Another Bishop Behaving Badly

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
User avatar
JohnW
Valiant A
Posts: 178
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2022 10:11 pm

Re: Another Bishop Behaving Badly

Post by JohnW »

malkie wrote:
Tue May 16, 2023 3:51 am
JohnW wrote:
Tue May 16, 2023 1:46 am
Yeah, that may be a valid reason to discuss these things in public, but we don't often get a fair discussion. I find that the bad things get discussed and the good things tend to be left out. For example, in the article, both individuals talked about how they had great church leaders for much of their time actively attending. They don't go into detail about those good experiences. The only story we get is the bad story.

In reality, I think I understand where you're coming from, Kishkumen. I really don't expect people here to stop discussing things like this. In fact, if we as a church never discuss this sort of thing, we run the risk of hiding the really bad apples. I personally would prefer that we err on the side of a little too open. I guess I was just in a lamenting mood when I posted my initial response.
Whether there is a "fair" discussion depends on a lot of factors, including where the discussion takes place, and what you consider to be fair. in my opinion, religions may have somewhat more freedom in western society than is justified, and in some countries the larger religious organizations are in the business of abusing minorities and attempting to deny them their rights. I count CoJCoLDS as being in that group, and as deserving a lot of the criticism that they get.

There is another Mormon discussion board where you may feel that, for your taste, discussions are more fair towards the church - to the extent that direct criticism of the church or of the senior leaders may result in the critic being banned. On this forum we are not prevented from posting links to that one - and you have probably seen it done. On the other forum it may be a hanging offence to post a link to this one.

You will perhaps notice that bloggers like Prof. Peterson regularly denigrate this discussion group, but (almost) never supply links so that their readers can see for themselves if the bloggers' statements are true, whereas posters here often include links to Peterson's blog. The vast majority of reasonably faithful members would never come to a forum like this, even if they knew how to find it. In your opinion, is it fair that this forum is demonised by LDS apologists?

One of the good features of this board we are participating in is that outright censorship is rare, and differing rules in the different fora means that anyone can participate in a forum that allows only the degree of disagreement that they are willing to put up with.

I think you can be sure, however, that any statement put out by the church is unlikely to be 'fair' in the most common sense of the word, and will likely be quite severely criticised here. Independent media may also be quite critical of the church, just as they may be quite critical of other religions, and other philosophies.
Yeah, Malkie. I think I agree with you here. As I've thought more about it, I like this group just the way it is. I would much rather prefer honest opinions over censorship. Yes, most people here aren't going to agree with me, but I didn't come here to have people agree with me. I didn't even come here to change people's minds. I came here to hear honest opinions about my beliefs. I find that when I surround myself with people who agree with me, I tend to get lazy in my thought process. Here I have plenty of chances to consider well thought out opinions that are quite different from mine. Thanks for the reminder.
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Another Bishop Behaving Badly

Post by Kishkumen »

JohnW wrote:
Tue May 16, 2023 1:46 am
Yeah, that may be a valid reason to discuss these things in public, but we don't often get a fair discussion. I find that the bad things get discussed and the good things tend to be left out. For example, in the article, both individuals talked about how they had great church leaders for much of their time actively attending. They don't go into detail about those good experiences. The only story we get is the bad story.

In reality, I think I understand where you're coming from, Kishkumen. I really don't expect people here to stop discussing things like this. In fact, if we as a church never discuss this sort of thing, we run the risk of hiding the really bad apples. I personally would prefer that we err on the side of a little too open. I guess I was just in a lamenting mood when I posted my initial response.
I agree that we tend to focus on the negative here. And I know that there are good people who serve as bishops who do so honorably. That said, it is an institution I no longer want anything to do with for a variety of reasons.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Another Bishop Behaving Badly

Post by Kishkumen »

Gadianton wrote:
Tue May 16, 2023 2:12 am
You seem to assume that somebody in the Church would know how to train them in a way that would make liberal-minded people happy or even want to train them in such a way.

Training might work if the Church extended its reliance on consultants and brought in a third party with no affiliation to Mormonism to train bishops with programs used in the corporate world for managers. I suppose it wouldn't be too much of a stretch given the missionary program is built on sales-training materials from the outside.

Hmm. Come to think of it, it might actually work to a degree. It could put out some fires, but ultimately I think it would make power abuse more passive aggressive. The sell to the leadership would be that ultimately, such a program is built to navigate political correctness while at the same time ensuring the interests of the corporate entity.
No, I don’t think the LDS Church is well equipped to train its clergy properly. Or that it wants to do so. I simply note that it does not, and that is one reason among many that I have no use for them.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
dastardly stem
God
Posts: 2259
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2020 2:38 pm

Re: Another Bishop Behaving Badly

Post by dastardly stem »

