When does religious upbringing cross over to abuse? - Page 5

[A&A]

Originally Posted by intorainbowz

And perhaps the interview was done with love and caring,

This is an oxymoron.

[Arduinna]

Originally Posted by intorainbowz

And perhaps the interview was done with love and caring, but the OP's bias against her former faith and her brother's desire stir things up have altered her perception of what happened.

You didn't actually just call her brother a liar and her a religious bigot did you?


Wow!

[holyhelianthus]

Originally Posted by Brigianna

You can condemn the actions of abusers who happen to be affiliated with a church without condemning the faith as a whole. You can describe the pedophile priests who caused the scandal in the Catholic Church as abusers without being anti-Catholic. The abuse in this case has nothing to do with religious faith and everything to do with adults sexually humiliating a young boy. It would be no more or less abusive if it were, say, a teacher of a school health class "questioning" his students about their masturbation habits. It is still abuse.

thank you Brig! So very true.

Originally Posted by intorainbowz

And perhaps the interview was done with love and caring, but the OP's bias against her former faith and her brother's desire stir things up have altered her perception of what happened.

Originally Posted by A&A

She's defending her church. Not thinking about your brother. You, of course, are thinking about your brother, as you should be.

In rainbowz defense this could all very well be true. If it is about the LDS church than the OP has said things about the church that are untrue/stretched for dramatic effect. Now this could be out of ignorance about the church and it's doctrines or it could be because of a bias against the church which you yourself have and have demonstrated repeatedly here. That wonderful quote you gave applies to more than just the religious, doesn't it? So here we have LDS mamas scratching their heads over what looks like fabrication and speaking out on it and ex-LDS mamas who are jumping all over what looks like a breech of ethics. No one can play innocent on this one. We've got our sides, let's meet in the middle and discuss.

BUT I still feel we should be on the side of the brother for a few reasons 1) It's just nicer to assume one has good motives while posting. I'd much rather take the OP's word for it 2) it wouldn't surprise me in the least if this were going on. I have known too many Bishops and too many parents like this. However, that doesn't mean it's the gospel- on the flip side I have known many more who don't act this way. Bishops and parents can act of their own accord but the doctrine is still the same. And 3) he's a human being. That's enough for me.

However (and I have to note this because it is killing me) this whole "burn in hell" if leaving the church is a load. As is "sexual sin being equal to murder" (If anyone would like to know the actual doctrinal teachings start a new thread, ask on the LDS thread, or PM me). I'm sure one can see why some of the LDS mamas would be a bit peeved by it and have their doubts.

Originally Posted by A&A

This is an oxymoron.

Yeah right.

OP~ If this is the LDS church then go to the Stake President. Just you. Set up a meeting and discuss this with him. Lay it all out- the issue, your concerns, the Bishop's and your parents behavior, etc etc.

[MammaB21]

This sounds alot like the religion I used to belong to as a kid. Allthough after reading all the way threw, I am quite sure it isn't the same religion. My experience, though, was very similar. I remember a girl friend of myne had to confess all her sins before she got baptised. She had to tell her dad, in private, and in detail, about all of the times she masturbated. I pretty much decided then and there that I would never get baptised.

I find it alittle weird that so many on here are quick to jump into deffence mode. The OP purposely did not mention any specific religion as to not offend anyone. But still, there are assumptions being made, and her honesty is being questioned. I have no reason to think she is not being totally honest about her experience. In fact, I can think of at least 3-4 religions off the top of my head that would practice something similar.

It's sick, wrong, and deffinately abuse IMO.

[A&A]

Originally Posted by MammaB21

It's sick, wrong, and deffinately abuse IMO.

:

It is important to keep in mind, as well, that these sorts of things don't happen in a vacuum. Perhaps the religion itself doesn't condone this clergyman's behavior, per se, but if it is a religion that sets up private interviews with children about sexual behavior conducted by a lay clergyman (who has no formal training whatsoever), you're just asking for trouble.

[A&A]

Originally Posted by Arduinna

You didn't actually just call her brother a liar and her a religious bigot did you?


Wow!

[intorainbowz]

Originally Posted by Arduinna

You didn't actually just call her brother a liar and her a religious bigot did you?


Wow!

No, but it is clear she has problems with the faith, so anything that that faith does is suspect in her book.

And simply put, most people love to stir the pot. I imagine her brother knows how to get his sister all fired up. If he knows her feelings then he would know that telling her this would get her going.

As for the interview with love and respect being an oxymoron, I disagree. I've been in them and was treated very well. I think the interviews with Dad are over the top, if he is dealing with the Bishop that should be enough.

[zinemama]

Originally Posted by intorainbowz

As for the interview with love and respect being an oxymoron, I disagree. I've been in them and was treated very well. I think the interviews with Dad are over the top, if he is dealing with the Bishop that should be enough.

Just so I understand this correctly: like the OP's brother, you had to specifically discuss your sexual life with a clergyperson of your church? As a young teenager?

