Consent and Worthiness Interviews

[achilles]

I've been watching the new Mormon Stories Podcast with therapist Tim Birt. I'm only about an hour into it, but I had a big realization.

He and John began to talk about how we don't teach consent very well in the Church. You know, the idea that our bodies and our sexualities belong to each of us individually, and that we don't have to consent to anything we don't want to participate in.

Anyway, it occurred to me that talking about our sexuality is something that we consent to. We deserve the right to consent to it. But there is this pressure to talk to the bishop about our sexuality. That we "have" to do it to be a good person. That's not consent. And we don't prepare ourselves or our children very well with that idea. And how can children even rightfully consent to "confess" to the bishop when the power relationship is so skewed? We need to be more careful about this.

I don't have kids, so I'm wondering what others think about this.

[wtfluff]

And how can children even rightfully consent to "confess" to the bishop when the power relationship is so skewed?

That's the thing though: "Worthiness" interview start at 8-years-old sometimes. An 8-year-old CANNOT give consent. One could argue that no-one can give consent until they are legally an adult. We talk a lot about how mormonism infantilizes it's adherents, but in this case, mormonsim literally robs children of their innocence, and it's done by some strange man who lives "down the street".

I suppose that true-believers would defend this by saying that the parent has given consent for the child. Sorry, but that doesn't work for me...

[achilles]

One could argue that no-one can give consent until they are legally an adult.

Bingo. And ultimately, I think that this could be the legal grounding for ending these practices. It's just a matter of time until some recording comes out...

[achilles]

I suppose that true-believers would defend this by saying that the parent has given consent for the child. Sorry, but that doesn't work for me...

Yeah. Do you even know how creepy this sounds? "I assent to you talking to my daughter about !@#$#%@%"

[Jeffret]

Though it's never really specified, the Church operates on the assumption of implied consent. Basically consent is assumed to be granted at baptism. For converts. Or at birth. For those born into the covenant. Consent is only fully revoked by reversing the process. By dying. Or by becoming not-a-member. If you demand your records be removed that's a clear revocation of consent. If the Church excommunicates you, that's also a termination of the relationship, resulting in a revocation of consent. That's one of the reasons most bishops and SPs are really pretty reluctant to excommunicate someone. They don't want to lose that implied consent. If you just stop caring whether they excommunicate you, their power over you dissipates into air. Many times that's a way to take back your power of consent. As long as they think they have something you want, they think they own your consent.

Mormon church leaders are convinced that they have special privileges, powers, and keys to speak directly for Almighty God. God requires no consent to do whatsoever He wants, so therefore by proxy Mormon leaders don't either. Disobeying church leaders is equivalent in their eyes to acting in open opposition to God and is simple, incontrovertible proof of apostasy.

Now I recognize that there are kind-hearted, well-meaning, aware leaders out there. Some of them will not be intrusive. Or will seek at least some level of consent. However, the system promotes this concept of implied consent and authority of leaders.


This is one reason why I cannot worship the Mormon god. This god that requires submission and obeisance is not a god that I can find worthy of worship. For that matter, any god who needs worship isn't worthy of my worship.

[Thoughtful]

Though it's never really specified, the Church operates on the assumption of implied consent. Basically consent is assumed to be granted at baptism. For converts. Or at birth. For those born into the covenant. Consent is only fully revoked by reversing the process. By dying. Or by becoming not-a-member. If you demand your records be removed that's a clear revocation of consent. If the Church excommunicates you, that's also a termination of the relationship, resulting in a revocation of consent. That's one of the reasons most bishops and SPs are really pretty reluctant to excommunicate someone. They don't want to lose that implied consent. If you just stop caring whether they excommunicate you, their power over you dissipates into air. Many times that's a way to take back your power of consent. As long as they think they have something you want, they think they own your consent.

Mormon church leaders are convinced that they have special privileges, powers, and keys to speak directly for Almighty God. God requires no consent to do whatsoever He wants, so therefore by proxy Mormon leaders don't either. Disobeying church leaders is equivalent in their eyes to acting in open opposition to God and is simple, incontrovertible proof of apostasy.

Now I recognize that there are kind-hearted, well-meaning, aware leaders out there. Some of them will not be intrusive. Or will seek at least some level of consent. However, the system promotes this concept of implied consent and authority of leaders.


This is one reason why I cannot worship the Mormon god. This god that requires submission and obeisance is not a god that I can find worthy of worship. For that matter, any god who needs worship isn't worthy of my worship.

We are also told that we have consented to covenants we never actually state... including baptism, priesthood ordination, temple garments.... they sort of tell us we made that promise but actually do not make it.

[achilles]

So Jeffret--you did describe what consent looks like from the point of view of the Church. Now think about it in a 21st century American context. Implied consent that you can talk to my son about what he chooses to do with his equipment? I can see that blowing up in a PR and legal fiasco in the near future.

To be fair, I'm not hoping the church gets schooled on this. But I am hoping for a healthier place for all of us and our kids, and that includes making space for healthy sexuality.

[Jeffret]

So Jeffret--you did describe what consent looks like from the point of view of the Church. Now think about it in a 21st century American context. Implied consent that you can talk to my son about what he chooses to do with his equipment? I can see that blowing up in a PR and legal fiasco in the near future.

Legally, probably not. At least not in the U.S.A. Under the U.S. Constitution religions and religious leaders have a lot of freedom and lots of protections. If the leader interviewed the child against the express wishes of the parent, then there could be issues. But, generally the parents give an implied consent if not actual consent for the interviews. It's hard enough holding the Church liable when it covers up actual abuse. Few cases have proceeded through court and found against the Church. In contrast to the Catholic Church, which knowingly shuffled around abusive priests, the LDS Church hides behind its lay ministry. Only in very rare situations would there actually be a legal issue with the bishop asking a girl if she masturbates.

As for the PR side of it, the jury is still out on that one. So far it looks like the majority of Church members are plenty willing to continue submitting and doing whatever the Church demands. Outside the Church, people look at it in bewilderment but aren't invested in it and consider it just another wacky religious activity. Video might accomplish something.

Jeff