NOM

My wife goes to and sits in any interview my kids have with a bishop or anyone else in the church. She is on board with that, which is good.

This is just an idea that I have had to further protect my rights as a parent.

I have thought about giving the bishop and or sp a formal letter that states that there will be no questions of a sexual nature at all with my minor children.

Also I would include class lessons on anything of a sexual nature. I would ask we be notified as parents before hand so we could take our child out of the class for that lesson.

I have no problem teaching about chastity, but I do have a problem with how the church teaches it.

We can talk to our kids on a much better level than some guy or gal that lives in our neighborhood.


I don't know if this has ever been done and I'm sure it would probably not go over well with the leadership. What do do you guys think

I emailed the bishopric exactly such a letter. The bishop was shocked by it and told me he felt offended by it. I don't care, my kids come before his feelings and his perception of me doesn't matter. I give him credit though, he swallowed that pride and still let me baptize and confirm my child.

I think it's a great idea.
The church leadership should not have such power over member's lives. How often did/do we give in to things we didn't like or want? Enough.
If you make it a formal letter, you should think about posting it so other parents can print and use it. And I would give it to both the bishop and the SP, why not.

The more you think about it the more you wonder how they even obtained such liberties with our children.

My kid is still a toddler, but holy crap do I worry about this. It's hands-down my biggest concern about continued association with church. I would love to hear how this goes. I would think that there are too many rogue actors at church to trust that negative things wouldn't slip in, even if the bishop was trying to play along with your wishes.

It's also important to let the Bishop know your doing this for his protection as well.

A quick google search returns numerous cases of Mormon Bishops getting arrested for bad behavior.

I wonder if tithing is used to pay the multi million dollar settlements.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormon_abuse_cases

I wonder if that attorney who processes resignations would be willing to draft a legal letter and make it generic that people could just print off and sign and hand it to the bishop and stake presidency.

I wonder if the church started getting a ton of these letters they would change at all.

I doubt it

I had this type of discussion in person with a bishop once. (No inappropriate questions, a parent will be present)

He actually thanked me for standing up for my kids. (He knew me well enough to know that this type of thing goes completely against my personality, but when it comes to my kids, screw my inhibitions.)

Send the letter, and I'd guess you'll see what kind of "priesthood-leader roulette" is going on in your area...

These are some really good ideas, I wish I had thought of them when I had kids growing up through the interview system. Since I never asked the youth weird sexual questions, I figured most bishops didn't, and what we know is that just isn't the case. But one thing that we did do, that can help kids through all kinds of nonsense from school to church to friends, is to make sure the lines of communication are WIDE open. We had a talk once and we asked the kids why they are so open with their thoughts and feelings with us, (man, even to their detriment, when they told us all the crap their friends were into, and we didn't let them go over to these wingnuts' houses) and they just enjoyed the atmosphere of openness in our home. That came to our detriment too, when they weren't shy in letting us know what crappy parents we can be, but I loved it; way different than the repressive, narcissistic bent of conversations growing up in my home.

In any event, I think these are great ideas, but if one partner is dead set on having the kids interviewed, as mine is, I think a lot of the damage can be mitigated with a long conversation afterwards, as to what the individual was asking them. That's worked so far.

I did something like this, recently. It was a personal conversation and I consulted with a professional for correct phrasing before the conversation. I agree with working with a lawyer, even for correct, firm, non-offensive phrasing. My bishop was great, very accommodating. Spoke to other leaders on my behalf. I thanked him for going to bat for me.

We sent a letter out to our bishopric and SP a few years ago and it ended horribly. My 16 year old son was not allowed to have the priesthood, my 8 year old wasn't allowed baptism. My teen daughters were not allowed on any temple trips.
Our request was called "creative" and "unnecessary" because the interviews were "part of the Lord's plan" as well as our BP implying it was his job to make sure our kids could "share of any impurities happening in the home".
The letter we wrote was direct but not accusatory.
Leadership roulette- we were definitely losers on this round.
I wouldn't change protecting my kids and we really tried hard to set a boundary as well as keep the discussion open but the fallout was hard on my kids.

