NOM

First impression - Not as many Jane and Joe citizen attendees as I would have hoped for. John Dehlin was there (for moral support I suppose). Not as many press representatives as I would have hoped for. But there were a bunch of press there.

Presentation - They did a good job. Sam Young (former bishop behind the movement) gave a heart-felt speech briefly sharing a couple stories of horrific damage done by the practice of worthiness interviews. Joelle Casteix (sex abuse victims’ advocate, Western Regional Director of Survivors Network of those Abused by Priests) provided context for how LDS worthiness interviews are not normal or acceptable by the standards of any organization. Natasha Helfer Parker provided a heart-felt, but rationally sound, psychology-based argument for terminating the practice.

Real News - Sam announced that the Protect LDS Children march where they deliver the petition to the ever compassionate LDS leadership (could you feel the sarcasm in that last phrase) would be on March 30th.

Afterthoughts - I wonder how effective this might be. I guess it's the same with any grass-roots effort. You push, and you hope that something you do sticks enough to have a cascading effect in the media. What the hell would it take? Compared to the rest of society, la Iglesia Mormon is tiny, so most outside of the Moridor would probably think "meh" if they heard about this. I don't think the GAs care about their parishioners except as it reflects on the image of the Church. I think most believing Mormon parents are blind to the possibility that the Church could have institutionalized a harmful practice. I'm concerned about this practice even though I've ended it with my kids. I'm concerned that Sam's efforts to Protect the Children won't be enough to make a large institutional change. I hope I'm wrong about that last concern.

Who the hell institutionalizes the practice of a male adult, in a position of authority in his community, interviewing minor children, one-on-one, behind a closed door, questioning them about worthiness and sexual behavior, feelings, and thoughts? When you describe it in detail like that, isn't it obviously something terribly awful? And yet I accept responsibility for my complacency in this. I am not innocent. I used to allow my kids to be interrogated like this. I was a bishop's counselor. I held these interviews, dammit. I never asked anything beyond "Do you live the law of chastity?", but even that or just the concept of judging another's worthiness is wrong. Don't worry; I'm not being "too hard on myself." I'm a recovering Mormon, and I need to say I'm sorry for the sins of the addiction of my Mormon devotion. I'm sorry. I'm so, so sorry.

So yeah, I guess this was a little cathartic for me.

Peace amigos,
Zack

Who the hell institutionalizes the practice of a male adult, in a position of authority in his community, interviewing minor children, one-on-one, behind a closed door, questioning them about worthiness and sexual behavior, feelings, and thoughts?

The same institution founded by a male adult, in a position of authority in his community, marrying 14 year old girls and other men's wives!

The real world doesn't care about this because common sense tells people to just not send your kids in. Non Mormons don't understand. Mormon parents aren't bothered by it either so I see this falling on deaf ears and zero change to church policy.

So let's think of this in two ways to further the cause and keep the conversation going so it doesn't fizzle out.

1. An undercover audio or video gets recorded and leaked to the media. Start recording these interviews.

2. Can we file a class action lawsuit against the church to get their attention? Anyone who has been harmed by these interviews can join. I'm not a lawyer so not sure what basis there would be to file. Anyone know if there is just cause?

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:48 am 1. An undercover audio or video gets recorded and leaked to the media. Start recording these interviews.

2. Can we file a class action lawsuit against the church to get their attention? Anyone who has been harmed by these interviews can join. I'm not a lawyer so not sure what basis there would be to file. Anyone know if there is just cause?

Probably #1 would be the most effective. That sort of thing could make a big splash. Church leaders tend to be resistant to pressure but they really don't like to look bad. They want to avoid criticism.

#2 probably isn't workable. Religion is generally heavily protected by law in the U.S. It's generally hard to find anything that makes religions civilly liable without some criminal event being involved. This is part of the strong protections for religious freedom in the U.S.

Probably the most effective would be going after criminal activity that originated in or involved these interviews. Actual abuse, particularly child sexual abuse. The criminal case could make big news. A follow-on civil case could cost lots of money. Church leaders are very averse to possibly financial liability.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:48 am

Who the hell institutionalizes the practice of a male adult, in a position of authority in his community, interviewing minor children, one-on-one, behind a closed door, questioning them about worthiness and sexual behavior, feelings, and thoughts?

