sam Young or Kate Kelly.
Also:
I did listen to the interviews and thought they were valid and shocking. I know most people do their best – we are all volunteers – but think the role of bishop requires a certain amount of vetting and training. We read and see too much harm – unintentional or otherwise. I sometimes wonder where inspiration’ lay?
Life is full of grey areas, but I’m not sure this former bishop knows what he wants to say. It drifts in and out of “You could be right, Elna, but I’m bothered by the possibility that you’re not.”
Dear Bishop-
It’s clear what your intent was in discharging the responsibilities tasked to you and what your impression of your effect was. We all know it’s a time consuming and burdensome position being bishop. Thanks for taking it on and thanks to your family for the significant portion of your time and attention they gave up.
But, tell me, do you really have any idea how many young women consented to the interviews because they didn’t feel they had any choice? Do you think you can make an honest assessment of whether or how many girls left feeling violated by the intrusion into their privacy or confused or creeped out rather than freed of guilt? Do you wonder just what it was like for some of them to simply be alone in the presence of someone they thought Heavenly Father had put in authority over them let alone having to discuss their most private thoughts and actions? Do you think about the scrupulosity that exists in the church and that could cause frightened young people to admit to things they don’t understand or simply didn’t do?
These interviews were a process involving 2 individuals. The effect on the vulnerable is at least as important as your self-evaluation, wouldn’t you say? And only they can speak to what that effect really was for them. Elna Baker did and her assessment is equally valid, don’t you think?
With best wishes always,
alice
“Which do you think is the sin next to murder: sexual sin or knowingly leading others astray through abuse of power?” Based on my personal study, I agree that the sin Alma is addressing in the Book of Mormon is knowingly leading others away from Christ. However, this is not the official position of the church. Church leaders have long taught that sexual sin is what’s just below murder. See here for an example: https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2012-08-2370-next-to-murder-in-seriousness?lang=eng
The Church will not issue apologies. As uncomfortable as that silence was in that interview (and it was very uncomfortable when I listened to it months ago), Hawkins was acting in the role of Church spokesman. No matter how much compassion he personally felt, he could not issue a formal or informal apology without approval from the brethren. Elna Baker would’ve understood that prior to asking him.
I agree with the OP that bishop’s interviews can be helpful, but I am wholly supportive of putting in safeguards to protect against predators or incompetence. I do not recall negative experiences with worthiness interviews in my history as a youth and young adult in the church, but I recognize they happen.
Adam and Others helped in creation, it is true that Adam helped to form this earth. He labored with our Savior Jesus Christ. I have a strong view or conviction that there were others also who assisted them. Perhaps Noah and Enoch; and why not Joseph Smith. Doctrines of Salvation Vol. 1 p 74-75
The Bible says God did the creation alone ?
Isa. 44:24
Thus says the LORD, your Redeemer,
And He who formed you from the womb:
“I am the LORD, who makes all things,
Who stretches out the heavens all alone,
Who spreads abroad the earth by Myself;
Malachi 2
10 Have we not all one Father? Has not one God created us?
Why do we deal treacherously with one another by profaning the covenant of the fathers
Job 38
4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding. 5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it? 6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; 7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Rhetorical question
Like churchistrue, I appreciate this perspective. I listened to the interview (actually twice). The one thing that I found frustrating was what felt to me like a lack of being able to say that in some cases the church has done wrong. Saying, “I am sorry you felt that way” is NOT an apology and instead shifts 100% of the blame to her. I keep asking myself why this bothers me so much, but it is one of my main issues I have with the church. It just feels that church leadership is totally non self-aware that in some areas it has problems. Maybe it was my Mormon upbringing and holding myself and others to very high standards, including modesty (as in having some humility, not clothing rules).
My youth interviews always were dripping with shame of not living up to what I was being taught. Certainly having my leaders read from the book that the current prophet wrote about what were sins next to murder, and it being clarified that that included what you did by yourself. I served quite a while as a scoutmaster and I really liked that as I could just focus on the boys and how I might help them as none of them even thought I was in a position to judge them. I do think there are issues, but I am not 100% clear on how to keep the good and severely minimize the possibility of the bad.
So I do ponder and come down on being raised with the Law of Chastity and the Word of Wisdom. I do think they helped me, but I separate that from needing to be asked by someone a few times a year if I was living them.
This does remind me that my bishop in most of my time in the YM had a deal where if you confessed masturbation, he asked you when you shook his hand that if things were going good, to give him a solid handshake. But if things were not, give a limp hand indicating you needed to talk. ALL of the YM would look really close to see how all the other YM shook the bishop’s hand. Some would even exaggerate and really shake the bishop’s hand really hard with lots of arm movement to show the other YM “I am CLEARLY OK.”
Just got to this point,
I can’t speak for Elna specifically, but you haven’t been around many exmormons if you don’t think holding parents complicit is not a common thing.
And it’s not just accusations of negligence. Many exmormons talk about the church in terms of “fraud” and “lies” because they believe there is an active and intentional, willful component at some level. Perhaps parents get off the hook because they were also duped (from the hypothetical exmo perspective), but at some point, the leaders either knew or should have known, and acted the way they did in spite of that.
I don’t want to go “full exmormon” in this comment, but please be aware that to many exmormons, your religion was founded precisely with “middle-aged men voyeuristic power over vulnerable young women”. (EDIT: haha, TK already got there for me.)
I understand apologists will come up with their explanations to ameliorate polygamy in the early church (not unlike your explorations to ameliorate systemic aspects of the church that put young people in rooms alone with middle aged adult men who are not given formal training or oversight), but again, I only want to gently suggest you haven’t been around exmormons very long if you don’t anticipate that your words will not be very convincing to those who aren’t already convinced.
I think we need to stop shaming young men about masturbation. (Do they ask YW about masturbation? Why not?) We should separate masturbation from the pornography issue.
We should be clear about the boundaries (like not touching people’s private parts etc) and what requires confession to an ecclesiastical leader ie fornication and adultery. The youth should know definitions—what constitutes sex and what questions they will be asked. Then leaders don’t need to ask probing questions.
We need to educate youth about sexual abuse —that victims aren’t sinners.
“Saying, “I am sorry you felt that way” is NOT an apology and instead shifts 100% of the blame to her.”
Yes.
I don’t get why church leaders don’t think they should acknowledge or admit mistakes. They teach us we should acknowledge mistakes and repent—(which may or may not require restitution) but then don’t hold themselves to that standard. It seems “do as I say, not as I do.”
UNLESS, it is solely a tactic to protect the church from lawsuits. But they should then acknowledge that—“for legal reasons we cannot speak to specific errors.”
“We obeyed the best we knew how and no doubt, made many crooked paths in our ignorance.”
Remarks by Elder Amasa M. Lyman [Q12], delivered in the Tabernacle, Great Salt Lake City, April 5, 1866. Reported by G. D. Watt.