I have to say, that as kind or well-meaning as the clergy person *could* possibly be in that situation, I still think that's horribly inappropriate.

OP, I'm glad your brother has you to turn to!

[holyhelianthus]

Originally Posted by zinemama

Just so I understand this correctly: like the OP's brother, you had to specifically discuss your sexual life with a clergyperson of your church? As a young teenager?

I have to say, that as kind or well-meaning as the clergy person *could* possibly be in that situation, I still think that's horribly inappropriate.

OP, I'm glad your brother has you to turn to!

Not Rainbowz but I have as both a teenager and an adult. I agree with her- when I was a teen it was handled gently and lovingly. I loved that Bishop and miss him often.

To be clear there is no description of the sexual act. For example Bishop asks "do you keep the law of chastity?" you say "no" he says "are you having sexual intercourse with someone?" you say "yes" and then you talk about what that means on a religious scale, the repercussions in life and elsewhere and he counsels you to do whatever it is he feels you need to do. Maybe talk to your parents, obviously to stop and to pray. There are several different things that can happen but there is no "tell me what you do with so-and-so sparing no detail" it ends at the understanding of what is going on and that's where his counsel comes in. All 3 Bishops I have been to with issues like this and in my mother's experience as well this is how it goes. It ends there. Enough said. No need to go into detail. You spend all of a minute clarifying what is going on and then the rest of the 10, 15, 20, 30 minutes are spent talking about what should be done and what will be done. With my mother and I's experience they never even asked who it was (when it was a case of their being another person involved) and they most definitely didn't talk to my mother about it.

If a Bishop is prying deeper than that is way off.

[holyhelianthus]

Originally Posted by A&A

:

It is important to keep in mind, as well, that these sorts of things don't happen in a vacuum. Perhaps the religion itself doesn't condone this clergyman's behavior, per se, but if it is a religion that sets up private interviews with children about sexual behavior conducted by a lay clergyman (who has no formal training whatsoever), you're just asking for trouble.

I'm in no way denying that some Bishops out there could be abusing their calling but to say it is running rampant or the norm is just not so.

2 of my Bishops always left the door cracked a hair and the child/teen/woman sitting next to the door where people could see their side. He sat at the other end of his office at his desk. You could hear nothing but mumbles.

Our church has a lot of rules when it comes to male interaction with women, children, and teens. No male is suppose to be alone with any of the above without someone near by. This is true for missionaries, youth leaders, Bishops, etc.

[zinemama]

Thanks for that explanation, Magstphil.

But one thing I still don't get: do you *have* to have these conversations? I mean, is it like Catholics used to be required to go to confession on a certain day of the week (I think)? And in that case, what if you really don't want to be discussing the fact that you're having sex - with anyone except your partner?

Or is it more that you yourself decide to have this conversation with the bishop because you are in need of spiritual clarity or guidance?

[holyhelianthus]

Originally Posted by zinemama

Thanks for that explanation, Magstphil.

But one thing I still don't get: do you *have* to have these conversations? I mean, is it like Catholics used to be required to go to confession on a certain day of the week (I think)? And in that case, what if you really don't want to be discussing the fact that you're having sex - with anyone except your partner?

Or is it more that you yourself decide to have this conversation with the bishop because you are in need of spiritual clarity or guidance?

It really depends. We have annual meetings with the Bishop from youth (I want to say from baptism at age 8). It's really just a check up with no prying questions just like "Hey. How are you? How's the family? Everything going well?" You have to understand that the Bishop is considered the father of the ward family so he's going to check in from time to time. Then there are interviews we have if we want to go to the temple or maybe a Youth Dance, boys have them when it comes to the Priesthood- being able to pass the sacrament, baptize, bless the sacrament, etc. If you don't want to go to the temple, dance, advance in the Priesthood, whatever! than I'm not sure why one would go to one of these interviews unless by force from a parent- which makes no sense on the parent's pat, IMO, and does far more harm than good. I have opted out of my interviews many a time. As adults it's obviously a bit easier. Bishop says "Hey it's time for our annual interview/to renew your temple recommend/whatever" and you go "No thanks" of course he will probably ask why but what is he going to do, drag you in his office? Unfortunately some kids and teens have parents that will do that for them. Individual Bishops handle cases like that differently.

ETA- And, of course, all members of the ward can make an appointment with the Bishop to talk about whatever it is they need to. It's not just one way.

[MammaB21]

I can't speak for the OP, but I think the issue here is more with the generality of the topic, then with how it is inforced...?

In other words, I think disscussing someone elses sexual habits, (especially something as private as masterbation) on the basis of religion, is out.of.line.period. If that is something that is againts your (general your) religious beliefs, I personally think it should be between you and god. Not you and so-and-so in charge of church duties. And further more, to take certain priviladges away for confessing such a personal 'sin', is beyond contradictory, and self righteous. In this case, that is what happend. Reguardless of how you slice it, I beleive that is the way the religion deals with 'sinners'. Yes, dad talking to son is overboard. Yes, bischop took it too far. But isn't it the basic prinsiple of, "Masturbation is a sin. A sin must be confessed, punished, forgiven, before you can be seen highly in x congregation." Maybe I'm missing something.