The same institution founded by a male adult, in a position of authority in his community, marrying 14 year old girls and other men's wives!

I know you're making a joke, but I think this deserves a serious answer. How does a church get to this point? Here's my attempt at the ingredients that go into it for the LDS church.

• Preoccupation with purity. The belief that only people who are righteous enough can merit certain blessings from God motivates gatekeeping those blessings. The belief that allowing people who aren't righteous enough into the temple will somehow dirty it motivates gatekeeping the temple. Grace somehow doesn't count.
• Preoccupation with sexual purity in particular. Whether this is because of puritanism, polygamy, conservatism, cultural milieu, Alma 39, or a combination of these things could fill dissertations. However it happened, it's undeniable. "Better dead clean, than alive unclean." "Sexual purity is youth's most precious possession; it is the foundation of all righteousness." This motivates asking questions about sexual purity as part of gatekeeping.
• Belief in detailed supernatural knowledge. This justifies gatekeeping by getting around a few things: the doctrine that God employs no servant at the gates of heaven, injunctions against judging, the parable of the wheat and tares, etc. Priesthood leaders are qualified to judge because they know the mind of God, so their judgment is God's judgment. This belief also engenders unwarranted trust of priesthood leaders with children. The stake president's inspired choice can't be a predator because discernment.
• Codependency. A person who depends on the church for identity and self-worth will almost certainly never identify its policies or practices as harmful, even when it's obvious that some of them are. (At worst, it's the victim's fault. At best, it's just one of those sad things about mortality.) If directly harmed, that person will almost certainly keep quiet about it because of internalized guilt or pressure from other codependents. Codependency allows worthiness interviews with sexual purity questions to keep happening.

This list is formidable. Teaching grace would help. Real sex education would help. Rewriting the chapter heading of Alma 39 would help, but is unlikely to happen. Admitting that priesthood leaders don't have special knowledge would help, but is unlikely to happen because Mormonism depends critically on God's fine-grained intervention. Maybe instead we can admit that they make huge mistakes that hurt a lot of people. I don't know what to do about codependency because it seems to be one of the only things holding the church together.

So I guess we're left with Sam Young's approach: call out the church on its harmful policies and practices to shame it into behaving.

Reuben wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:15 pm Rewriting the chapter heading of Alma 39 would help, but is unlikely to happen.

Wow I just went back and skimmed Alma 39, and I didn't realize how much that chapter heading influences how people interpret it. I'll never forget the day my eighth grade seminary teacher wrote a list of minor sexual acts (or, in his words, "sins") on the board and then wrote "murder" in big letters next to them. As in, these "sins" are tantamount to murder in the eyes of God. Really messed up how I saw things as a youth.

Rereading the chapter, the part about "sins next to murder" can easily be interpreted in a much narrower sense. Alma could have simply been referring to Corianton leaving his post as a missionary, or engaging in prostitution or something. It doesn't have to include teenagers kissing passionately, masturbation, etc. The heading makes it much more all-encompassing than the text says. What a joke. Thanks a million, Bruce.

Short article on the press conference:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2 ... ely-today/

Video of the press conference:

https://youtu.be/XSwXO40SCMQ

Edit: This is supposed to be better:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PF8BYINOny0

I'd love a transcript, but I can't find one.

Jeffret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:09 pm

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:48 am 1. An undercover audio or video gets recorded and leaked to the media. Start recording these interviews.

2. Can we file a class action lawsuit against the church to get their attention? Anyone who has been harmed by these interviews can join. I'm not a lawyer so not sure what basis there would be to file. Anyone know if there is just cause?

Probably #1 would be the most effective. That sort of thing could make a big splash. Church leaders tend to be resistant to pressure but they really don't like to look bad. They want to avoid criticism.

#2 probably isn't workable. Religion is generally heavily protected by law in the U.S. It's generally hard to find anything that makes religions civilly liable without some criminal event being involved. This is part of the strong protections for religious freedom in the U.S.