I have wondered whether Elder Lyman’s comment should not be broadened beyond its original context. Otherwise, having no experience of my own with periodic bishop/youth “worthiness” interviews, the morass reflected in the OP and comments is not one I choose to wade into, beyond remarking (a) that reported experiences vary so widely among bishops and interviewees that it seems as unwise to suppose that a particular person’s experience is either unique or the most common, and (b) while confession may be good for the soul, it seems confession coerced (to any degree) is not — particularly if to a person not of the confessor’s choosing.
Wonderful, nuanced piece of work and I hope this was sent to the broadcaster, possibly the best defence of the practice of Bishop’s interviews I’ve seen, but would that all Bishop’s interviews were so!
This was most certainly not the experience of either my kids, myself or my friends as we grew up, and the unwarranted interference has destroyed our family as it once was and my daughter’s vulnerable testimony, not with abuse but with intrusion and tactlessness leading to her taking offence, and having a very skewed idea of authority in the church.
Young people are often unavailable to nuanced thinking.Bishop’s interviews ask a lot of all concerned. We were in the hands of a man whose own relationships were dysfunctional, and he inflicted that warped thinking on the whole ward, and withdrew all permission for boundaries to those around him. I also lost my testimony of inspired leadership, and would never again follow my Bishop over a cliff as I did then.
We eventually appealed to higher authority, and received an apology. But youth are generally very unforgiving. The man was a zealot.
He is now Bishop in another ward.
I also have to say that we’ve experienced tactful, thoughtful and humble Bishops who must have worked many miracles with their sweetness, so I don’t have answers, other than for sure the presence of another woman and at most the touching of hands. I don’t see the necessity for more than that to offer human comfort from someone who is not an immediate relative , and anything else would not be acceptable in a workplace and might well open a Bishop to misunderstanding.
Thank you for posting this. I write this as a former branch president and listener to the podcast episode you referenced. I also write this as someone who is well acquainted with Sam Young’s movement and a reader of numerous posts and commentary about this issue.
This letter seems to highlight nicely the point at which this issue broadly seems to have arrived.
1. The demonstration that there are many good and caring bishops / branch presidents out there
2. That whilst the church has made some (in my opinion token) changes, they need to do more, and
3. That many people have been harmed by these type of interactions.
If I was being honest, I am kind of sick and tired of hearing about “all the good ones” and “I don’t have a problem with my bishop so…”. The types of discussions, abuse and horrific shame that stem from these interviews has exacted a large toll on many members and represents organisational sin, to which the church is wholly responsible.
Unfortunately this will not change any time soon for a variety of reasons. Chief amongst those, however, are the doctrinal underpinnings relating to views on sexual sin (next to murder as discussed above), the doctrine of the bishop being a judge in Israel and therefore an intercessary and long held policies relating to disciplinary councils. These super significant beliefs and doctrines have the effect of enlarging the church “ship” and ensuring any change in course either doesn’t happen, or is so slow that it renders such change ineffective.
Long story short – church must change but can’t / won’t due to deep seated doctrinal issues and talking about nice leaders in that context doesn’t really help.
When I read this post, I was reminded of John Mulaney’s opening monologue from SNL last week. He talks about having married a Jewish woman (he’s Catholic), and his parents asked him if she was going to convert. He suggests how he might go about trying to convince his Jewish wife to become Catholic: “Honey, you know that strange look of shame and unhappiness I have in my eyes at all times but especially after sex…What if you voluntarily signed up for it?”
The most compelling part of this letter, IMO, is that spontaneous confessions certainly do happen in religion, whether we do “forced” worthiness interviews or not. People feel guilty, they feel shame, they want a formal outlet through which they can feel absolved, and so they go tell the bishop and hope he helps them feel better. But is it necessary for people to feel that way? That’s not really addressed here. Personally, I think we have some very unhealthy attitudes about sex in the church, but so do people in other religions and outside of religion in some families–these attitudes are passed on to each successive generation. People are messed up.
I do find the argument appealing that the former bishop seems to think that the sin next to murder is NOT sexual activity but leading others away from the gospel. But I’m aware of at least one bishop who was telling people who confessed to sexual sins that they were guilty of something near to murder because having a sexual relationship with someone led that other participant away from potentially accepting the gospel by setting a bad example–ergo, the sex is still the sin next to murder, just not for a reason directly related to the sex. So..maybe whatever the scripture does and doesn’t mean is irrelevant because common use is set in a specific way. IDK.
And here I thought Corianton’s sin was leaving his assigned mission area! He went over to a land among the borders of the Lamanites “after the harlot Isabel.” Nothing in the scriptures says he had any sexual activity with her (or that he had ever actually met her), though his mission president did want him, among other things, to go no more after the lusts of his eyes. Maybe he was lusting after a spectacular conversion to bolster his baptism statistics, kinda like those sons of Mosiah who went off to the Lamanites rather than any of them taking on the governmental role they were born to.. Whadd’ya think?
But seriously, common use can change. It takes a long time — but even longer if we suppose that whatever the scripture does and doesn’t mean is irrelevant rather than working to make sense of it. Unfortunately, it will take a very long time, if ever, for superficial readings to become less common or for the “Miracle of Forgiveness” to go away even if out of print.
Well said Hawk.
In Australia we have just had the highest ranking catholic in the country George Pell found guilty of child sexual abuse. He is in prison but is appealing. He has not apologized.
Great loss of credibility for religious authority. And for religious conservatives who still support him.
Our church is loosing credibility every time it defends an abuser, and every time it refuses to apologise for its mistakes.
Well said Hawk
Geoff – re: George Pell – and most here in Australia have moved on from the rhetoric of “Well, so and so is a nice priest” and “most priests are good” to “how can we stop this from happening”.
The action now surrounds removing institutional and cultural barriers in stopping the offending. I don’t hear too many people talking about cherishing long held beliefs and doctrines. The protection of children and (perhaps selfishly) the protection of the name of the Catholic Church appears now to be the priority.
Unfortunately I don’t see the church making similar and sufficient changes in this space.
I liked Elna’s piece. In no way is it ok for young girls/women to have to talk about their bodies and sex with (much older) men. Sex and sexuality are complex. Sex means different things to different people (and largely depends on factors like gender, cultural background, person beliefs, family culture, etc.). Obviously in the Church, it means certain things doctrinally and culturally. But that doesn’t mean that young women should be talking to men about their sex lives. Especially because these men are often untrained to handle some of the things that come their way (regarding sex or not). There is enough shaming about women’s bodies and sexuality in the secular world as it is. Then there is plenty more in the Church (including the fact that women’s sexuality is often invisible, which furthers feelings of shame).
Having to tell your bishop you give blow jobs at parties just fuels more shame. And then, hypothetically, what if you like it? What if it’s not peer pressure but something that you enjoy? Why is your value diminished? Because men and church have told you that it is. Or maybe you feel terrible about it. But again, why? Because men and church (run by men) have told you that you should. There’s really no safe space for you to explore your (likely) complicated feelings about sex or to discuss how expectations and messages about sex and sexuality are impacting you and for you to figure out what your own values are around these issues.
