Sexual Abuse, For the SCMC and LDS Believers

[_Jersey Girl]

Well, what a dilemma.

The primary responsibility of a bishop within the interview is to determine the worthiness of the interviewee.

A shepherd needs to check his sheep's fur coats for zippers occasionally, you know.

In Mormonism, teenagers are forbidden to participate in certain activities if they practice specific unauthorized sexual behavior (activities including taking the sacrament, baptisms for the dead or the living, stake dance cards or passing/blessing the sacrament).

If a bishop is forbidden to ask, he would also be forbidden to be told. If he has no knowledge of worthiness he cannot authorize a recommend. If he cannot recommend, he is no longer a Judge in Israel.

You pull the sexual questions from a bishop's interview and you remove their right and authority to act in their god's name.

What are the other questions being asked and why aren't those enough to determine worthiness?

Are the child's answers regarding sexuality shared with parents?

Is the child's recommend different than the Temple Recommend or is it exactly the same?

[_harmony]

What are the other questions being asked and why aren't those enough to determine worthiness?

Because the church is most interested in sex. They don't care if you cheat on your taxes or a test or your neighbor, if you lie, if you beat your wife. They want to know if you pay your tithing, practiced approved sex, and keep the WoW.

Are the child's answers regarding sexuality shared with parents?

Hell, no!

Is the child's recommend different than the Temple Recommend or is it exactly the same?

It's a conditional use recommend, and can only be used for baptismal work. It doesn't even get the bearer behind the recommend desk.

[_Jersey Girl]

Thanks, harm. I don't think I can discuss this further right now. It really infuriates me.

[_harmony]

The only time this will change is after a good honest man is hung out to dry for following this policy.

In my ward, we have team teachers for every class and the door has to be open during class. It's for the protection of the teachers and the children/teenagers. Leaders can no longer transport children without another adult present in the car. Heck, I can't feed the missionaries because there's a possibility that my husband will be called out on an ambulance run and I can't be in my own home alone with the missionaries.

Yet we put our bishops in a very bad position by requiring that the door be closed during interviews with teens and women. And it will only change when someone high up on the food chain is hauled into court and charged with rape or some other crime.

Stupid.

I'm waiting for the revelation. Anyone want to lay bets on how long it takes for this policy to change?

[_Yoda]

It's a conditional use recommend, and can only be used for baptismal work. It doesn't even get the bearer behind the recommend desk.

Actually, the kids don't even get the piece of paper in their possession. After the interview(s), their names are simply put on a list. When the kids get to the temple with the chaperones, the adult chaperones present the list to the temple desk before they are escorted back for baptisms.

In our stake, the Stake President interview for baptisms is actually done in group fashion. The Stake President just comes and speaks before the group of kids that are going. The bishop interview is still one on one.

Frankly, I really don't see the bishop interview process changing until, as Harmony says, some Bishop actually does violate the trust of the office and finds himself in a court of law. As soon as that happens, some type of "revelation" will occur.

[_harmony]

Actually, the kids don't even get the piece of paper in their possession. After the interview(s), their names are simply put on a list. When the kids get to the temple with the chaperones, the adult chaperones present the list to the temple desk before they are escorted back for baptisms.

You're right. I was thinking of the YSA unendowed recommend.

In our stake, the Stake President interview for baptisms is actually done in group fashion. The Stake President just comes and speaks before the group of kids that are going. The bishop interview is still one on one.

Same here.

Frankly, I really don't see the bishop interview process changing until, as Harmony says, some Bishop actually does violate the trust of the office and finds himself in a court of law. As soon as that happens, some type of "revelation" will occur.

Or until some teenage girl screams the place down and makes an accusation, even if it's not true.

[_ajax18]

It does amaze me that the Church carries on this policy with the potential liability involved. If there is one thing the LDS leadership understands, it's money.

I've found myself forced to conduct medical exams on kids when the parent isn't present because she's in another exam room with another kid. Then having to give them shots and other things that kids hate, it's a real nightmare just waiting to happen. Once I have more autonomy I intend to never allow that situation to occur again, but right now I either do it or leave the profession. I absolutely hate this country.

People falling on economic hard times would like nothing better than to fabricate a story that might win them some extra cash. And the fact that children are immune to any punishment for lying in their accusations should indicate to the church what a dangerous position they're really in.

But that brings up the question of who would really bare the brunt of the lawsuit. Would it be the Church? Or would it be the individual bishop? If it's just the bishop that is at risk than I'm sure the Church could care less. But if it were Church finance, than it might be a more difficult decision for them.

[_Yoda]

But that brings up the question of who would really bare the brunt of the lawsuit. Would it be the Church? Or would it be the individual bishop? If it's just the bishop that is at risk than I'm sure the Church could care less. But if it were Church finance, than it might be a more difficult decision for them.

The Church would always have some type of link to any lawsuit. Even if it was only the individual bishop that was sued, the fact that he was a bishop for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints would come out. The Church would receive negative publicity no matter what.

Let's face it. Negative publicity is what the Church seeks to avoid at all costs. If there was a financial settlement, that would simply be a "double whammy".

[_truth dancer]

While I agree that the LDS church should change their policy to protect themselves to be honest I really don't care too much about their financial loss should one occur.

What I do care about is the children who are being subject to this craziness. It is incredible that the church doesn't get a clue.

Again, children should be taught to NEVER discuss their sexual lives with an adult, and to avoid all "meetings" alone with an adult probing their personal lives. It is unfathomable that this occurs in this century.

I agree that the church will likely not change this until they are not only sued but receive the bad press alerting the general population of this practice or if insurance will refuse to cover them, or something along these lines.

I guess it is too much to expect a church led by Jesus Christ himself to care more about children than it does some crazy interview process allowing grown men to learn about the sex lives of children and teenagers.




~td~

[_Phouchg]

You pull the sexual questions from a bishop's interview and you remove their right and authority to act in their god's name.

Wow. A bishop's so-called "authority" is based on his ability to ask inappropriate questions of minors? really?

So glad I am out. Any parent who willingly participates in this charade is culpable in the sexual abuse of their child. Period.


fook