Mopologetics and the Problem of "Bad" Students

[_Kishkumen]

I am reminded of the crack suicide squad that comes to rescue Brian in Monty Python’s Life of Brian.

I am also struck by the interesting way in which established authorities are crumbling before our eyes as they encounter the changing values of the people. Increasingly this Mormon authority invalidates itself as people walk away, no longer willing to play a game that is becoming irrelevant to them. The game is partly made irrelevant by the desperation with which the Church tightens its grip in trying to assert its relevance.

The chickens are coming home to roost now, but the rot had taken hold before the Church hit peak baptisms. Sorry for the mixed metaphor.

[_Johannes]

Daniel Peterson should consider what would have happened if one of the young people he interviewed turned out to be disturbed or malicious, and either twisted something that he said or made up an allegation against him. It wouldn't matter how appropriately he had conducted himself - there would have been no witnesses and no way for him to defend himself. Just one allegation, and his reputation could have been ruined for ever.

This points to a basic truth of child safeguarding policies in modern churches. They are not there (only) to protect the children. They are there to protect the clergy.

I know of no mainstream church in which adolescents are routinely interviewed about any aspect of their sex lives. The closest comparator is Roman Catholic confession, which I believe is much more ritualised and rule-bound, and less risky for both participants.

[_Kishkumen]

Daniel Peterson should consider what would have happened if one of the young people he interviewed turned out to be disturbed or malicious, and either twisted something that he said or made up an allegation against him. It wouldn't matter how appropriately he had conducted himself - there would have been no witnesses and no way for him to defend himself. Just one allegation, and his reputation could have been ruined for ever.

This points to a basic truth of child safeguarding policies in modern churches. They are not there (only) to protect the children. They are there to protect the clergy.

I know of no mainstream church in which adolescents are routinely interviewed about any aspect of their sex lives. The closest comparator is Roman Catholic confession, which I believe is much more ritualised and rule-bound, and less risky for both participants.

Thanks for this valuable information and perspective, Johannes. As always your contribution to the board is invaluable.

[_Doctor Scratch]

It turns out that Dr. Peterson's views have softened somewhat in recent years. This is what he wrote in his recent blog entry on "Sic et Non":

When I myself served as a bishop, I never asked intrusive questions nor demanding intimate personal information from anybody. Now, granted, I presided over a college-age singles ward and never interviewed children. But I certainly wouldn’t have asked inappropriate questions of them, either. I usually just asked whether the person that I was interviewing kept the law of chastity.

There were a handful of situations where the interviewee would ask me how, exactly, chastity might be defined, or whether engaging in y might be a violation of it. On a few rare occasions, sensing a hesitant answer or some other uncertainty, I myself might ask what the law of chastity meant to the person I was interviewing. Or I might ask if he or she had any reservations or felt that he or she should expand upon a simple Yes or No answer. I never probed inappropriately. I always tried to be sensitive, and I honestly think that I was.

This stands in pretty stark contrast to his old practices and beliefs, however. Take a look at this posting from 2009:

I can't impose standards of my own devising, but I can probe to find out whether the candidate for a recommend is answering the questions in the sense they were asked.

Two examples:

An applicant might respond "Yes" when asked whether he or she lives the law of chastity, but it may turn out that the person is using a narrowly technical definition of chastity that permits oral sex, coitus interruptus, and the like. If a bishop suspects that the term may be being used in an equivocal or evasive sense, he has not only the right but the obligation to inquire further.

I've encountered one or two cases much like this.

(emphasis added)

In his recent, 2017 blog entry, he described such behavior as "wholly inappropriate," to which I say: good for him. But, in light of his defense of problematic Church practices, I think it's only fair to point out that he didn't always feel this way, and that, in fact--by his own admission--he used to ask rather prying and disturbing sexual questions when he was bishop, and he felt entirely justified (perhaps even obligated) to do so:

Anybody who's ever been the bishop of a single's ward won't have to be told that these matters come up. They simply do.

When somebody comes in to me and says "Bishop, my boyfriend and I messed up," I have to ask "What does that mean?" I always apologize for seeking rather clinical details, and I back off as soon as I know what I need to know, but "messing up" is rather vague. Having sexual intercourse is a different thing than merely spending too much time making out, or, as one person confessed, having unclean thoughts pass through his mind when his hand inadvertently touched his date's rear end. In order to make a determination of how or whether to respond, I need to know a bit more than merely "we messed up."