So, no. Young women should not be talking to bishops (men) about their bodies and sex.
I’m not willing to give the church a break on its failure to prevent abuse from its ecclesiastical leaders. It declares that these leaders are called of God, strongly implying a divine seal of approval, without so much as taking more “thought save it was to ask [the Lord].
Just last month David N. Moss was an LDS bishop in Lehi Utah at the time of his arrest for trying to set up a prostitution ring. When arrested, he had just unzipped his pants, exposed himself to two women undercover officers and tried to have one touch him to prove they weren’t police. The problem with this particular bishop’s call is that “Moss had previously supervised a vice squad in St. George and was forced to resign from the position because of ‘sexual misconduct allegations” (Salt Lake Tribune Feb 20, 2019). It was serious enough that Moss voluntarily gave up his police certification in 2013. But when you are called of God, a background check is superfluous.
A lot of other things are superfluous as well – such as training, because we all have been taught that “Whom the Lord calls, the Lord qualifies”. I have two family members, I later found out, who were sexually abused/raped in the 80’s, one by a cousin the other by a member whose kids she babysat. Both informed their bishops. The bishops, however, hushed things up. In both cases the police were not involved. One bishop was an FBI agent for Pete’s sake – by virtual of his occupation he should have known better. Last year we found out about Rob Porter, a high level White house aide and LDS. He abused two former wives. Their bishops also advised the women to keep quite so as to not hurt Porter’s career.
When Lavina Fielding Anderson documented 133 cases of LDS ecclesiastical abuse the church’s reaction was to excommunicate her. This was egregious and shameful behavior from the church – one they have yet to rectify.
As an institution the church does have a multitude of reasons for giving apologies. One is the dangerous deference it gives to bishops.
Entering “sin next to murder” (without the quotation marks) in the search field of the church’s web page and reviewing the resulting five pages of links should disabuse anyone of the notion that the church doesn’t teach this to mean sexual sin. The top hit returned is this quotation from Elder Holland titled “Next to Murder in Seriousness”:
“In exploiting the body of another–which means exploiting his or her soul–one desecrates the Atonement of Christ, which saved that soul and which makes possible the gift of eternal life. And when one mocks the Son of Righteousness, one steps into a realm of heat hotter and holier than the noonday sun. You cannot do so and not be burned.
Please never, never say: “Who does it hurt? Why not a little freedom? I can transgress now and repent later.” Please don’t be so foolish and so cruel. You cannot with impunity “crucify Christ afresh.” “Flee fornication,” Paul cries, and flee “anything like unto it,” the Doctrine and Covenants adds. Why? Well, for one reason because of the incalculable suffering in both body and spirit endured by the Savior of the world so that we could flee. We owe Him something for that. Indeed, we owe Him everything for that. “[You] are not your own,” Paul says. “[You have been] bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.” In sexual transgression, the soul is at stake–the body and the spirit.”
This letter it well written and worth reading, including the parts I disagree with.
It reminds me of Ignaz Semmelweis. (Refer to https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/12/375663920/the-doctor-who-championed-hand-washing-and-saved-women-s-lives)
In a nutshell, Semmelweis studied morality differences between two maternity wards, one handled by doctors with high mortality rates and the other handled by midwives with lower mortality rates, and concluded that doctors were contaminating their maternity ward after working on cadavers. He proposed a controversial procedure in which the doctors would have to wash their hands after working with cadavers.
His procedure was largely rejected, presumably because the doctors would not accept the implication that they themselves had caused so many deaths, and Semmelweis lost his job.
I’m not a fan of worthiness interviews. They don’t seem useful to me at all. Most of my interviews have been nothingburgers, but I did have one Bishop when I was 16-17 and a branch president in the MTC who both asked what I now think are inappropriate questions.
I don’t know if confessions are useful, or if sometimes they help people feel better. But I definitely think that a lot of careful thought should be put into how they are handled, or is they should be done at all, and people (church leaders, specifically) shouldn’t be afraid to examine the possibility that they might be making a problem worse, or creating a problem where there isn’t one.
I remember once during the course of a bishop’s interview when I was young, when he got to the topic of chastity, he asked me if I masturbated. I was young enough that I didn’t know what that word meant, or even what the concept of masturbation was. When I expressed my confusion, he ended up trying to educate me on what masturbation was. I know he had the best of intentions, and I don’t consider him a creep. However, I left the meeting feeling sick to my stomach, and didn’t feel uplifted at all. I feel that almost all bishops have the best of intentions, and I have a lot of respect for them trying to meet the diverse needs of those they are called to serve. But, even with the best of intentions, sometimes there are certain questions that aren’t helpful to everyone being interviewed. It also puts bishops in a vulnerable position where they can be accused of things, if something they said is taken the wrong way. I think it would help increase protection for BOTH bishops and those they interview if there was a more concrete structure in place for what should or shouldn’t be discussed in interviews.
Funny typo. Semmelweis studied mortality differences, not morality differences.
Although perhaps if they had been more morally pure…
I liked Elna Baker’s piece, just as I have admired her previous creative output. I believe she was sincere. But I also believe Anonymous Former Bishop was sincere in his open letter. I don’t think we have to get rid of youth interviews entirely, but they are in need of substantial improvement.
But it’s not just the interviews that are flawed, it’s the institutional framework in which they occur. There is something fundamentally wrong about a social construct in which a teenage boy who masturbates once is made to feel as though he’s as bad as a murderer in the eyes of God and has jeopardized his own salvation, and then must go to the bishop to get it back on track. There is also something messed up about an untrained, unvetted middle-aged man serving as God’s arbiter of sexual behavior for teenagers; the flawed notion that a calling from God is a perfect substitute for years of graduate education, clinical experience, professional licensure, legal liability and background checks.
My current bishop is a dentist. He is a very good man, and in most respects is one of the better bishops I’ve had in my life. But I don’t trust him with the most intimate details of my private life, and I wouldn’t allow him to act as a sex educator/arbiter for my children, just as I wouldn’t trust a therapist to fix my teeth. Even with priesthood keys and the best intentions, he’s not qualified to do those things. So why does the Church continue to pretend as such?
There is nothing inherently wrong with a church leader talking with youth, even about sexual related questions. But there simply needs to be boundaries. Much in the same way the LDS leaders don’t trust primary and youth classes to be taught by an adult alone, why trust bishops to do interviews alone? Interviews should be done in twos with a counselor or someone from the relief society present. The LDS leaders should make this a requirement. Youth also shouldn’t feel coerced. Instructions to bishops should specify that the bishop is to make things like baptism, priesthood ordination, and missionary service appear fully as a choice for the child, not as an obligation that they should be shamed for for deciding against. LDS leaders should be specific on what sexual questions the bishop is allowed to ask. Boys who masturbate (all of them) shouldn’t have to feel excessive shame for doing something normal against which there is actually no scriptural passage written (except for in the Old Testament, a book which also features God killing someone for picking up sticks on the Sabbath). No more masturbation questions, period, should be the new instruction. Also, no more probing questions if someone “confesses” to having sex before marriage or “going to far.” No details needed. Also, bishops shouldn’t be allowed to contact and harass the other person with whom the confessor had a sexual relationship with. That is just wrong and causes more problems than it is worth. Let’s also not consider someone a porn addict because they have viewed it on a monthly basis. Keep instructions and interviews more vague on sexuality should be the new instruction. Sexual problems are actually likely to increase and get worse if people feel the need for secrecy and severe shame for small seemingly normal things.
