Soccer Mom's thread grabbed my attention.

[Portland Ute]

I agree with all of this, too. It was a mistake for me to use the word "only" especially considering that most people probably read my post with thoughts of minor upsetting/hurtful encounters in mind. I tried to keep my post benign because I know that LDS people generally don't want to talk about the idea that Mormon communities may be less safe than we'd like. I'm not going to get into my rant again, but my point isn't that people are justified in holding grudges over trivialities, but that there are those who take advantage of the trust inherent in LDS communities to hurt people in BIG ways. I'm bothered by the notion of innocent members holding onto the church for the sake of community with the naive assumption that they can trust everyone in their wards. As you know, I believe that most major issues could be addressed through the implementation of strong policies. Unfortunately, it is difficult to address what people are generally unwilling to talk about.

Here's a minor example: I think that there should be a policy against priesthood leaders discussing sex with teenage girls. I wish that I didn't feel compelled to let my bishop know that he is not allowed to talk to my beautiful teenage daughter about sex because, like Cardiac pointed out, bishops don't usually appreciate interference and I'm likely to lose credibility for sticking my nose into what he believes is his duty. OTOH, I don't believe that I should have to prep a child for a discussion about sex with an adult man who she will perceive (no matter how much I tell her otherwise) to have authority over her. I'll prep her for dealing with teenage boys, but not her bishop. I'm the adult. It's my responsibility to face him -- even if I lose credibility -- not hers.

I don't think my bishop is "crazy." I think he's a great guy. I actually doubt he'll even bring sex up. This probably won't really be an issue until my son (almost 11) hits puberty and the masturbation discussions begin. OTOH, why take chances? It IS possible to believe my bishop is probably a fabulous, honest guy without trusting him to talk to my daughter about sex alone in his office. (Why should that conversation even be on the table?) There are plenty of bishops and SPs who aren't "crazy" who are also susceptible to sexual temptation.

[Plus (being a woman) I'm with Tick's wife: I think that hard ons are a real possibility in these interviews. Maybe you'd have to have a woman's experiences with men to understand.... I don't know. And please.... no one take this as an anti-male statement. I love you guys/men in general.]

Perhaps I am naive...and maybe a bit callous...but it really seems to me that perhaps you've seen too may of those movies in which an evil Catholic Priest is taking confession from a nubile young woman concerning sexual proclivities and, behind the cloak of the confessional is assuaging a "hardon," as you put it.

Okay, that was really just an attempt at humor, but I did "half mean it."

On a serious note, do you really think there is that big of an issue? Do you really think there are a lot of Bishops and Stake Presidents who are using young female confessions of sin as their own personal, real-life Penthouse Forum?

Also, what course do you advise for Bishops or SPs? Should they not ask young women if they are living the law of chastity? WHo do the young women confess to and seek guidance from if they don't feel comfortable telling mom and dad that they enjoy self-pleasure or that Bobby Neighbor Boy is really good at flicking her love bead?

It's a conundrum to be sure. One I won't have to face as we have only boys. I see your point of view, but what is the solution? Should young women's leaders and relief society presidents be given the charge of taking confession and counseling the Young Women? Maybe that's the answer...but you are going to have a lot of opposition to that idea for sure.

[marsupial]

Yeah, but marsupial...don't you hear the repeated talks and lessons that we SHOULD NOT just go through the motions???? That we NEED to have a testimony of our own and not just be "social" participants.

I believe you, but I am also frequently reminded, even in general conference talks, that the approach you outlined is simply not acceptable or admirable.

And that's your problem right there... I can't tell you the last time I actually managed to sit and listen to conference

Seriously though, I hear that in church. But I think most people would agree that if the choices are just go through the motions or leave the church altogether, it's better to go through the motions. Perhaps the difference between you and me is that you are struggling because you don't feel the Spirit like you think you should. I simply have been disenchanted and have doubts. I am not expecting to feel what I hear others talk about feeling. And it doesn't bother me to hear them talk about it.

[Portland Ute]

Perhaps the difference between you and me is that you are struggling because you don't feel the Spirit like you think you should. I simply have been disenchanted and have doubts. I am not expecting to feel what I hear others talk about feeling. And it doesn't bother me to hear them talk about it.

I don't think that's a huge difference for me right now.