Do I get some sort of charge out of talking with people about their sex lives? You can't imagine how very little charge I get out of it. I don't enjoy it even slightly. But it comes with the territory.

So, I am somewhat unclear on what to make of this. On the one hand, I'm glad that he views this line of questioning as "wholly inappropriate," but then again, here is some pretty clear and obvious evidence that he himself asked these kinds of questions, and that he felt obligated and justified in doing so.... I guess this is a case of selective memory, or something like that?

[_Tator]

So, I am somewhat unclear on what to make of this. On the one hand, I'm glad that he views this line of questioning as "wholly inappropriate," but then again, here is some pretty clear and obvious evidence that he himself asked these kinds of questions, and that he felt obligated and justified in doing so.... I guess this is a case of selective memory, or something like that?

Maybe it depends on who he is plagiarizing at the time.

[_Tom]

Dan,

http://churchofthefridge.com/religion-knows-no-bounds/

There is a recording in this link of a Bishop defending his instruction to ask "when was the last time", not "do you". It seems you doubt this really happens and you have only heard of this once from a friend of a friend type deal.

This bishop is adamant that it is his duty to ask these questions and insists he will continue even after being told by both parents they have an issue with it.

That recording figuratively made my head explode. Excerpts from the transcript with my own comments in blue:

Bishop: So I don't know what your wife told you but she misrepresented what she was told by the primary president.

You're calling my wife a liar?


Bishop: Satan knows your children because he lived with them in the pre earth life. He knows their weaknesses he knows their tendencies and no matter what you're gonna do to protect them he's going to find a way to attack their character.

You're making Scientology's beliefs about Xenu and thetans sound rational.


Bishop: Have you ever allowed your child to go into a rest room by themselves? Some day you will have to and you better hope that [they're] armed that if some guy approaches them they know how to appropriately respond.

Have you ever allowed your child to go into the bishop's office by themselves? Some day you will have to and you better hope that they're armed that if the bishop asks them about their sexuality or approaches them sexually they know how to appropriately respond.


Bishop: So if you don't feel comfortable with me asking those questions um that's your choice I think you're making a mistake by delaying baptism heaven forbid should he be killed in a car accident that's something that you should have to deal with.

Have you no sense of decency?


Church member: Right. I just don't want it brought up with other people. He doesn't know you that well. He barely sees you at church and that's about it. And it's just gonna be...

Bishop: Then I would be very sad that he doesn't know the bishop well enough to know a bishop's interview because his whole life he'll be asked very embarrassing questions by men he barely knows that are his priesthood leaders.

Church member : Well he's only 7 and we've only been here for a year.

Bishop: He's been in here to get treats from me. I see him in the hall, I talk to him standing up in primary. He knows me probably better than some of the other kids I've done interviews who are members of the ward, um, much other than just, well their parents don't come.

Can you say "grooming"?

[_cwald]

Wow. Just wow.

[_Johannes]

You're too kind, Kish.

This caught my eye:

Bishop: Have you ever allowed your child to go into a rest room by themselves? Some day you will have to and you better hope that [they're] armed that if some guy approaches them they know how to appropriately respond.

I would find it interesting to know how many male posters here have been sexually propositioned by a random gay man while visiting the toilet. I feel that I have missed out on an important life experience here.

Having said that, I did once hear a story about a chap who got punched when he asked the man at the next urinal what he was doing at the weekend. He thought that it was his friend, who had followed him into the toilets, and he was just trying to make small talk; but it turned out to be a complete stranger.

[_Johannes]

In order to make a determination of how or whether to respond, I need to know a bit more than merely "we messed up."

What are the consequences if someone does confess unchastity to a Mormon bishop? Is it like Catholic confession, where the bishop will give out a penance and formally forgive the person in the name of the church? (I'm not referring to Temple recommend interviews, where presumably the consequence would be not getting the recommend.)

[_deacon blues]

The post of Dr. Peterson’s 2009 coments on this board reminds me of how the Church often has to backtrack on previous statements: one example being the Manifesto and post Manifesto polygamy. Peterson may or may not respond to the contradiction in 2009 statement and his 2017 statement, but it seems clear to me that there is a contradiction, although I might be wrong.
I’m confident that Peterson would be able to explain to his own satisfaction, that no contradiction exists. But would he be willing to admit that others might see a contradiction, and admit that he (Peterson) might be mistaken in his own perceptions?