Anonymous Bishop,
What is clear that you are missing her, abundantly clear, is that you missed the entire point of Elna and others discussion about the practice of untrained, lay bishops in the Mormon church having sensitive, one on one sexual discussions with young women. In fact your response embody’s the underlying problem. What in the world makes you think you are competent to counsel young women (and men) about sex – sexual awakening, sexual guilt, sex anything? Like seriously? Intention aside (I believe the vast majority of LDS bishops are well intentioned), where does this confidence come from that you can reliably do more good than harm? Does the church train you? No. We know how this works. One day you are called to be a bishop. You may be an awesome realtor or hr manager or consultant or grad student or…or… The previous bishop sits down with you for about an hour, maybe two. He tells you about the sensitive people he is currently counseling. Shakes your hand, says a prayer with you and wishes you luck. The next day 35 year old you or 50 year old you who may or may not even have had a teenager yet or may or may not have even been able to have a constructive sex conversation with your own kids (some yes some no) has a 16 year old girl come into his office and confess….whatever. Why in the world should that even happen? Did the church even give you a book on how to counsel on sexual issues? Did you ever read one? Do they provide you a hotline with say some licensed sex therapist? Do you have a basic model of adolescent sexual development in your head? Has anyone had a basic discussion with you on how to potentially distinguish between say a normal youth dating relationship and the signs of being in an emotionally controlling or abusive relationship? No. Someone haded you a handbook, a pile of For the Strength of Youth Pamplets and a wild hope that your good intentions and the Spirit will somehow magically turn you into a empathetic, emotionally savvy, boundary keeping adult skilled at appropriately probing adolescents about their sexual experiences. That makes sense, how? I mean even you if *you* are a nuanced sexual therapist bishop savant that leaves every youth healed and more emotionally secure after confessions of their blushing sexual encounters, can we agree this seems like a *crazy* system built on insane assumptions to propagate out to over *30,000* wards and branches across the world.
I am with Elna on this one. That is a bat-shiz crazy way to deal with youth and sex in a worldwide church. It is your very internal confidence that you thought you did such an awesome job navigating this with your wards youth that actually makes me more certain this is a bat-shiz crazy way to deal with youth sexual confession and counseling. Sure it probably works out for some people in some places in some instances but boy is that a haphazard system just asking for consistent problems. Might it be possible that you, in all your wisdom, only hear mostly from the people you helped and not the ones you scarred – as well intentioned as you are? Nah….that couldn’t be because you were clearly an awesome bishop skilled in the art of sensitive sexual counseling.
Or said more succinctly :
Random, untrained middle-aged men wielding the perceived authority of god distributing sex advice to minors in a one-one closed door intimate setting is no basis for a system of healthy ecclesiastical sexual counseling
rah: I’m torn. I do agree that too often we create a false sense of security and purpose in our leaders in this church who believe they have the spirit of discernment (and perhaps some do, but I know from experience that many do not but think they do). That point should not be lost in all this.
Yet, I’m not sure what the best alternative is for people who are filled with guilt. We could instruct bishops to simply say “Go and sin no more” whenever faced with a guilt-stricken church member who spontaneously confesses. That’s not the worst outcome, although as the letter points out, not everyone who thinks they are guilty even understands that they did nothing wrong, and clarifying that could be helpful, but requires asking a question or two.
I’m also a little skeptical of “trained professionals” because most of the psychologists I have known enter the field because they have psychological issues themselves (taking “physician heal thyself” literally), and they also disagree about approaches so much. That’s not bad, but psychology sometimes just goes nowhere. It can be great, but it’s a crapshoot just like talking to your dentist. Upthread, someone mentioned talking to a friend or other confidante (Mormons could sometimes use a bartender). I think that’s a great option, but lacks the formality that makes the exercise feel conclusive. Sites like Post Secret came about for this reason, too. There’s something about confession that’s innate to the human soul.
I’ve often joked that kids need to learn to lie to the bishop on their own terms. That’s a little boundary-setting humor, but there’s a kernel of truth in it. If faced with a skeevy weirdo asking impertinent questions, I hope my kids would instinctively know to clam up. Because that bishop isn’t the only skeevy weirdo they are likely to encounter in their lives.
I’ve secretly thought for decades that the best solution is that we should outsource our confessing to the Catholic church. I recognize their dubious track record in matters sexual, but you’re in a box, separated by a screen, and you don’t know that guy anyway, and he’s had some level of training. Reading up on it, there are a lot of non-Catholics who use the Catholic confessional this way; however, in general fewer and fewer people confess at all, and many Catholic churches don’t even operate the confessional that often, unlike what Hollywood movies show. Bummer.
Jack Hughes writes “the flawed notion that a calling from God is a perfect substitute for years of graduate education, clinical experience, professional licensure, legal liability and background checks.”
License? Who has license from God? Not your educated, clinically experienced, licensed psychiatrist.
God’s license, and you are right to suspect it is important, is ordination.
Modification on my recommendation to outsource confession to Catholicism: I’d trust an Anglican priest over a Catholic one any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Not that the church would officially sanction this proposal. Just what I would recommend if a friend asked “What do I do with my feelings of guilt over x, y or z??”
Angela C writes “I’m not sure what the best alternative is for people who are filled with guilt.”
They must be shrived and in Mormonism only a Bishop (or God Himself) can do that. I start with God since he knows my secrets already.
Licensed and insured, professionally schooled psychiatrists cannot “shrive” you of your guilt. They (the psychiatrists) can certainly help someone to understand how brains work and sometimes brains do not work optimally. That is to say, there may be a biological problem that causes what looks like a moral problem, and that’s a nice thing to know, but the moral judge is (for Mormons) a bishop. Under guidance of the Holy Ghost he can also be a more effective counselor than a licensed therapist (which I note has the same spelling as “the rapist”).
“Go and sin no more” works for small things. For larger things, you cheat someone out of their penance if you do that and as a result, guilt and shame can persist because deep inside you know the scale is not balanced.
I have not studied closely other comments and I do not listen to NPR. These youth interviews were a big deal to me about 15 years ago when my children were young. I was probably the first member in my ward to strongly question ward leadership on this issue and simply did not allow one-on-one youth interviews for my family members and strongly warned ward leadership of this harm. Others might have disagreed with this practice but did nothing about it . I admit I was ham-fisted about it and destroyed most of my social capital in the process.I am surprised at the progress in my lifetime.
For me there are three levels of danger in these interviews and only the first two have been discussed here.
