Need your opinion

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_KimberlyAnn
_Emeritus
Posts: 3171
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:03 pm

Re: Who Knows

Post by _KimberlyAnn »

The Dude wrote:
Maxrep wrote:If the husband has told the bishop of his disbelief, then we enter a different realm. An individual does not take authority, but receives a measure of it from those who have consented to obey and become subject to this authority. If the wife "Fails" the recommend interview, then her estimation of his authority as bishop is likely diminished.

We now have a family that may have less confidence in the Bishops authority. If the bishop has the tact to see his place within the couples family he will use terms that are inclusive and supportive rather than devicive.


I agree, and that's why I said the Bishop was an idiot for going with divisive comments like the husband is "listening to the wrong spirit."

The mere fact that WK's wife came home and told him this -- with a little smirk -- is a good sign for the WK household!

Now if WK were an abusive drunk, it could be a different story; but here the wife and kids who live with him every day have a "testimony" that WK is a loving husband/father, despite his utter disbelief. The more the bishop and others try to demean WK's place in the home, the more they are going to ward the wife and kids away from the church.


I completely agree with The Dude, but feel it bears repeating that it is, as Truth Dancer said, totally inappropriate for your children to meet privately with any Bishop. Your wife will see right through the Bishop, but the kids need protected.

KA
_Bond...James Bond
_Emeritus
Posts: 4627
Joined: Tue Nov 07, 2006 4:49 am

Re: Who Knows

Post by _Bond...James Bond »

KimberlyAnn wrote:I completely agree with The Dude, but feel it bears repeating that it is, as Truth Dancer said, totally inappropriate for your children to meet privately with any Bishop. Your wife will see right through the Bishop, but the kids need protected.


Totally agree with this.....one of my major LDS criticisms is of untrained people (In other words....not trained as therapists, doctors, social workers) are in the position of asking very intimate questions to people (including children!) without any real training. The power of discernment abbreviated PoD.....not PhD. Tell the bishop to get his medical license or therapist license and then you'll let him question your kids about their private lives.

(I know you're kids are young WK....but time flies and the law of chastity questions may come someday soon)
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
_Ray A

Re: Who Knows

Post by _Ray A »

Bond...James Bond wrote:
Totally agree with this.....one of my major LDS criticisms is of untrained people (In other words....not trained as therapists, doctors, social workers) are in the position of asking very intimate questions to people (including children!) without any real training. The power of discernment abbreviated PoD.....not PhD. Tell the bishop to get his medical license or therapist license and then you'll let him question your kids about their private lives.

(I know you're kids are young WK....but time flies and the law of chastity questions may come someday soon)


FYI, Bond, bishops are told not to enter areas in which they have no expertise, though some undoubtedly do. The Church has professional resources of trained psychologists with Ph.Ds, and my former stake president was one of them. They are not as partisan to LDS beliefs as one may assume, either. I agree that bishops could have more training, and looking back at my own experience of being a bishop at 25, I think I could have been better trained, if in nothing else, at least in knowing where my boundaries lie. The Church Welfare Handbook outlines these services. A bishop is not a professional counselor, and his main role is as a "steward in Zion". His main duty is the temporal affairs of the Church, and he is the president of the Aaronic PH which oversees this.

D&C 42:

31 And inasmuch as ye impart of your substance unto the poor, ye will do it unto me; and they shall be laid before the bishop of my church and his counselors, two of the elders, or high priests, such as he shall appoint or has appointed and set apart for that purpose.
32 And it shall come to pass, that after they are laid before the bishop of my church, and after that he has received these testimonies concerning the consecration of the properties of my church, that they cannot be taken from the church, agreeable to my commandments, every man shall be made accountable unto me, a steward over his own property, or that which he has received by consecration, as much as is sufficient for himself and family.
33 And again, if there shall be properties in the hands of the church, or any individuals of it, more than is necessary for their support after this first consecration, which is a residue to be consecrated unto the bishop, it shall be kept to administer to those who have not, from time to time, that every man who has need may be amply supplied and receive according to his wants.
34 Therefore, the residue shall be kept in my storehouse, to administer to the poor and the needy, as shall be appointed by the high council of the church, and the bishop and his council;