I'm not completely disenchanted.

I gave a talk on overcoming adversity a month or two ago. I posted it on Cougarboard. It got favorable reviews from many of my ward members and Cougarboard. I felt *something* as I prepared it. I felt *something* as I delivered it.

I still have an overwhelming amount of hope that familes can be together forever.

I have a lot of hope about a lot of things.

But I really don't know how much I *know* or do not know.

[marsupial]

I don't think that's a huge difference for me right now.

I'm not completely disenchanted.

I gave a talk on overcoming adversity a month or two ago. I posted it on Cougarboard. It got favorable reviews from many of my ward members and Cougarboard. I felt *something* as I prepared it. I felt *something* as I delivered it.

I still have an overwhelming amount of hope that familes can be together forever.

I have a lot of hope about a lot of things.

But I really don't know how much I *know* or do not know.

FTR, I do have a testimony in many aspects of the church and gospel. Much of my doubts and struggles stem from our church's polygamous past and the Priesthood ban. I have some issues with the general patriarchal nature of the church as well. While I struggle with these issues, I still believe in the power of prayer. I believe in a God who loves me and is concerned for me. I think Utah Dan brought up a good point. I wonder if it is easier for people in other churches to not accept all teachings from their leaders and still feel OK about worshipping there. Are we the only church that drives this all or nothing mentality?

[FMCoug]

This is a great thread. For me, the issue seems to be that most of the time, the Lord wants us to go through the motions and do what we need to without the Spirit leading us along every step of the way. And from time to time, we are blessed with spiritual experiences to let us know what we're doing is right. And this is what sustains me / keeps me going in the "in-between" times. I have had great spiritual experiences in the temple ... but not every time. I'd go so far as to say most of the time it's a chore. Same thing with the 3-hour block ... maybe even more so.

For the most part I think we are supposed to just work out our salvation on our own ... and we get little nuggets as gifts from time to time that provide testimony and spiritual growth.

That's my take on it anyway.

[marsupial]

FWIW, there have been times that I have felt an incredible sense of community at church and times that I haven't. I have known really fantastic leaders and really hurtful leaders. Likewise, there have been times that I have felt an incredible sense of community in organizations outside of the church. There are times that I haven't.

A sense of community isn't enough to keep me active and paying tithing. Community can be found anywhere. To have value, church (for me) needs to be about worship. If I'm not worshiping, why waste my time? There are friendship and growth opportunities everywhere.

In my mind, those of you who have only had positive experiences with church communities are very very very lucky. There are SO many people who have been hurt by members they chose to trust. IMO, it is unwise to believe that your community is always safe and positive -- no matter how safe and wonderful it feels on the exterior.

When I talk about church community, I don't mean just having a ward with friends in it. I feel like I have a common bond with any member anywhere. I sense that community here on this board, when I visit other wards, when I run into someone with a CTR ring or BYU shirt on.

Also, I mentioned service. The church has given me opportunities to serve others in ways that I wouldn't be able to through clubs or other organizations. It feels good to contribute.

[LA Ute]

I still have an overwhelming amount of hope that familes can be together forever.

I have a lot of hope about a lot of things.

But I really don't know how much I *know* or do not know.

That concept of "knowing" is a tough one. I remember when I was ward mission leader and was asked by a very sharp investigator, during Gospel Essentials class, what Moroni meant when he said we could "know the truth of all things" by the power of the Holy Ghost. The best I could do, and still can do, is to say that he means "know in your heart." To spend a lot of time and energy puzzling over what that means, in my personal experience, has been pretty unfulfilling. But I do find a lot of peace in the folksy saying that "the head-bone must be connected to the heart-bone," or that matters of faith can't be addressed adequately without both the heart and the head involved. What I know in my heart is the product of many experiences, and I choose not to deny it. I think you are saying something similar.

I've found C.S. Lewis's thoughts on all these topics pretty compelling. Here's one:

One of the great difficulties is to keep before the audience's mind the question of Truth. They always think you are recommending Christianity not because it is 'true' but because it is 'good'. One must keep on pointing out that Christianity is a statement which, if false, is of no importance, and if it is true, of infinite importance. The one thing it cannot be is moderately important. (from God in the Dock)

The same can be said of Joseph Smith's mission and the message of the Church today. We're not playing bean-bag here, and so I think it behooves us (to say the least!) to consider with everything we have in us how we will respond to that mission and message.