1. The extremely rare criminal who is ordained a bishop and physically abuses women and girls and/or men and boys. The boundary of physical contact with reproductive organs and associated erotic places is breeched. These bishops belong either in prison or at least out of the church and nobody disagrees with that. Only in how we prevent or minimize risk to this rare but severe danger.
2. The sincere mistakes, where a variety of social or verbal errors are made with good intentions. Either social or doctrinaI, etc., I think (even only using nothing more than this letter) that these problems are common and difficult to define. Most of the discussion above appears to be directed at this level.Better training could lessen their frequency and severity. It becomes a matter of individual opinion and experience whether the collective good done by the interviews outweighs the individual harm done by them with various adjustments and compromises.
3. The last level requires an understanding of how most pedophiles, hebephiles, ephebophiles and general lechers of adults operate. (This has been studied carefully by many wiser than me) First, the perpetrator is usually a trusted family member or close family friend in a position of respect if not authority. Typically, it also includes an elaborate grooming process. It begins with the most innocent of actions. Boundaries are not violated like the US Marines storming a beach leaving victims in need of hospitalization or a funeral. They are cleverly eroded away one grain of sand at a time. Victims become willing participants over multiple escalating episodes that can last for years. For me, the most ubiquitous danger of these interviews is that a large and easily identified group of young people (Mormon youth) are already extensively groomed by these scheduled frequent bishop’s interviews. We systematically strip our youth of early warning signals, such as adult men asking sexual questions of youth, of this danger.
I personally think #1 is so rare it doesn’t justify any major changes. I personally think, concerning #2, there is plenty of room for improvement. Maybe we could find a compromise, although the stubborn, arrogant attitude of the LDS church so far is not even close to this solution. But there is no getting around #3 .
Dear Anonymous Former Bishop: You groomed a slice of a generation of your ward youth to be significantly more vulnerable to abuse and exploitation, while probably subjecting your own children to the same process. For this reason, the interviews must end. Until we can preemptively identify these wolves among us, our lambs must not be left unguarded with targets on their flanks.
For now- parents, don’t let your youth be made a little or a lot (you don’t know the difference) more vulnerable to sexual predation. Do not let these interviews cross professionally established boundaries. Like in doctors offices, or teaching settings, etc. Do not become collaborators in this process by making theological excuses for the current situation.
Lance Homer asks “Is it just me or do others find it ridiculous that a person who wants to lecture others posts this anonymously”
It’s just you. I don’t care whether anyone posts anonymously, or using a pseudonym or your “real name”. However, as it seems to go against the grain perhaps you want his identity so you can harass the writer in other channels. That is a good reason for anonymity.
Michael 2 – You commented “Licensed and insured, professionally schooled psychiatrists cannot “shrive” you of your guilt.” I disagree in that this did in my case. I am not saying you can’t get some relief from confessing from a bishop, but I disagree that a good therapist CANNOT.
Revealing one’s identity as a former bishop can accidentally reveal confidentiality of those who sought counsel.
Happy Hubby, in the context of “sin” only a representative of God can “shrive” you of guilt. A therapist can help remove the FEELING of guilt, and in serious cases will probably be the principle agent of change, but if you have broken a law of God, a therapist cannot speak for the offended party, namely God.
If I offend you and am trying to make amends, the only person on earth whose opinion matters is yours — do you forgive me of my offense? If I offend God, whose opinion matters? That would be God. Now to the extent that a bishop *might* accurately convey the word of God on a particular matter, you might believe him, if that word is accompanied by enough power of Holy Ghost that you feel the bishop is telling the truth and not just saying something to make you happy or to assuage his own sense of guilt.
I turn to Enos in the Book of Mormon.
5 And there came a voice unto me, saying: Enos, thy sins are forgiven thee, and thou shalt be blessed.
6 And I, Enos, knew that God could not lie; wherefore, my guilt was swept away.
So, what exactly sweeps guilt away? You do! But you have to be convinced of the effectiveness of it; and that seems to require two things: The person pronouncing you forgiven has to have “standing”, namely, the offended person OR an authorized representative of that person, and you have to believe that the forgiving person is telling the truth so it won’t come back and bite you in the future.
This is why I believe that ‘”the church” can only apologize for things “the church” did to offend; rather than a thing a particular bishop did to offend.
It may be that a church policy is itself offensive (to you) but in that case the correct approach is not to be a member of that church . Freedom of association seems to include freedom to not associate.
“in the context of “sin” only a representative of God can “shrive” you of guilt.”
Sounds good on paper, but I don’t that it is true. If only an ordained (lds) representative of God can shrive one of guilt, why do other church’s leaders and professional counselors successfully do so? Is peace found through counseling or through Catholicism not the same as the lds peace? I can’t see a difference…
Michael 2: Going along with your principle that the church should only apologize for what the church does, and not for the acts of particular bishops, in the case mentioned by Dave B. above in which the church could have easily prevented entrusting David Moss with the office of bishop by simply doing any kind of due diligence, should the church apologize for that? Should the church apologize for Joseph Bishop, MTC president, because they were made aware of the allegations of his sexual advances toward sister missionaries, and yet they did not investigate or treat the allegations seriously? I’m not opposed to your idea that institutions can only correct institutional mistakes, not the mistakes of individuals who abuse their power, but then it follows that the institutions have to take appropriate steps to prevent serious error.
Likewise, most of us would agree that the Catholic Church erred in hushing up the actions of priests who molested children. They don’t necessarily need to apologize for the priests’ actions, but their own in not handling allegations appropriately, instead trying to cover up misdeeds.
I question the premise of youth interviews.
If annual youth interviews with the bishop have inherent merit, why not hold them with all adults as well? When adults aren’t faithful to their spouses, many people are hurt in many ways.
I, for one, am glad we don’t. I’m glad my husband didn’t have that much more on his plate when he was bishop.
I do appreciate a Mia Maid advisor I had. She organized a sleepover with our class and another leader. In a relaxed atmosphere, she taught us sexual boundaries in a straightforward manner. I was innocent, not overly naive, knew basics of sex, learned what masturbation is. Not creepy, not uncomfortable. We went sledding the next morning.
*I’m glad we don’t. I would resent them….
Angela,
To be clear I am NOT against some form of local ecclesiastical process for confessing sexual sin by youth or adults. I agree that it can plan an important if not critical role in both spiritual and emotional growth and maturity. However, I think the point of the stories Elna is telling, her own and others as well as the many, many other stories we know is that the current set up in the church with completely untrained male only clergy wading into this territory with nothing more than the framing of their own sexual experiences is beyond nutty.
There are SOOOOO many better ways if we were serious about this. Just off the top of my head.
1) Sex paired confessions. Easy peasy lemon squeezy way to make an immediate difference even without training. Let women confess to the RSP and men to the bishop. RSP can work with the woman, dialogue (sorry counsel) with the bishop and then I guess because we are Mormon the guy with the official power of God can stamp the absolution (and that can be super important for some people to feel like one with authority has stamped the forgiveness!)