D&C 107:

17 But as a high priest of the Melchizedek Priesthood has authority to officiate in all the lesser offices, he may officiate in the office of bishop when no literal descendant of Aaron can be found, provided he is called and set apart and ordained unto this power by the hands of the Presidency of the Melchizedek Priesthood. 68 Wherefore, the office of a bishop is not equal unto it; for the office of a bishop is in administering all temporal things;
_The Dude
_Emeritus
Posts: 2976
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 3:16 am

Re: Who Knows

Post by _The Dude »

KimberlyAnn wrote:I completely agree with The Dude, but feel it bears repeating that it is, as Truth Dancer said, totally inappropriate for your children to meet privately with any Bishop. Your wife will see right through the Bishop, but the kids need protected.


Do they? Okay, maybe they do. But just think of what would happen if the Bishop told WK's kids that their father is under Satanic influence. And then the kids go home and tell mommy what the bishop said... Oh boy! She won't be smirking then, will she?

In the end, no matter how it comes about, persecution of WK is going to work to his advantage. That's why I said "always take the high road." The worst that can happen is a sort of cold war.
"And yet another little spot is smoothed out of the echo chamber wall..." Bond
_harmony
_Emeritus
Posts: 18195
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 1:35 am

Post by _harmony »

liz3564 wrote:by the way, WK, exactly WHY did your wife fail the temple recommend interview?

Normally, they're pretty liberal with this as long as you're living the Word of Wisdom, the law of chastity, and paying a full tithe.

I'm not all that certain that your wife SHOULD have failed the interview if all she did was answer a few "I don't know's" in the belief department.


I"m with Liz. I don't understand how she failed the interview. I've answered "I don't know" or "I'm still studying that" to several questions, and I've always passed. That's very strange.
_KimberlyAnn
_Emeritus
Posts: 3171
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 2:03 pm

Re: Who Knows

Post by _KimberlyAnn »

The Dude wrote:
KimberlyAnn wrote:I completely agree with The Dude, but feel it bears repeating that it is, as Truth Dancer said, totally inappropriate for your children to meet privately with any Bishop. Your wife will see right through the Bishop, but the kids need protected.


Do they? Okay, maybe they do. But just think of what would happen if the Bishop told WK's kids that their father is under Satanic influence. And then the kids go home and tell mommy what the bishop said... Oh boy! She won't be smirking then, will she?

In the end, no matter how it comes about, persecution of WK is going to work to his advantage. That's why I said "always take the high road." The worst that can happen is a sort of cold war.


I know a cold war isn't for the best, but kids aren't predictable. What if the Bishop tells the kids their father is under Satanic influence and they believe him? What if they start to think less of their father because he's not Peter Priesthood? But really, that's not even my biggest concern. My biggest concern is the likelihood that a Bishop will ask probing, intimate questions, which are completely inappropriate and should not be allowed by Who Knows.

Of course, all Bishops aren't the same, but in my experience as a teenager, I was many times asked questions which I now know were inappropriate, but at the time I thought they were only humiliating and embarrassing. I confessed to French kissing, which was told to me by my Bishop was "sex with the mouth". In the interview, I was asked if the young man whom I kissed touched my breasts, removed any of my clothing or otherwise touched my body. The Bishop wanted DETAILS, so he could appropriately punish me. I was asked if I was wearing a slip while kissing! Looking back now, I cannot believe I was alone as a teenage girl with a forty year old man who was asking me such questions! It's entirely inappropriate, and to me, worth a little war to prevent from happening in Who Knows' family.

Yes, kids do need protected from Bishops' interviews - for many reasons.

KA
_Ray A

Re: Who Knows

Post by _Ray A »

KimberlyAnn wrote:Of course, all Bishops aren't the same, but in my experience as a teenager, I was many times asked questions which I now know were inappropriate, but at the time I thought they were only humiliating and embarrassing. I confessed to French kissing, which was told to me by my Bishop was "sex with the mouth". In the interview, I was asked if the young man whom I kissed touched my breasts, removed any of my clothing or otherwise touched my body. The Bishop wanted DETAILS, so he could appropriately punish me. I was asked if I was wearing a slip while kissing! Looking back now, I cannot believe I was alone as a teenage girl with a forty year old man who was asking me such questions! It's entirely inappropriate, and to me, worth a little war to prevent from happening in Who Knows' family.


