NOM

One thing that strikes me hard in reading all of the stories that Sam Young has collected is the insistence by many leaders that they have to know all of the details. They have to know all about where they were, what she was wearing, where she touched him, where he touched her, whether it was on top of clothes, whether it was below, how many times, whether he fingered her, how many fingers he used, whether there was oral, whether she provided, whether he did, did each one climax.

Many of them recount how their church leaders require a long, specific listing of every detail of time, place, clothing, body parts, and activities. The leaders insist that repentance cannot occur, or that the desired benefit cannot be obtained, without a full accounting. In a disciplinary court, it has to all be detailed and described. Each man present in the inquisition can ask further questions and require additional details.

I'm extremely perplexed about how this detail and recounting is useful or important in any fashion. What does it accomplish? How does it help the leader to do anything helpful? Better yet, how does it help the poor sinner to achieve anything valuable? Other than to inflict abject humiliation and submission?

What is also interesting, though, is the things that aren't asked. None of the stories recount that they were asked, Did you consent to any of this? Was he concerned about your consent? Did he treat you well? Were you pressured into any of these activities? Did you make sure you had consent? Did you treat your partner well? Did you pay attention to your partner's concerns? Did you take proper precautions to avoid disease, pregnancy, or other problems?

Admittedly even many of these questions aren't really appropriate for a leader to be asking. Or helpful, or meaningful. But the consent ones, if anything is a relevant, important useful question, those would be. But, none of the stories talk about questions on that. Or any concern for it whatsoever. This becomes most dramatic in the cases where consent clearly isn't granted and especially when it cannot be granted. The rape victims relate that their leaders never expressed any interest or concern about the lack of consent. And for child sexual abuse, the children often report how they were blamed for their perp's actions, when they were fundamentally incapable of giving consent. In these cases, the lack of any capability for giving consent should have been clear and foremost. The victim should have been plainly reassured about their lack of culpability, rather than questioning them over what they wore and assigning them to fulfill some repentance process.

Is there any meaningful reason why these details are necessary? And must be recounted over and over?

Doesn't the type of questions asked and the ones not asked demonstrate just how perverted the whole process is?

Are these types of details demanded for other types of sins by church leaders? If someone confesses to some other sorts of things, financial transgressions, abusing their family, breaking the Word of Wisdom, not praying or reading their scriptures, does the leadership require the same level of detail? (I've never heard of it in those cases, though I don't know of such a handy collection of examples.)

I had a girl friend who had this kind of "repentance" story. She noticed very heavy breathing by her bishop, and realized he wanted detail in a very voyeristic way. He was getting jollies out of imagining the sex and of course, it is more real with all the graphic details. He was using repentant teen age girls as porn. She got up and left. He had his exec sec call her and demand she come back in. She went to the SP, who of course didn't believe that the bishop got all turned on by demanding details, and he used that line about needing a full accounting, and she said bullshit to the SP's face.

For those who do not use it as porn, I suspect they are purposely trying to cause the repentant to feel as much shame as possible. If they could make the sinner parade naked in front of the whole ward, I think they would do it. They cause shame as punishment for the sin, thinking a good dose of shame helps in the repentance process. It doesn't. It makes the person more likely to sin again. Add more shame and up the probability of more sin.

In working with rape victims and adults molested as children, I found that many of them reacted to the abuse by sleeping with multiple men. This was actually a reaction to the shame they felt. Why did Elizabeth Smart not try to get away from the people who kidnapped her? Because she had been taught that she was damaged goods, she felt tremendous shame. Excessive shame is very damaging to people. Why don't women report rape? One of the reasons is shame. Why don't battered women leave? One of the reasons again is shame. And bishops are purposely heaping it on.

Are these types of details demanded for other types of sins by church leaders? If someone confesses to some other sorts of things, financial transgressions, abusing their family, breaking the Word of Wisdom, not praying or reading their scriptures, does the leadership require the same level of detail? (I've never heard of it in those cases, though I don't know of such a handy collection of examples.)

Bishops have asked the girls what color their underwear was, so do you suppose when someone confesses to monetary crimes, the bishop might ask what color the money was? Green, yeah I think it was green.

No, of course they don't care about the details if someone comes in and confesses to robbery or beating his wife. It is sex the church is obsessed with, and sex that gets shamed, and robbery doesn't make very good material to jack off to.

Jefrett wrote:Is there any meaningful reason why these details are necessary? And must be recounted over and over?

Humiliation to induce shame and unworthiness, which than binds the sinner to the church.

You have to make the sinner sick before you can provide the cure!

The church is actively training leadership to push for details. I've heard it in many priesthood leadership meetings as well as sitting in on disciplinary counsels as the ward clerk taking notes. This isn't just a perverted Leader gone rogue. There is a clear pattern in all of these stories.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:32 am The church is actively training leadership to push for details. I've heard it in many priesthood leadership meetings as well as sitting in on disciplinary counsels as the ward clerk taking notes. This isn't just a perverted Leader gone rogue. There is a clear pattern in all of these stories.

Is this just for sexual "sins"? Or are leaders to apply the same level of fascination for details on other sorts of sins? Like abuse. Or whatever.

I was only ever involved in one of these actions. Not on my own behalf. It was the most innocuous of ones. And I totally couldn't stand the experience.

