Panic! At the Interview: Bishop's Office Horrors

[_Runtu]

Apparently Schmo is not alone in failing to grasp the important and obvious distinction between putting things into proper proportion/perspective and "minimizing" them.

Apparently Wade is alone in failing to grasp the important and obvious similarity between putting things into proper proportion/perspective and "minimizing" them.

What I find interesting is Wade's response, which is fairly typical. It's not, "I didn't intend to minimize KA's experience," but rather "it's your fault that you don't recognize the obvious distinction." It's OK to clarify intent, but it's not nice to insult people's intelligence because they "misread" your words.

[_KimberlyAnn]

I've never understood why they couldn't just leave it at generalizations. If I had had sex before marriage, would it have mattered what position, etc.?

It doesn't matter except that there are creepy people out there who want to hear a hot young women give up every little thing she's ever done, in graphic detail so they can get their rocks off in some way. They're called perverts, and they're immune to the power of discernment.

Although I hear this all the time from ex-mo's, I have NEVER met a bishop that fits this description. Every bishop I've ever known has been the salt of the earth.

The Bishop I had who questioned me about the French kissing wasn't doing it for a sexual thrill. He was truly a by-the-books kind of guy and was a bit harsh compared to other Bishops I had. To me, that shows even well-meaning men still shouldn't be questioning teenagers about their sexuality. No ecclesiastical leader, even a well-intentioned Bishop, has any business asking the details of anyone's sexual experiences. Those men are untrained. They are not therapists or counselors or even background checked, for that matter! It's nuts to let a minor child go into a room with them alone - with the door closed! Imagine what damage a Bishop could do if he did have nefarious motives!

KA

[_Scottie]

I've never understood why they couldn't just leave it at generalizations. If I had had sex before marriage, would it have mattered what position, etc.?

It doesn't matter except that there are creepy people out there who want to hear a hot young women give up every little thing she's ever done, in graphic detail so they can get their rocks off in some way. They're called perverts, and they're immune to the power of discernment.

Although I hear this all the time from ex-mo's, I have NEVER met a bishop that fits this description. Every bishop I've ever known has been the salt of the earth.

The Bishop I had who questioned me about the French kissing wasn't doing it for a sexual thrill. He was truly a by-the-books kind of guy and was a bit harsh compared to other Bishops I had. To me, that shows even well-meaning men still shouldn't be questioning teenagers about their sexuality. No ecclesiastical leader, even a well-intentioned Bishop, has any business asking the details of anyone's sexual experiences. Those men are untrained. They are not therapists or counselors or even background checked, for that matter! It's nuts to let a minor child go into a room with them alone - with the door closed! Imagine what damage a Bishop could do if he did have nefarious motives!

KA

I absolutely 100% agree here, KA. Bishops are given FAR too much responsibility with far too little training.

[_Blixa]

Although I hear this all the time from ex-mo's, I have NEVER met a bishop that fits this description. Every bishop I've ever known has been the salt of the earth.

Add me to the "other" faction. Out of 3 Bishops I interacted with as a member, two were on the "creepy" (as defined above) side, and one was not---but then I only knew him as an 8 year old and had different problems at that age.

I don't think all bishops are pervs. On the other hand I think the lack of training is problematic for all of them, salt of the earth included. Maybe more so for SOFTE bishops because they are sincere.

(iBtw, t was from a bishop that I first learned that women can masterbate. Because of the definition in the dictionary I consulted at age 10 or 11, I was under the assumption that it required a penis...)

[_moksha]

Kids and teenagers are not well prepared to cope with anyone in authority who is also neurotic. It is a shame they have to ever experience this, regardless of how many bodies are on the fields of Cambodia.

If one feels an interview is turning into an investigation, they should just leave.

[_Runtu]

Kids and teenagers are not well prepared to cope with anyone in authority who is also neurotic. It is a shame they have to ever experience this, regardless of how many bodies are on the fields of Cambodia.

If one feels an interview is turning into an investigation, they should just leave.

I have told my kids that there are some things even a bishop has no right to discuss with them and that if they are ever asked anything that they aren't comfortable discussing, they are to tell the bishop he can talk to me about it if he wants.

[_KimberlyAnn]

Kids and teenagers are not well prepared to cope with anyone in authority who is also neurotic. It is a shame they have to ever experience this, regardless of how many bodies are on the fields of Cambodia.

If one feels an interview is turning into an investigation, they should just leave.

Kids who are being interviewed by an authority figure they believe represents the Lord aren't likely to just get up and leave an interview. I know I wouldn't have. I truly, honestly, and now looking back, embarrassingly believed my Bishop was a representative of the Lord and wouldn't do anything inappropriate or ask inappropriate questions. I felt like any discomfort on my part was due to guilt over my sins, even if I didn't know what those sins were!

Parents need to keep their children out of those interviews or insist on being involved in them - we simply cannot put the burden upon the youngsters to protect themselves against an authority figure they may believe represents God, or to make those kinds of judgments of whether or not the interview has turned into an investigation. Adults may be able to do that, but it's a parent's job to protect their minor children.

And I totally agree, it's a shame anyone has to endure those investigations, no matter what else is going on in the world.

Also, I'm not trying, as Wade and others intimated, to whine, I'm trying to relay an experience that may spur an adult to protect their children from Bishop's interviews. In my mind, trying in any way to protect children from prying investigations into extremely personal matters by untrained, lay Bishops is a loving and considerate gesture. But I'm sure others feel differently.

KA

[_harmony]

Y'all know I have 8 kids, so that amounts to a lot of bishop's interviews. The one that sticks out in my mind the most was the one where the poor unsuspecting man made the mistake of calling my oldest daughter into his office to explain her comment, made in Seminary when she was a senior, that she didn't require a RM for a husband. After that interview, he was the one dripping in sweat and wishing he'd never set foot in the room. He never interviewed her again. He told me later that he'd never seen such self-confidence in a teenage girl. I told him he was lucky he escaped all in one piece.

My boys never seemed upset or intimidated by bishop's interviews. They dredded the Eagle Scout interviews more than anything else.