Probably the most effective would be going after criminal activity that originated in or involved these interviews. Actual abuse, particularly child sexual abuse. The criminal case could make big news. A follow-on civil case could cost lots of money. Church leaders are very averse to possibly financial liability.

To help with 2, I wonder if it would be feasible to push for legislation which would make it illegal for unlicensed individuals to meet one on one behind closed doors with minors in an official capacity, and to make sure that an ecclesiastical endorsement doesn't count as a licence.

lostintime wrote:

Jeffret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:09 pm

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:48 am To help with 2, I wonder if it would be feasible to push for legislation which would make it illegal for unlicensed individuals to meet one on one behind closed doors with minors in an official capacity, and to make sure that an ecclesiastical endorsement doesn't count as a licence.

Won't work in the U.S.A. Religious freedom protections are too strong.

And there usually aren't good, legal ways to regulate unlicensed individuals.

The last few years some states and localities have passed laws to prohibit reparative therapy for gay minors. But these laws only apply to licensed practitioners. They don't restrict religious leaders because that would be thrown out as unconstitutional. And they don't restrict private individuals because there is no mechanism for regulating them.

Sent from my SM-J327V using Tapatalk

Jeffret wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 1:09 pm

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:48 am 1. An undercover audio or video gets recorded and leaked to the media. Start recording these interviews.

2. Can we file a class action lawsuit against the church to get their attention? Anyone who has been harmed by these interviews can join. I'm not a lawyer so not sure what basis there would be to file. Anyone know if there is just cause?

Probably #1 would be the most effective. That sort of thing could make a big splash. Church leaders tend to be resistant to pressure but they really don't like to look bad. They want to avoid criticism.

#2 probably isn't workable. Religion is generally heavily protected by law in the U.S. It's generally hard to find anything that makes religions civilly liable without some criminal event being involved. This is part of the strong protections for religious freedom in the U.S.

Probably the most effective would be going after criminal activity that originated in or involved these interviews. Actual abuse, particularly child sexual abuse. The criminal case could make big news. A follow-on civil case could cost lots of money. Church leaders are very averse to possibly financial liability.

#1 is by far the most effective. Most people in the Church think the practice must be OK because the Church is never wrong. Most people outside the Church never bother thinking about the Church and thus don’t care.

But imagine a YouTube video of a bishop asking a young man or woman about sexual things. Imagine a YouTube video of a young girl confessing sexual behaviors to a middle aged man. Think Savannah’s Sacrament Meeting video, but maybe even more embarrassing to the Church.

And most importantly, imagine bishops being afraid to ask personal questions because they don’t know if they are being recorded. Even if the policy didn’t change, bishops’ practices would change out of fear of being recorded.

If you have a bishop who is known to give egregiously inappropriate interviews and a brave young man or woman who thinks they can pull it off, consider having them do this - I think that could cause real change.

Not Buying It wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 10:17 pm But imagine a YouTube video of a bishop asking a young man or woman about sexual things. Imagine a YouTube video of a young girl confessing sexual behaviors to a middle aged man. Think Savannah’s Sacrament Meeting video, but maybe even more embarrassing to the Church.

And most importantly, imagine bishops being afraid to ask personal questions because they don’t know if they are being recorded. Even if the policy didn’t change, bishops’ practices would change out of fear of being recorded.

If you have a bishop who is known to give egregiously inappropriate interviews and a brave young man or woman who thinks they can pull it off, consider having them do this - I think that could cause real change.

Doggonit Not Buyin It!

This! You know the devout would think this is devious and inappropriate, but only because they won't step back to try to look at it more objectively. I mean, think about it. What part of the interview (if you're going to have one) should be protected in confidence and a promise to not disclose info? The part spoken by the interviewee. If the bishop or other ecclesiastical leader is only doing and saying appropriate things, why the hell would it be wrong for the interviewee to make the interview public? Only one reason I can think of that would make this uncomfortable for devout Mormons--it's culty. I don't think there's any way around that.

(By "culty" I don't necessarily mean "weird." I mean inappropriately controling, manipulative, and intrusive.)

Thank you for the report Zack. And I agree with others that a viral video would be the best way to end this practice. Notbuyingit, you need to email what you said to Sam Young:
liberty-sam@msn.com