Of course this was inappropriate. But you said you "confessed to French kissing", so of course the bishop is going to respond that way, especially if he read The Miracle of Forgiveness. I always thought this idea of French kissing being a sin completely silly. If a bishop wants DETAILS about such things, then he may be the one with a problem. He does not need to know any of that, nor should he force such replies.
_Inconceivable
_Emeritus
Posts: 3405
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:44 am

Post by _Inconceivable »

Who Knows,

The comments the bishop made really sets me off. I've got a situation much the same as yours. If I were to lean into the bishop he (and particularly the stake president) might be so bold as to say it to me. Which, in several round about ways they have. I guess that's the indoctrination of Mormonism for you.

I'll have to think about this one.

Making an agreement with him that you will not belittle him in private to his wife and children may put things in perspective.

You wouldn't happen to be his kid's baseball coach or his wife's mechanic?
_moksha
_Emeritus
Posts: 22508
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 8:42 pm

Re: Who Knows

Post by _moksha »

KimberlyAnn wrote: I confessed to French kissing, which was told to me by my Bishop was "sex with the mouth". In the interview, I was asked if the young man whom I kissed touched my breasts, removed any of my clothing or otherwise touched my body. The Bishop wanted DETAILS, so he could appropriately punish me. I was asked if I was wearing a slip while kissing! Looking back now, I cannot believe I was alone as a teenage girl with a forty year old man who was asking me such questions! It's entirely inappropriate...
KA


Do any of the LDS posters here know if this is ever talked about in Church or if a forum for discussing such a subject exists. If so, it would take a brave soul (preferably a woman) to mention the inappropriateness of this line of questioning and ask what safequards exist within their own ward to see that is does not happen.
Cry Heaven and let loose the Penguins of Peace
_Polygamy Porter
_Emeritus
Posts: 2204
Joined: Tue Oct 24, 2006 6:04 am

Post by _Polygamy Porter »

The bishop of the ward at the time of my "apostasy" told my wife the worst thing an idiot Mormon could say, an expected rote statement of, "Your husband has lost his countenance"

My wife almost laughed at him at the moment.

He continued for a few more weeks about how I was dark now and that he could be her pretend power priesthood power ranger if she needed the power of god in her or the children's lives.

After he told her that he feared for our children, I called him and in no certain terms told him to stay away from my wife and children, and that he had no dominion over them.

He complied for a year, then accidentally added us back to the HT list.

After two HT companionships and one set of elders went to him with doctrinal questions, he apologized and was a good boy.

I miss the fresh meat though. Nothing like telling grown men or baloney bopping bicycle boys about the masonic connection to the temple, Joes poly/adry/gamy, the Papyrus rediscovery, etc et al.... *sigh*

When the ward was assigned a new bishop, my wife was still attending and he told her he wanted to meet with her WEEKLY. She said NO. A fe w months later she had her own realization of the whole fraud ridden cult and rather quickly and unceremoniously resigned from her callings and halted all attendance by her and our children. Of course the kids were ecstatic!


The new young bishop called me, the former pretend power priesthood power ranger of the house and asked what was going on.

Two hours later he realized our home should be a permanent DO NOT CONTACT, DO NOT GO NEAR!!, DO NOT MAKE EYE CONTACT!!! STAY AWAY FROM THEIR HOME list.

I told him I would not hunt down his unwitting flock of sheep, but advised him to not to send any to my testimony butcher block.

He agreed and asked me to not contact any of "his" members.

I laughed and said, "ohhh YOUR members... ooookkkkaaaaaayyyy"

"I am responsible for their spiritual well being", he said.

"No you are not, but I will not be seen stuffing windshield wipers at the chapel parking lot on sunday.

"As long as you are not part of any of these so-called Christian mega churches who are targeting us!", he said.

I told him they were not doing anything different than what the Mormon missionaries were doing.

We ended on that note.

We have not heard from him since!
Post Reply