I have a hunch you feel the same way. You just got me thinking about good old C.S. and that comment.

[LA Ute]

This is a great thread. For me, the issue seems to be that most of the time, the Lord wants us to go through the motions and do what we need to without the Spirit leading us along every step of the way. And from time to time, we are blessed with spiritual experiences to let us know what we're doing is right. And this is what sustains me / keeps me going in the "in-between" times. I have had great spiritual experiences in the temple ... but not every time. I'd go so far as to say most of the time it's a chore. Same thing with the 3-hour block ... maybe even more so.

For the most part I think we are supposed to just work out our salvation on our own ... and we get little nuggets as gifts from time to time that provide testimony and spiritual growth.

That's my take on it anyway.

Well said.

[RobinFinderson]

Here's a minor example: I think that there should be a policy against priesthood leaders discussing sex with teenage girls. I wish that I didn't feel compelled to let my bishop know that he is not allowed to talk to my beautiful teenage daughter about sex because, like Cardiac pointed out, bishops don't usually appreciate interference and I'm likely to lose credibility for sticking my nose into what he believes is his duty. OTOH, I don't believe that I should have to prep a child for a discussion about sex with an adult man who she will perceive (no matter how much I tell her otherwise) to have authority over her. I'll prep her for dealing with teenage boys, but not her bishop. I'm the adult. It's my responsibility to face him -- even if I lose credibility -- not hers.

Hey RoseBud, I think this is very cool the way you plan on prepping your Bishop for an interview with your daughter rather than the other way around. If you feel strongly about this, as you seem to, then you must follow your heart and do what is right by your child. I don't know how anyone could reasonably argue otherwise. I would want to know exactly what kinds of questions were going to be asked, and what kinds of followup question might come (depending on the answers to the first questions). If anything bugs you, request that the Bishop not ask those questions. Offer alternative questions that are appropriate, and if the Bishop can't respect your parental authority, then don't allow him to interview your daughter. It will be a fantastic lesson for your daughter about how serious you take your parental duties, and it will teach her to stand up for herself. Taking such a stand, if necessary, would do far more good for her than anything the Bishop might offer in a probing interview about your daughter's sexuality. More people should have your courage.

[Tick's wife]

FTR, I do have a testimony in many aspects of the church and gospel. Much of my doubts and struggles stem from our church's polygamous past and the Priesthood ban. I have some issues with the general patriarchal nature of the church as well. While I struggle with these issues, I still believe in the power of prayer. I believe in a God who loves me and is concerned for me. I think Utah Dan brought up a good point. I wonder if it is easier for people in other churches to not accept all teachings from their leaders and still feel OK about worshipping there. Are we the only church that drives this all or nothing mentality?

You have said a lot about how I feel about church...thanks, it helps to know that I am not the ONLY one that feels this way. I have many things I don't understand...There are many positive things about the church and I have to try and focus on that. Right now, I'm not interested in joining any other church or leaving 'the church' just don't feel like going. Does that make sense? I love my life but get tired of being beaten up for happy thoughts and confidence, which is interpreted by some as pride.

Thanks again.

[Surfah]

I wonder if it is easier for people in other churches to not accept all teachings from their leaders and still feel OK about worshipping there. Are we the only church that drives this all or nothing mentality?

I don't think so. I think many other Christian faiths and especially those outside Christendom do the same. Judaism and Islam for example.

[mUUser]

Hey Port, you're obviously in good company. I've never been a "spiritual" guy, rather the Holy Ghost speaks to my common sense. I don't often answer the question, "how does this make you feel?", rather, I usually ask myself, "does this make sense with what I know/believe/hope to be truth?"

Over time, I think you'll flesh out your beliefs and become more honest about them to those around you. Two quick examples:

1. Baptized my son this year. In his confirmation, I said something to the effect that he would "live his life worthy enough to prepare to serve a mission, if he so chooses." My wife asked about this afterwards, and when I asked her if she was mad or disappointed, she said absolutely not.