2) Why don’t we actually spend some of the billions of dollars in assets and build an actual bishop training program? Like a real one? We have crazy things like video conference to scale it!!! So nutty I know. It would allow creating really good material that could give our horde of well intentioned bishops actual tools to help them use their good intentions with a far smaller chance of hurting and much larger chance of helping. It would force the organization as a whole to carefully think through what we believe and how to handle this area ecumenically. To quote John Lennon:
Imagine. Imagine a world where as a bishop you had “gasp* 1 month of Sundays of professional training preparing you for your role ministering and counseling people in their most vulnerable moments in their lives before being handed the keys to the ward. That would be say 24 total training hours (4x6hours) where you could learn such amazing things like: how to recognize physical and emotional abuse. how to best respond to someone who confides this to you.
Imagine a world where before you became bishop you learned some of the most common mistakes new bishops make and how to avoid them. Imagine you were given a real in depth understanding of all the resources the church puts at your disposal instead of learning about them on the fly.
You get the idea. we have 30,000 units give or take. the average bishop serves for something like 3.5-4 years (5 being the normal term but its truncated for people that move etc). You recycle some bishops so maybe you dont need to retrain them but probably should. So lets say you have to roughly train ~10,000 new unit leaders a year maybe less. At that scale you could justify creating really, really really solid materials and training program. To train that many people for 24 hours of material lets say it costs you $5000 that would be $50m a year. I honestly can’t think of a better way to spend $50m a year in our church then investing it in the quality of our key ministers. We have the money.
3) Create some senior missionaries whose job it is to be on call to help and counsel bishops (this may exist. Do bishops have a number they can call to talk to really season former bishops? I know they do local bishop groups which is a great thing as well)? Maybe you put some missionary couples in their RVs and send them traveling around to give training to bishops as well.
4) Ok how about instead of making this a bishop thing you create a stake calling whose job is to counsel and hear confessions of a sexual nature. I would gender split it as well. Then you can call the best people in the stake for it and give them really, really good training letting bishops focus on other things. It would be a great calling for former bishops and RSPs that have demonstrated in their ministering the capability and wisdom to deal with these most vulnerable cases. It also would decrease the church’s overall liability because that is 5x less fewer positions for a creepo to work themselves into to use their authority to groom and abuse. Kirton McKonkie would be very happy.
5) Or we could go super crazy and create a professional role that actually – *gasp* that actually gets paid. One per stake or multi-stake even. They could support the bishops and train them. Bishops could triage relatively easy cases – ‘thanks for confessing your masturbation. don’t worry about”, “ok you heavy petted with your girlfriend, don’t take the sacrament for 2 weeks and lets think about how you can avoid situations like this” . from hard ones – “it sounds like you might have been coerced into sex by your boyfriend, I am going to refer you to sister X our stakes qualified, trained person. She will be in contact with me. Here is her number. Go home and call her right away.”
Look none of those solutions are perfect but they are all a site better than 30,000 random untrained dudes doing their unsupported best. I mean I was on the cusp of being in the consideration pool to be a bishop (EQ pres twice, YM pres twice, Exec sec cum 3rd councilor, financially well off, advanced graduate degree, good marriage with kids, etc) before prop 8. I would have tried to muddle through but there is no way i was actually prepared to do things like recognize potential abuse or take intimate confession from my kids friends. I mean I would have tried my best but gads some actual professional training would have made me far better! Its not like there isn’t a huge literature and deep knowledge about how to do this better that we could draw from in other Christian religions.
Michael 2 — I like the Enos example, but I want to highlight that you inserted a representative for God into the mix that wasn’t there in the scriptures. That’s a logical leap that isn’t scripturally based.
rah:
All great solutions to minimize my danger type 2 problem.
But you have said nothing about my danger type 3 problem; the ubiquitous grooming inherent in these interviews that makes all of our youth more vulnerable to sexual predation, regardless of how well the interviews are done.
IT IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR ADULT MEN TO QUESTION YOUNG GIRLS ABOUT SEXUAL ACTIVITY. FULL STOP.
Statistically women are only doing something less than 10% of this abuse. But it is not zero. I am about 10% as concerned about women interviewing girls as the current situation.But it is not zero. Men interviewing boys is somewhere in the middle and not good. My brother knew of a young man in his ward who accused their bishop of sexually harassing him. Nobody believed him. But who knows?
We need to teach our youth where these boundaries are located and what to do when they are crossed. (Something like what to do when your cloths catch on fire- Stop Drop Roll). Avoid the situation.Leave immediately. Tell a trusted adult. We can’t then go and violate this advice with modifications in the current practice that still cross these boundaries.
These 50+ responses are all sending a mixed message. (Except Michael 2) It is not ok. It is/could be ok if….
****
How could I forget.
What about protecting the bishops from false accusations? rah, you might have been a better than average bishop, or not . But what happens if a false accusation sticks? You could lose your membership in the church, your marriage, the respect of your children and community, etc. Although false accusations are rare, they are not zero.
I would flat out refuse to put myself in any situation that violates the boy scout two deep leadership policy, the new one that is even more stringent. That would definitely include bishop’s interviews, ministering with a boy not your son, etc. And apparently that wasn’t good enough since the BSA is going bankrupt over these lawsuits. Like, we are any better than them. Some of the worst suits are Mormon scout troops (Camp Little Lemhi in the 1990’s for one).
In response to Rah’s comments and suggestions I visited a friend recently appointed as a bishop.
“completely untrained male only clergy wading into this territory with nothing more than the framing of their own sexual experiences is beyond nutty.”
I hope you were exaggerating. Training can be variable and probably inadequate but completely untrained simply isn’t true. He was a counselor in a bishopric prior to being bishop. He has many resources at his disposal, the Church Handbook of Instructions for instance. Weakness is in testing and compliance validation. He acknowledges having received little training.
1) Sex paired confessions. Easy peasy lemon squeezy way to make an immediate difference even without training. Let women confess to the RSP and men to the bishop.
Seems reasonable to me.
“2) Why don’t we actually spend some of the billions of dollars in assets and build an actual bishop training program?”
I have more training in Boy Scouts, I think, than my bishop buddy. Basic training, Leader specific training, bi-annual required Youth Protection training with testing, various specialty activity trainings. Woodbadge and for top echelon training, Philmont Scout Ranch.
“Do bishops have a number they can call to talk to really season former bishops?”
Likely the Area Leaders.
“5) Or we could go super crazy and create a professional role that actually – *gasp* that actually gets paid.”
LDS Social Services. If an issue is beyond the bishop’s purview he can issue a recommend to LDS Social Services which gets people in for free or half-price. My daughter was offered such a thing. An additional bonus is that this is not in the ecclesiastical chain of command; nothing you say there is even known to the ward or stake.