JohnW wrote:
Tue May 16, 2023 1:56 am

I do agree that allowing (and even encouraging) parents to be in on interviews with the bishop is generally a good idea. This change in policy came out while I was bishop. I had been already doing that for years with some of the youth whose parents had requested to be present, but this policy change validated that sentiment. It is interesting to note that quite a few parents prefer to not be in the same room with their child. They are concerned that the child will not be completely open with the bishop if a parent is present. I have also seen this effect. Some kids really don't want a parent there if they are unloading. In rare cases, a parent is sometimes part of the problem. Ultimately, there isn't always a one-size-fits-all answer.
I didn't know they made a change there. That's cool. Another case where God needs prodding by members ;)

Something I've referenced here before, I believe, back when my oldest was coming of age. wife and I were barely hanging on to the concept of belief, but we had a talk with the bishop letting him know we'd prefer he not meet with our child alone. It was pretty disappointing when we learned he was taking our kid out of Sunday School to interview without our knowledge. Yucky. When our son told us about what was discussed, we were even more disappointed. My son was like "i'm just an f'n kid, dumbass". He was adamant it was God's will he sit behind closed doors with children talking about their sexual lives. In truth there probably wasn't much that bishop could do to not disappoint us, as we were mentally done before we actually took up our quads never to return. Whatever the case the experience cemented for me the need for the Church to change its policy. Glad that happened.
“Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another.”
― Carl Sagan, Cosmos
User avatar
sock puppet
High Priest
Posts: 397
Joined: Tue Mar 23, 2021 9:29 pm

Re: Another Bishop Behaving Badly

Post by sock puppet »

JohnW wrote:
Tue May 16, 2023 1:46 am
Kishkumen wrote:
Sun May 14, 2023 11:57 am
That’s one more place where we disagree. The purpose in discussing these items is very clear: to show how poorly the institution functions. And in my experience it functions pretty poorly. If *you* do/did a conscientious job of being a bishop, I commend you for that. That does not mean the institution as such is a good one.
Yeah, that may be a valid reason to discuss these things in public, but we don't often get a fair discussion. I find that the bad things get discussed and the good things tend to be left out. For example, in the article, both individuals talked about how they had great church leaders for much of their time actively attending. They don't go into detail about those good experiences. The only story we get is the bad story.

In reality, I think I understand where you're coming from, Kishkumen. I really don't expect people here to stop discussing things like this. In fact, if we as a church never discuss this sort of thing, we run the risk of hiding the really bad apples. I personally would prefer that we err on the side of a little too open. I guess I was just in a lamenting mood when I posted my initial response.
JohnW, I do not doubt that most bishops are good people, just like most criminal prosecutions correctly put guilty people in jail. The issue is with the anomalies--the incorrect prosecutions, the bad bishops that damage people's lives, often irreparably. The bone I have to pick is with the concept, structure and directives to bishops. It is religion's definition of "sin"--a list of such basic conducts that religions admit no human but Jesus (a mythical figure or divine and thus not entirely human)--can avoid. Thus, guilt is assured. By so guilting is adherents, religion necessitates confession and repentance. Those afflicted by such, those that can't shake it line up at the bishop's door to unload. I think it is great that many parents are protecting their children by being in the room during their children's "interviews." That helps avoid the most palpable and insidious occurrences of sexual probing, intimidation and shaming--and rare incidence of actual sexual molestation by the bishop. This entire structure however is the problem. In the criminal justice system, all accused are presumed innocent, entitled to competent lawyers, not expected to testify against themselves, and innocent unless a jury finds guilt beyond any reasonable doubt to minimize the chance of conviction and punishing an innocent person. Yes, that high standard means some guilty people will walk, which society has agreed is a price worth paying to reduce the chance of convicting innocent people.

Sam Young shamed the church into making an improvement that was obvious to everyone not caught up in the Mormon bubble. Thanks, Sam! That's how it came about, not that the old 15 got a revelation or even realized but for Sam how dangerous those "interviews" were. Nevertheless, that does not correct the core problem with the sin-guilt-confess to bishop B.S. and the long term damage to the psyche and sexual lives of those kids and members that buy into it. That is where the rub is.
"I'm not crazy about reality, but it's still the only place to get a decent meal." Groucho Marx
"The truth has no defense against a fool determined to believe a lie." Mark Twain
The best lack all conviction, while the worst//Are full of passionate intensity." Yeats
User avatar
malkie
God
Posts: 1478
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:41 pm

Re: Another Bishop Behaving Badly

Post by malkie »

sock puppet wrote:
Tue May 16, 2023 1:36 pm
JohnW wrote:
Tue May 16, 2023 1:46 am
Yeah, that may be a valid reason to discuss these things in public, but we don't often get a fair discussion. I find that the bad things get discussed and the good things tend to be left out. For example, in the article, both individuals talked about how they had great church leaders for much of their time actively attending. They don't go into detail about those good experiences. The only story we get is the bad story.