2. I taught GE a couple of weeks ago on tithing. I bore testimony on it, but, preceeded it with the caveat that I have a testimony of the Gospel, especially as it relates to the Atonement, and its companion teaching of Eternal Families. Further, parts of my testimony are stronger than other parts, and tithing happens to be strong because of past experiences. I can probably count on one hand the times I've shed a tear about a spiritual experience, or church doctrine. The testimony on tithing was one of them.

[Art Vandelay]

I agree with all of this, too. It was a mistake for me to use the word "only" especially considering that most people probably read my post with thoughts of minor upsetting/hurtful encounters in mind. I tried to keep my post benign because I know that LDS people generally don't want to talk about the idea that Mormon communities may be less safe than we'd like. I'm not going to get into my rant again, but my point isn't that people are justified in holding grudges over trivialities, but that there are those who take advantage of the trust inherent in LDS communities to hurt people in BIG ways. I'm bothered by the notion of innocent members holding onto the church for the sake of community with the naive assumption that they can trust everyone in their wards. As you know, I believe that most major issues could be addressed through the implementation of strong policies. Unfortunately, it is difficult to address what people are generally unwilling to talk about.

Here's a minor example: I think that there should be a policy against priesthood leaders discussing sex with teenage girls. I wish that I didn't feel compelled to let my bishop know that he is not allowed to talk to my beautiful teenage daughter about sex because, like Cardiac pointed out, bishops don't usually appreciate interference and I'm likely to lose credibility for sticking my nose into what he believes is his duty. OTOH, I don't believe that I should have to prep a child for a discussion about sex with an adult man who she will perceive (no matter how much I tell her otherwise) to have authority over her. I'll prep her for dealing with teenage boys, but not her bishop. I'm the adult. It's my responsibility to face him -- even if I lose credibility -- not hers.

I don't think my bishop is "crazy." I think he's a great guy. I actually doubt he'll even bring sex up. This probably won't really be an issue until my son (almost 11) hits puberty and the masturbation discussions begin. OTOH, why take chances? It IS possible to believe my bishop is probably a fabulous, honest guy without trusting him to talk to my daughter about sex alone in his office. (Why should that conversation even be on the table?) There are plenty of bishops and SPs who aren't "crazy" who are also susceptible to sexual temptation.

[Plus (being a woman) I'm with Tick's wife: I think that hard ons are a real possibility in these interviews. Maybe you'd have to have a woman's experiences with men to understand.... I don't know. And please.... no one take this as an anti-male statement. I love you guys/men in general.]

Hey RoseBud, I think this is very cool the way you plan on prepping your Bishop for an interview with your daughter rather than the other way around. If you feel strongly about this, as you seem to, then you must follow your heart and do what is right by your child. I don't know how anyone could reasonably argue otherwise. I would want to know exactly what kinds of questions were going to be asked, and what kinds of followup question might come (depending on the answers to the first questions). If anything bugs you, request that the Bishop not ask those questions. Offer alternative questions that are appropriate, and if the Bishop can't respect your parental authority, then don't allow him to interview your daughter. It will be a fantastic lesson for your daughter about how serious you take your parental duties, and it will teach her to stand up for herself. Taking such a stand, if necessary, would do far more good for her than anything the Bishop might offer in a probing interview about your daughter's sexuality. More people should have your courage.

I read Rosebud's post earlier and have been pondering it all evening. Considering this is the 3rd or 4th time you have mentioned this, you obviously feel passionate about it. Good for you. I think Robin gave some great advice.

I have been thinking what would I do if a parent came into my office to set parameters as to what I could or couldn't speak to their child about. I'm rarely if ever offended so I doubt that would be the case. I would want to know why they were having concerns. I would hope it was because they thought the teen was innocent and pure, not that I wanted to have an intimate sexual discussion with a YW. In either case, I would explain how I generally interview a girl.

With Beehives most of the time I focus on modest dress and read from the Strength of Youth about not dating until 16. With Mia Maids I ask do they have a boyfriend to which they always respond no, even when I know they do. I then ask them what the law of chastity means to them. To which I follow-up with has there been a problem with any of those things for you? I will read in the SOY about avoiding passionate kissing. With a Laurel I usually talk about how I'm sure it must be difficult to be a teenager in the world today. I also ask them about what their understanding of the law of chastity is. In most cases with the older girls I then state , "there are inappropriate ways we can allow boys to touch us and their are inappropriate ways we can touch ourselves, have you ever had a problem with either of these"? If nothing comes up with any of these simple inquiries I quickly move onto to discussing other issues.