Michael2:
Hey buddy, you nearly perfectly illustrate why these interviews need to stop. You consistently defend the status quo. Or rather imply there is no serious problem. You twist current practices into apparent adequate solutions to the problem mostly denied. You ignore facets of the problem that don’t fit your narrow view. You monkey the ingrained response of the church leaders to this problem. Improvement becomes impossible because you really don’t buy into the problem. Compromise, if any, is too little and too late. It is driven by PR considerations, not compassion for victims and a sincere desire to prevent future predation.
I may not be as articulate or experienced as you but I can be just as pig-headed. These interviews must stop. I refuse to consider any other options. I remain satisfied that I had the courage and insight over 15 years ago to not allow my children to participate in these interviews. Ward level bullies wilted when faced with commitment to true principles, at least in my experience on this single issue. I encourage all parents to follow in my footsteps.
Michael 2,
I wasn’t really exaggerating, especially in the context of the post. I grant you that one way, maybe the major way that bishops are “trained” is through going through the paces of different callings – typically YM president, EQ president, being a councilor. During that time they might attend different Stake Leadership trainings etc. So they gain experience and they may learn from others through observation. Also, we tend to call men who are accomplished in managerial sorts of jobs and they can bring that with them as well.
However, to my knowledge in most wards bishopric counselors don’t actually hear confessions and are told to stop and interview and refer a person to a bishop if say in a worthiness interview a person begins to confess to sexual sin. I admit I was never officially a bishopric counselor. However I was an executive secretary that was treated as a “3rd councilor” in a student ward. I was at every meeting and about the only thing I didn’t do was do worthiness interviews. I have been YM presidents multiple times and E president on more than 1 continent as well as EQ councilor and SS president in a ward where SS was the most socially sensitive ward activity going on. I was good friends with a number of my bishops and was a ward insider. I know that doesn’t expose me to *everything* but I think it gives me a pretty good sense about the general path and training on that path to bishop. It would scare me to death to be called a bishop as I was approaching that. I know it is a scary and humbling experience for my friends who have been called and I don’t know one that would rap rhapsodic about the quality of prep and training they received.
Of course the above sort of cycle happens *sometimes* but definitely not always. It is definitely important but I guess I would want to hear when in that process men get trained on something like sexual counseling of adolescents and adults. What I think we can say is that the church actually spends very little money, relatively, on the training of bishops and don’t regularly train them on topics like abuse prevention, sexual counseling etc. The church does provide some resources and some videos but I think we can say it is probably not enough and its not like we don’t have resources. That gels nicely with the general claims in Elna’s piece and as her and the other stories illustrate we could be much better. In my experience those stories generalize enough to call the status quo in question.
Point taken on LDS social services. There are some resources and I know bishops can also refer others out to counseling etc. There are some resources. However you don’t have to dig very far in your friend circle to find people that have had more than problematic experiences with bishop’s counseling around things like marriage, abuse and sex. We can do better.
Per Mike’s point, the whose structure and practice needs to be carefully examined even when it is “working well”. Its not like LDS culture around sex is recognized as a particularly healthy one.
Look I try to really take a balanced view and recognize the strengths and good things in our community. I also think we should pragmatically think about how to make things better, especially when dealing some of life’s most difficult challenges. I stand by my statement now slightly modified:
“Random, *under*trained middle-aged men wielding the perceived authority of god distributing sex advice to minors in a one-one closed door intimate setting is no basis for a system of healthy ecclesiastical sexual counseling.”
I would like to defend Michael 2 in principle. His opinion is being strongly challenged by the bloggers on this site. But we are not a representative sample of the LDS church. Far from it. I think the opinions of Michael 2 are more consistent with those of the majority of my relatives who are orthodox and probably the majority of my ward. His viewpoint is extremely valuable here because of this perspective and it takes courage for him to put his ideas here for discussion. I mean no personal disrespect by my blunt comments against his thoughts and apologize if anyone responds to me with anything except laughter or agreement.
Mike, I agree with you that Michael 2’s view are what a majority of active Mormons. I agree his viewpoint is needed and I welcome it. What I personally dislike is the adamant tone of “you are all wrong, let me tell you how God and I see it.” As an example, M2 commented that only a bishop can REALLY remove your guilt from sinning. I disagreed saying in my case I found that a therapist did remove my guilt. M2’s response seemed to be a No True Scotsman fallacy saying that wasn’t really removing the guilt (and he did extend an “I hope I am not offending”). This may just be a quirk for me, but I think a much better framing would have been for him to say, “I don’t see it that way. The way I see it is …” That to me makes it a discussion. The way I see M2 commenting, it comes across to me as him telling me that my view is invalid and he has it all figured out.
I’m with Mike on this: regular one-on-one worthiness interviews need to end. We can significantly reduce the risk of grooming, sexual abuse, ecclesiastical abuse, everything with a few small edits to the Church Handbook of Instructions. In fact, many would be happy with such a change because of the manifestation of continued revelation alive in the church today.
I am convinced all of the benefits of one-on-one interviews that defenders claim can still be there with a mandatory two-deep requirement for ALL interactions with youth. And to be clear, I agree we should end the recommended 6-month worthiness check in for youth. All interviews and confessionals should be voluntary, not mandated by a calendar. And since bishops aren’t actual counselors, I don’t believe probing is ever appropriate, particularly with youth–if the person isn’t confessing it, it isn’t the bishop’s role to verify or coerce it out. All individuals, especially the vulnerable youth, should also be instructed that their participation is voluntary and they can choose not to respond to any question or even walk out if they’re ever uncomfortable–and we should actually have a designated person in each ward to act as an obmudsman who you could report to if the bishop ever makes you feel uncomfortable (and they actually check the bishop’s authority). And if my opinions have any bearing, I would also request that we stop calling them “worthiness” interviews.
From my perspective, the moral justifications I see for Michael 2’s and other defenders’ comments are deference to prophetic authority and institutional loyalty to the church. I agree that the prophet is trying his best and we should sustain him as such–I agree that the church has done many positive things in the world–HOWEVER, Jesus’s ministry was so impactful because he defended the vulnerable in the face of institutional opposition from the church leaders of their time. The church can defend itself, our youth are screaming out for more protection.
In response to the Other Mike:
“you nearly perfectly illustrate why these interviews need to stop.”
I’m a bit concerned about the “nearly” part. Nearly perfect is good but not great. I would try harder but I have no idea how exactly I illustrate what you believe I am illustrating.
“You consistently defend the status quo.”
I value consistency as well as obedience. It isn’t a church when everyone does what he or she wants to. It isn’t an armed force when everyone decides for himself how to fight a battle, or whether to fight it at all. Obedience need not be blind but there’s typically a price to pay for refusal even when you are proven correct. You’ll get your hero medal on the way out the door.
“You ignore facets of the problem that don’t fit your narrow view.”
Most of Earth’s 7 billion humans are having problems of various kinds and there’s not much I can do about it.
The Parable of the Good Samaritan is about ONE man helping ONE other man. One problem fully solved and thus ceased to be a problem.
The story of the sand dollar illustrates the same point
Story goes as a young boy and his grandfather walking down the beach. A big storm had come in the day before and there were hundreds and hundreds of sand-dollars washed up and starting to die in the sun.