In reality, I think I understand where you're coming from, Kishkumen. I really don't expect people here to stop discussing things like this. In fact, if we as a church never discuss this sort of thing, we run the risk of hiding the really bad apples. I personally would prefer that we err on the side of a little too open. I guess I was just in a lamenting mood when I posted my initial response.
JohnW, I do not doubt that most bishops are good people, just like most criminal prosecutions correctly put guilty people in jail. The issue is with the anomalies--the incorrect prosecutions, the bad bishops that damage people's lives, often irreparably. The bone I have to pick is with the concept, structure and directives to bishops. It is religion's definition of "sin"--a list of such basic conducts that religions admit no human but Jesus (a mythical figure or divine and thus not entirely human)--can avoid. Thus, guilt is assured. By so guilting is adherents, religion necessitates confession and repentance. Those afflicted by such, those that can't shake it line up at the bishop's door to unload. I think it is great that many parents are protecting their children by being in the room during their children's "interviews." That helps avoid the most palpable and insidious occurrences of sexual probing, intimidation and shaming--and rare incidence of actual sexual molestation by the bishop. This entire structure however is the problem. In the criminal justice system, all accused are presumed innocent, entitled to competent lawyers, not expected to testify against themselves, and innocent unless a jury finds guilt beyond any reasonable doubt to minimize the chance of conviction and punishing an innocent person. Yes, that high standard means some guilty people will walk, which society has agreed is a price worth paying to reduce the chance of convicting innocent people.

Sam Young shamed the church into making an improvement that was obvious to everyone not caught up in the Mormon bubble. Thanks, Sam! That's how it came about, not that the old 15 got a revelation or even realized but for Sam how dangerous those "interviews" were. Nevertheless, that does not correct the core problem with the sin-guilt-confess to bishop B.S. and the long term damage to the psyche and sexual lives of those kids and members that buy into it. That is where the rub is.
And, of course, they shot the messenger.
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details.
Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Another Bishop Behaving Badly

Post by Kishkumen »

Indeed. Had no one raised a ruckus about the obviously unsafe practice of untrained male lay clergy interviewing minors about their sexual lives, there would have been no change, no matter how many times that led to the victimization of innocent children. There should be no regular practice of interviewing minors anyway.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
User avatar
Physics Guy
God
Posts: 1557
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 7:40 am
Location: on the battlefield of life

Re: Another Bishop Behaving Badly

Post by Physics Guy »

Training clergy in most religions is not just a bunch of weekend courses that anybody could go through in spare time. In many cases the standard is some kind of Master's degree, plus a couple of years of internship-like work as some kind of junior minister. The tradition in most of the older religions is to consider clergy education as comparable to that for medicine and law. There's an old plaque by a gate to the Harvard campus explaining that the place was founded to train Christian ministers.

Maybe not all of those years of training are strictly necessary, but some of their value derives from just being a significant entry cost to the profession, which screens out at least some inappropriate people. The long training also means that a fair number of already trained professionals get to know each candidate minister and assess them before they take office, which further helps with the screening. If you drop down to much less training than multiple years of full-time post-secondary study, you'll be giving up some significant things.

It's probably hard to have clergy trained to that kind of level, though, without having professional clergy. Not too many people want to study and intern full-time for six years just to pursue an avocation, however sacred. Clergy haven't expected worldly wealth to rival their traditional social peers in law and medicine, but the calling hasn't traditionally been to outright poverty: as Paul advised Timothy, the workers are supposed to be worthy of their hire. Providing lowish white-collar salaries to clergy is a major financial undertaking, however. Paying the pastor or rabbi or imam or whatever is usually the biggest single item, by far, in a congregation's budget. I'm no financial wizard but I think a quick ballpark estimate plausibly shows that if the LDS church had to pay professional clergy, there would be no hundred-billion-dollar treasury.

Having trained clergy isn't just a program that a church can decide to implement. It's a substantial change to the business model, and probably to the whole culture. What would become of the apparently crucial Mormon concept of "priesthood keys", if what it took to be an LDS bishop was really the keys plus a specialized Master's degree? Wouldn't that tend to make the keys seem a lot less precious? And wouldn't that undermine the whole claim to the Restoration?
I was a teenager before it was cool.
User avatar
malkie
God
Posts: 1478
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:41 pm

Re: Another Bishop Behaving Badly

Post by malkie »

I know someone who is studying for the CoC ministry - 34 graduate semester hours.

I don't know how that translates into real-world credits/months / years - I don't do US!
You can help Ukraine by talking for an hour a week!! PM me, or check www.enginprogram.org for details.
Слава Україні!, 𝑺𝒍𝒂𝒗𝒂 𝑼𝒌𝒓𝒂𝒊𝒏𝒊!
User avatar
Kishkumen
God
Posts: 6121
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:37 pm
Location: Cassius University

Re: Another Bishop Behaving Badly

Post by Kishkumen »

malkie wrote:
Wed May 17, 2023 1:51 pm
I know someone who is studying for the CoC ministry - 34 graduate semester hours.

I don't know how that translates into real-world credits/months / years - I don't do US!
It’s basically an MA.
“If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about the answers.”~Thomas Pynchon, Gravity’s Rainbow
Post Reply