After having that discussion with the parent if he or she still didn't want me to discuss that with their child, I would tell them I respect your opinion and won't bring any of those things up. However, I don't have the authority to change the questions for temple recommends (required to do baptism for the dead) or ecclesiastical endorsements so I won't be able to sign either of those things for your daughter.

I have found with most kids who have been involved with some type of moral transgression their biggest fear isn't that I know, but that their parents find out. I promise them that what we talk about is confidential, I don't share with my counselors, my wife, the YW President or their parents without their permission.

I have a 13 year old daughter who by the world's standards has lived a relatively sheltered life. My biggest concern if I told her not to tell the bishop something was that she would have the misconception an interview with the bishop is for him. Interviews rarely if ever are for the benefit of the leader, they are for the individual - to share concerns, fears, doubts and to unburden themselves from mistakes if necessary. I want her to know the Lord has provided someone to help her the difficult and challenging periods in her life and hopefully she will be as lucky (I forget who used that word above) as I have and will always have men who take their stewardship seriously and honor the office they hold.

[Surfah]

I read Rosebud's post earlier and have been pondering it all evening. Considering this is the 3rd or 4th time you have mentioned this, you obviously feel passionate about it. Good for you. I think Robin gave some great advice.

I have been thinking what would I do if a parent came into my office to set parameters as to what I could or couldn't speak to their child about. I'm rarely if ever offended so I doubt that would be the case. I would want to know why they were having concerns. I would hope it was because they thought the teen was innocent and pure, not that I wanted to have an intimate sexual discussion with a YW. In either case, I would explain how I generally interview a girl.

With Beehives most of the time I focus on modest dress and read from the Strength of Youth about not dating until 16. With Mia Maids I ask do they have a boyfriend to which they always respond no, even when I know they do. I then ask them what the law of chastity means to them. To which I follow-up with has there been a problem with any of those things for you? I will read in the SOY about avoiding passionate kissing. With a Laurel I usually talk about how I'm sure it must be difficult to be a teenager in the world today. I also ask them about what their understanding of the law of chastity is. In most cases with the older girls I then state , "there are inappropriate ways we can allow boys to touch us and their are inappropriate ways we can touch ourselves, have you ever had a problem with either of these"? If nothing comes up with any of these simple inquiries I quickly move onto to discussing other issues.


After having that discussion with the parent if he or she still didn't want me to discuss that with their child, I would tell them I respect your opinion and won't bring any of those things up. However, I don't have the authority to change the questions for temple recommends (required to do baptism for the dead) or ecclesiastical endorsements so I won't be able to sign either of those things for your daughter.

I have found with most kids who have been involved with some type of moral transgression their biggest fear isn't that I know, but that their parents find out. I promise them that what we talk about is confidential, I don't share with my counselors, my wife, the YW President or their parents without their permission.

I have a 13 year old daughter who by the world's standards has lived a relatively sheltered life. My biggest concern if I told her not to tell the bishop something was that she would have the misconception an interview with the bishop is for him. Interviews rarely if ever are for the benefit of the leader, they are for the individual - to share concerns, fears, doubts and to unburden themselves from mistakes if necessary. I want her to know the Lord has provided someone to help her the difficult and challenging periods in her life and hopefully she will be as lucky (I forget who used that word above) as I have and will always have men who take their stewardship seriously and honor the office they hold.

Thanks for sharing that. As some here have already said you could be my Bishop any day.

[byu71]

Interviewing young ladies is one reason I would never want to be a Bishop. If you accept the calling and asking a young lady if she touches herself is part of the responsibility, I think it needs to be done. However, I just don't think I could do it.

My opinion would be most Bishops get absolutely no kick out of this. I was golfing with someone I know very well and at this time he was a Bishop. He got a phone call. I heard him say, "we have already talked about this. I have told you what you need to do. We don't need to talk about it again if you are doing what I asked you to do." Apparently a young lady in his ward admitted to an indescrection and wanted to keep telling him about it over and over again. He felt she wanted to get assurance she was forgiven and he told her he didn't need to hear the details more than once. Apparently she just didn't believe him. My guess is most Bishops are like he is.