It was a bishop's court to restore full blessings to a woman who had been disfellowshipped. As ward clerk, I was required to attend and process the form to get her back to full status. The bishop didn't tell us any details of the former charges against her. I hadn't known who she was ahead of time and she moved from the ward immediately after. She had gone through the restoration process in a previous ward but they hadn't gotten around to filing the paperwork so she still had the mark against her. The counselors just rubber-stamped the bishop's decision to restore her to full fellowship.

Even as innocuous as that instance was, I found the whole experience appalling. From my perspective. Of barely involved. I came home and told my wife there was no way I could stand to be involved in one of those again. I made sure that I got all of her paperwork submitted properly so that she wouldn't have to repeat it yet again. And then I just couldn't bring myself to fulfill the calling of ward clerk anymore. I just skipped the meetings.

So, basically a scarlet letter?

I can’t think of any reason other than they are perverts. Would Jesus ask those questions!

alas wrote: ↑Sun Mar 11, 2018 11:18 am I had a girl friend who had this kind of "repentance" story. She noticed very heavy breathing by her bishop, and realized he wanted detail in a very voyeristic way. He was getting jollies out of imagining the sex and of course, it is more real with all the graphic details. He was using repentant teen age girls as porn. She got up and left. He had his exec sec call her and demand she come back in. She went to the SP, who of course didn't believe that the bishop got all turned on by demanding details, and he used that line about needing a full accounting, and she said bullshit to the SP's face.

Wow. This is so disturbing - had no idea any of this was going on. And absolutely not, details do not matter.

1smartdodog wrote: ↑Sun Mar 11, 2018 5:48 pm I can’t think of any reason other than they are perverts. Would Jesus ask those questions!

He would already know the answers and would just be concentrating on the "go thy way and sin no more" aspect. No need to grind someone's face in it.

Humiliation to induce shame and unworthiness, which than binds the sinner to the church.

Someone in my life has messed up. And it is very frustrating to have the church all up in our business and having the sordid details repeated to who knows how many people. I definitely see this pattern of humiliation and shame. It is another way that I feel control is taken out of my hands.

Jeffret wrote: ↑Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:47 am I'm extremely perplexed about how this detail and recounting is useful or important in any fashion.

Because it is sexually titillating. It is the Mormon equivalent of the old Penthouse Letters and no doubt has been viewed as a perk of the position.

The more complex question is why members play along with it. Guilt, duty, naivete, obedience or fear of authority figures, exhibitionism, codependency enablement, religious somnambulism, or just plain foolishness?

moksha wrote: ↑Mon Mar 12, 2018 4:49 am

Jeffret wrote: ↑Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:47 am I'm extremely perplexed about how this detail and recounting is useful or important in any fashion.

Because it is sexually titillating. It is the Mormon equivalent of the old Penthouse Letters and no doubt has been viewed as a perk of the position.

The more complex question is why members play along with it. Guilt, duty, naivete, obedience or fear of authority figures, exhibitionism, codependency enablement, religious somnambulism, or just plain foolishness?

Mormons are groomed from the beginning to do what their leaders tell them without question. Leaders are inspired by god and therefor they know what they need to do in a given situation. If there ever is a problem or a question, it's your fault. It driven home from a very early age. "Follow the prophet, he knows the way."

Jeffret wrote: ↑Sun Mar 11, 2018 12:38 pm So, basically a scarlet letter?

Yes, but only the bishop gets the full "enjoyment" of seeing the accused wear her "Easy A"

I think it's generally about power. Maintaining your authority to ask detailed questions about the most intimate details reinforces the power structure in which the man has the authority to grant you forgiveness.

I think frequently it's about or reinforced by erotic curiosity.

I think it could conceivably be about both at the same time.

Jeffret wrote: ↑Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:47 am Did you consent to any of this? Was he concerned about your consent? Did he treat you well? Were you pressured into any of these activities? Did you make sure you had consent? Did you treat your partner well? Did you pay attention to your partner's concerns? Did you take proper precautions to avoid disease, pregnancy, or other problems?

This is a very big red flag in my book. A TBM friend of mine at work is now assigned as a bishop in a college ward and week after week he expresses his disgust, primarily over young men RMs who have mistreated YW on dates. The YW felt pressured and some outright raped. Although the church may have (or maybe they haven't) backed off the "It would be better to be murdered than give up your virginity." type of dogma, there's little attention paid to the social issues when it comes to sexual sin in the church. Putting the blame on how the women dressed or behaved to bring on temptation that overcame that poor Elder. Religion is pretty Fd up yo!

moksha wrote: ↑Mon Mar 12, 2018 4:49 am

Jeffret wrote: ↑Sun Mar 11, 2018 10:47 am I'm extremely perplexed about how this detail and recounting is useful or important in any fashion.

Because it is sexually titillating. It is the Mormon equivalent of the old Penthouse Letters and no doubt has been viewed as a perk of the position.

The more complex question is why members play along with it. Guilt, duty, naivete, obedience or fear of authority figures, exhibitionism, codependency enablement, religious somnambulism, or just plain foolishness?

I know personally of a bishop who confided to his brother that it turned him on when teen girls came into his office and confessed things. He liked it. As icky as that is, he was one of a minority who would ever admit that - my guess is there are plenty other bishops who feel the same way and are just savvy enough not to tell anyone.

The practice of grown men meeting with youth behind closed doors to talk about sexual thoughts and behavior needs to end immediately. That shouldn't be a controversial idea.