DiscussMormonism.com

As harmony and Zoidberg pointed out, if a church leader does something out of line, there's really no system for dealing with that. Church members will tell you to go up the priesthood line, but unless it's something really potentially embarrassing or damaging to the church, most of the time you'll be dismissed as a whiner or a crank.

We have this counsel from Ezra Taft Benson:

President Marion G. Romney tells of this incident, which happened to him:

I remember years ago when I was a Bishop I had President [Heber J.] Grant talk to our ward. After the meeting I drove him home....Standing by me, he put his arm over my shoulder and said: "My boy, you always keep your eye on the President of the Church, and if he ever tells you to do anything, and it is wrong, and you do it, the Lord will bless you for it." Then with a twinkle in his eye, he said, "But you don't need to worry. The Lord will never let his mouthpiece lead the people astray." [In Conference Report, October 1), p. 78]

This has been extended to local priesthood leaders. I've personally been counseled many times to follow the priesthood line of authority, even if it seems wrong to me personally. And if it is wrong, I'll be blessed for it.

Most organizations have an ombudsman or even a "hotline" for reporting abuse within the system. Not so the LDS church. And we all know what happened to Lavina Anderson when she tried to change this.

What kind of wrong are we talking about here? The ward activity chairman plans a sock hop for the ward where the average age of the members is 82? Or a bishop tells the deacons they can't pass the sacrament if they aren't wearing suits? Or. . . . .what?

Runtu specifically cited "abuse", charity.

For example, years ago my babysitter stopped going to church because her bishop kept calling her into his office to rehash the gory details of a sexual indiscretion. He wanted to hear about it over and over. She felt certain he was doing this for private titillation, particularly since the male member of the indiscretion was never repeatedly questioned.

It really does help to define what we are talking about. Abuse of power, sexual abuse, physical abuse. The word "abuse" can be used in many ways.

I have never experienced any kind of abuse, of the kinds mentioned above, by any church leader. And if anyone I know has, they haven't told me about it. But I know a lot of people who think that some leader has overstepped his bounds at one time or another.

And if a Church leader were to act in the way you described, there is no excuse for not taking care of the situation. If your babysitter was telling the truth (I assume you believe there are two sides to every story, and you may not get the straight of it from one person) then she should have told her parents and they should have gone to the stake president. And if the stake president didn't do anything, the regional representative.

If the babysitter didn't want to talk to her parents (maybe keep them in the dark about whatever her behavior had been), at least she told you. You then had the resonsibility as an adult to report the abuse. Sitting back and whining about any kind of wrong and not doing anything about it is a sin in itself.

My babysitter was an adult woman who had had a baby as the result of the indiscretion. It was hardly hidden from anyone. I was no longer a member of the church by that time. I suspect that's part of the reason she felt comfortable telling me her story.

Simply going to a person of higher priesthood power, within the same chain, isn't the best solution, due to familiarity issues. That's why many organizations set up a separate system to deal with abuses.

I really don't remember if my babysitter reported the abuse to the stake president. But look at what you've just done, charity. You automatically insinuated that she wasn't telling the full story. She was a fornicator, after all, dealing with moral issues. Why do you imagine that the stake president would have reacted any differently?

beastie wrote:My babysitter was an adult woman who had had a baby as the result of the indiscretion. It was hardly hidden from anyone. I was no longer a member of the church by that time. I suspect that's part of the reason she felt comfortable telling me her story.

Simply going to a person of higher priesthood power, within the same chain, isn't the best solution, due to familiarity issues. That's why many organizations set up a separate system to deal with abuses.

I really don't remember if my babysitter reported the abuse to the stake president. But look at what you've just done, charity. You automatically insinuated that she wasn't telling the full story. She was a fornicator, after all, dealing with moral issues. Why do you imagine that the stake president would have reacted any differently?

When I hear stories like the one about your babysitter, it makes my blood boil! The whole Personal Worthiness Interview process (especially with the youth) is such an utter invasion. Can you imagine how humiliating for a young girl to have to speak about something so personal....with her male/adult, neighbor?

I think that sometime soon, we will see a change in the process....I hope. No minor should be in a room with any adult asking them things sexual in nature.

It amazes me when so many TBM's see nothing wrong with this ritual.

Hi Tori...

Welcome to the board.

I completely agree with you.

How anyone in her/his right mind thinks it is appropriate for young girls, teenagers, or even boys to be alone behind closed doors with a grown neighbor man asking questions about their sexuality is BEYOND ME!

I can hardly believe that this still happens.

~dancer~

truth dancer wrote:Hi Tori...

Welcome to the board.

I completely agree with you.

How anyone in her/his right mind thinks it is appropriate for young girls, teenagers, or even boys to be alone behind closed doors with a grown neighbor man asking questions about their sexuality is BEYOND ME!

I can hardly believe that this still happens.

~dancer~

Thank you, T-Dancer!

I remember how mortified I was when I would "confess" a little petting to my Bishop as a teenager. Why are these kids required to do this? What could possibly be positive about an experience such as that? I think that parents should be in attendance....especially during the interview. I wonder if a Bishop would then ask a young man about masturbation......I kinda think not.

I agree with Tori and TD, but do want to make it clear that my babysitter wasn't a minor. She was around 21 when this occurred. She kept the baby and raised it as a single mother, but I'm not sure if she went back to church or not. We lost contact after I moved.

While of course it is more egregious if this occurs with a minor, I think it is also inappropriate with adults. I don't understand why details ever have to be divulged for any sort of confessional.

beastie wrote: I don't understand why details ever have to be divulged for any sort of confessional.

I don't understand why confession to a bishop is necessary. To me, it's invasive and has no place in the repentence process.