Godislove wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:45 am We sent a letter out to our bishopric and SP a few years ago and it ended horribly. My 16 year old son was not allowed to have the priesthood, my 8 year old wasn't allowed baptism. My teen daughters were not allowed on any temple trips.
Our request was called "creative" and "unnecessary" because the interviews were "part of the Lord's plan" as well as our BP implying it was his job to make sure our kids could "share of any impurities happening in the home".
The letter we wrote was direct but not accusatory.
Leadership roulette- we were definitely losers on this round.
I wouldn't change protecting my kids and we really tried hard to set a boundary as well as keep the discussion open but the fallout was hard on my kids.

Wow! Sorry to hear that. I had the same thought about if the leaders would accuse me of trying to hide abuse in the home or something crazy by setting those boundaries.

20/20hind,

I think as a parent who understands the risk Mormon kids are at as a result of uncommon deference to LDS leadership authority, it is imperative to set up boundaries in this regard.

Bless you for looking out for your kids,
Zack

Prepare to be horrified..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GHdw10y8ABM

I don't usually post things like this, I sustain those who try to go by the marching orders. This particular problem is something that has to be addressed by someone.

Godislove wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2017 11:45 am We sent a letter out to our bishopric and SP a few years ago and it ended horribly. My 16 year old son was not allowed to have the priesthood, my 8 year old wasn't allowed baptism. My teen daughters were not allowed on any temple trips.
Our request was called "creative" and "unnecessary" because the interviews were "part of the Lord's plan" as well as our BP implying it was his job to make sure our kids could "share of any impurities happening in the home".
The letter we wrote was direct but not accusatory.
Leadership roulette- we were definitely losers on this round.
I wouldn't change protecting my kids and we really tried hard to set a boundary as well as keep the discussion open but the fallout was hard on my kids.

Godislove,

Sorry you had to deal with this,
Zack

Sadly, there is no recourse if/when the bishop follows script and asks the detailed questions even after a letter or notification is sent. The only way to circumvent is to sit in on the interview.

If we want this bad policy to stop we need to stage an intervention campaign in the form of an "Ordain Women" style agitation or protest.

It's something the exmo community should put time and effort into. Unfortunately these efforts will fall flat because it's easier to leave and turn a blind eye.

We don't need anymore stupid budget or policy leaks. We need leaks that show the church has covered up abuse and paid out millions of dollars in out of court settlements to silence victims.

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2017 2:47 pm Sadly, there is no recourse if/when the bishop follows script and asks the detailed questions even after a letter or notification is sent. The only way to circumvent is to sit in on the interview.

This!

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2017 2:47 pm If we want this bad policy to stop we need to stage an intervention campaign in the form of an "Ordain Women" style agitation or protest.

It's something the exmo community should put time and effort into. Unfortunately these efforts will fall flat because it's easier to leave and turn a blind eye.

We don't need anymore stupid budget or policy leaks. We need leaks that show the church has covered up abuse and paid out millions of dollars in out of court settlements to silence victims.

Totally agree. The LDS Church needs to be exposed like the Catholic Church was.

Zack Tacorin Dos wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2017 3:23 pm

Red Ryder wrote: ↑Thu Feb 23, 2017 2:47 pm Sadly, there is no recourse if/when the bishop follows script and asks the detailed questions even after a letter or notification is sent. The only way to circumvent is to sit in on the interview.

This! That's why part of my requirements is that either my wife or I am present during any interviews with any LDS leadership.

One big rhetorical problem is that the LDS church treats the "Priest–penitent privilege" exactly backwards. Bishops absolutely feel that confidentiality only enhances their mantle of authority. Individual members have limited means of escalating concerns. The institutional church uses Priest–penitent privilege to protect itself, not their members. The church refuses to comment on a disciplinary proceeding even when the disciplined person gives full agreement for disclosure.

Much of the problem stems from having untrained, lay clergy staffing their LDS church. Bishops and stake presidents would turn down their callings far more often if there was an increased chance of litigation against any of their actions due to a court ordered disclosure. Being protected by a robust Priest–penitent privilege backed by a culture of implicit semi-infallibility as well as Kirton McConkie lets a lot of bishops sleep easier at night. The LDS church saves a lot of money by not having trained, professional clergy. I am wondering if any circumstances might ever change this arrangement.