As they walked, the grandfather would stop from time to time, reach down, pick up a sand dollar and throw it into the ocean. Finally, the little boy asked, “Grandfather, why are you throwing them back in?” and his grandfather replied, “So that they will live.”
The little boy thought for a minute and said, “But grandfather, there are so many of them! What possible difference can it make?” And the grandfather, reaching down and tossing another one back into the ocean, said, “To that one, it will make all of the difference in the world.”
Ghandhi said, “We must be the change we wish to see.”
I cannot change you. I can (try to) change me.
If you don’t like interviews, then do not interview others and do not be interviewed. Problem solved. But perhaps you think to solve other people’s problems and stick your nose where it does not belong. That’s how we got to many of these problems in the first place.
“You monkey the ingrained response of the church leaders to this problem.”
I do not comprehend “monkey” in this context. Perhaps a different animal?
“These interviews must stop. I refuse to consider any other options.”
I do not requiring you to consider other options. You choose for you and I choose for me; that’s the libertarian way.
I edited my reply many times and an important part got lost
I have allowed my children to be interviewed ONLY ONCE and that was for their baptism.
We (wife and I) have not allowed our children to be in a room alone with another adult at church or school, and it has been quite a battle on both fronts.
I think that church and state have interpreted this as being that we have something we don’t want our children to say so we’ve had a bit of battle with DCFS and church. in today’s world that’s stupid; children have facebook and twitter and can say anything they want at any time, 24 hours a day. I protect my children from other adults and yes, there’s a price to pay for doing that.
Happy Hubby complains “him telling me that my view is invalid and he has it all figured out.”
The plainer I write the less I seem to be comprehended. Maybe its an Aspie thing.
So, I will apologize now, not sure what for, but I won’t add to it by trying to explain my own guilts, how I got rid of some guilt and still have other guilt.
Micheal 2 – thanks for your reply and I do feel you are trying to be understood and I don’t think you are trying to offend. I think back and forth comments may not be the best way to get where we both feel comfortable, understood, and respected. Thanks again for your response and best of luck to you and your family in all you do! Signing off this thread.
Michael 2:
Nearly perfectly- – Nothing is perfect, except Jesus. But you are right you are doing your best. I can not point out anything more for you to do.
Monkey- this is a generational difference. We used to say: monkey see monkey do. I just realized it could have subtle racists tones which I never intended to iterate. Maybe copy cat would be better.
The rest I see what you mean.
I like the libertarian view- that I do what I want about not allowing these interviews but I don’t shove my opinion on others.
But this violates the consistency argument . And from a practical perspective, youth are heavily influenced by their peers. My daughter is a natural leader. As an adult her 5 member marketing team raised an additional 25 million dollars for the non-profit for which she works in the last 4 years. They restored a historic building to use as their concert hall and turned it into a source of reliable income that far exceeds their previous donations. You can imagine that at age 12 she had enormous influence among her peers and started a beehive revolt over these interviews. This was an unanticipated side-effect. I could image the opposite effect, a youth being shunned because their whacky parents wouldn’t follow the prophet/bishop/handbook in doing these interviews..
“you are all wrong, let me tell you how God and I see it.”
Bingo! This exactly how I thought from mission days forward fro several years. I own t. I see it in others.
I don’t like it now.
I always come late to these conversations!
I’m a clinical psychologist in the Mormon belt. I often work with college age adults dealing with issues of sexual (and other) guilt whose problems have been exacerbated by “exact obedience” rhetoric and frequent worthiness interviews. Many are returned missionaries whose problems got worse on or immediately after their missions. I observe two main ways in which this is a problem, depending on the underlying personality of the young person.
1. The already anxious person can develop Scrupulosity, a form of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder which includes extreme concern with religious rules and compulsive confession. I’m sure many bishops and mission presidents have experienced this. Most probably don’t realize that demanding confession as required by God and encouraging it as necessary for repentance actually reinforces the compulsive rituals. OCD is incredibly painful and can be intractable. I am a woman and therefore not a priesthood-holder, and even though I use very mainstream exposure and response prevention techniques with my clients, my professional bona fides are sometimes inadequate to counteract the effects of years of training in worthiness interviews.
2. I agree with Angela C, above, that sometimes a little lying and withholding of information is the most sensible response to intrusive questions. BUT, a 12-14 year old who has been taught his whole life that priesthood leaders have the God-given gift of discernment may not be able to handle the nuance required for that response. Kids tend to be black-or-white thinkers. If I lie to my bishop and he obviously doesn’t realize it, then who else can I lie to and get away with it? I have known teens who have their faith crisis right there, and decide that the Church is not true on the spot. Even worse, some decide to continue the deceit and actually move up in the Church (I guess for family, social and power reasons), while believing nothing. A budding sociopath can find a very sweet place in the Church simply if willing to lie. I usually don’t see these folks in therapy – I see their wives and children.
I’m surprised no one has mentioned this definition of “confession” from the Church’s own Bible Dictionary.
“Confession
The scriptures use confession in at least two ways. One is to confess that Jesus is the Christ; that is, a confession or profession of faith; see, for example, Matt. 10:32; 16:16; John 6:68–69; 12:42; Rom. 10:9; Philip. 2:11; 1 Tim. 6:12; Heb. 4:14; 1 Jn. 4:2. A second usage of confession is confession of sin. It is a duty of all persons to confess all their sins to the Lord and, when necessary, to the person or persons sinned against. Sins against the public must be publicly confessed (D&C 42:88–93). Other items may be confessed to a church official (bishop), or in many cases to the Lord alone. Confession to a church official (in most cases the bishop) is necessary whenever one’s transgression is of a nature for which the Church might impose loss of membership or other disciplinary action. The bishop cannot and does not forgive sin, but he may judge the matter and waive the penalty that the Church might otherwise impose against the person. The repentant sinner must still make confession and obtain forgiveness of the Lord.
Confession is a condition of forgiveness. The Lord has said that true repentance is always accompanied by confession (D&C 58:43; 64:7). Confession was clearly a requirement of forgiveness under the law of Moses (Lev. 5:5; 26:40; Num. 5:7; Josh. 7:19; Ezra 10:11). John the Baptist baptized those who repented and confessed their sins (Matt. 3:5–6).”
The main part that I would highlight is “Confession to a church official (in most cases the bishop) is necessary whenever one’s transgression is of a nature for which the Church might impose loss of membership or other disciplinary action. The bishop cannot and does not forgive sin, but he may judge the matter and waive the penalty that the Church might otherwise impose against the person.“
In light of this, does something minor (IMHO) like masturbation even need to be mentioned to the Bishop? Confess to the Lord and go on your way trying to do better in the future – knowing that the Lord sees the intent of your heart, and the Atonement of the Savior is there for everyone.
Also, I love this quote from Brigham Young , “. . . if you have sinned against your God, or against your selves, confess to God, and keep the matter to yourselves, for I do not want to know anything about it” (Discourses of Brigham Young, p. 158).