[holyhelianthus]

Originally Posted by MammaB21

I can't speak for the OP, but I think the issue here is more with the generality of the topic, then with how it is inforced...?

In other words, I think disscussing someone elses sexual habits, (especially something as private as masterbation) on the basis of religion, is out.of.line.period. If that is something that is againts your (general your) religious beliefs, I personally think it should be between you and god. Not you and so-and-so in charge of church duties. And further more, to take certain priviladges away for confessing such a personal 'sin', is beyond contradictory, and self righteous. In this case, that is what happend. Reguardless of how you slice it, I beleive that is the way the religion deals with 'sinners'. Yes, dad talking to son is overboard. Yes, bischop took it too far. But isn't it the basic prinsiple of, "Masturbation is a sin. A sin must be confessed, punished, forgiven, before you can be seen highly in x congregation." Maybe I'm missing something.

Well this is all well and good in your life because it is your opinion and personal beliefs but there are those of us who don't feel this way. We should be allowed our faith and our practices in peace, should we not? Force is a whole other issue. If it is forced then yes something should be done but in general it's a "to each their own" thing.

Now I hear people say "oh but it does so much inner harm" ok well yes to some maybe but so does teaching it's A OK. What if a child is taught this and grows up to believe that it's not? What sort of inner turmoil awaits him/her then?

There just isn't a 100% right or wrong answer with that. It's all so relative.

[A&A]

Originally Posted by zinemama

Just so I understand this correctly: like the OP's brother, you had to specifically discuss your sexual life with a clergyperson of your church? As a young teenager?

I know you weren't asking me this question but I'll answer it anyway. Yes, I did.

I'll also add that my brother's mental health issues were seen as a weakness in the eyes of the church (at least the specific congregation we attended.)

I guess that's why I now like the UU church so much--they seem to be much more unconditionally accepting than any other church I know of.

[A&A]

To the OP: Unfortunately, there's not much you can do except try to keep the lines of communication open with your brother. I suspect that he'll want to get out of the house when he is 18. Perhaps you could let him know that he'll be welcome at your house then if that is the case. (That would have made a huge difference to me--knowing that I had a "safe house" I could have gone to at age 18.) If you upset your parents too much at this point, they will cut off ties with you and you won't be able to rescue your brother later. So, tell him to stick it out for what, four more years, and then he'll be as free of them (and their religion) as he wants to be.

[A&A]

Originally Posted by zinemama

Thanks for that explanation, Magstphil.

But one thing I still don't get: do you *have* to have these conversations? I mean, is it like Catholics used to be required to go to confession on a certain day of the week (I think)? And in that case, what if you really don't want to be discussing the fact that you're having sex - with anyone except your partner?

Or is it more that you yourself decide to have this conversation with the bishop because you are in need of spiritual clarity or guidance?

could be either.

Sometimes these "discussions" are scheduled (which sounds like the case with the OP's brother), and sometimes they are initiated by the person himself/herself (but even that still occurs within the greater religious construct of "you must go to the clergyman to repent if you have sinned.")

[holyhelianthus]

Originally Posted by A&A

but even that still occurs within the greater religious construct of "you must go to the clergyman to repent if you have sinned,"

Not true. One does not have to go to the Bishop if one has sinned 100% of the time. This is up to the individual and the individual situation. With the bigger issues like sex outside of marriage, pornography addiction, drinking, etc yes there is a need for help but to say all sins must be taken to the bishop is completely false. Man, he'd have his hands full! He'd have to move into his office.

In our faith we do believe one can repent on one's own in some cases, if not most. It's the biggies where we are asked to seek guidance.

ETA- I shouldn't say on one's own because we do believe we need Christ and our Heavenly Father.

[MammaB21]

Force is a whole other issue. If it is forced then yes something should be done but in general it's a "to each their own" thing.

You are right that it is just my opinion. But this statement above really depends on your deffinition of 'forced'. The OP talked about a situation where there was a non beliver belonging to a church who was made to reviel personal things about his sex life. In the religion I belonged to there was no way to leave the religion gracefully or peacefully. If you left, or told anyone you didn't belive it, there were serious consequences. This situation sounds very similar, and to me, that is forcing someone to practice something that they don't believe by using threats.

Now I hear people say "oh but it does so much inner harm" ok well yes to some maybe but so does teaching it's A OK. What if a child is taught this and grows up to believe that it's not? What sort of inner turmoil awaits him/her then?

I'm not sure what you are reffering to here. If you are talking about teaching a child that a natural and healthy part of growing up will somehow harm them in the future, well, I just have to dissagree with that. They are free to chose what they want to do. Certainly, if they chose not to do said thing, then that is their choice. But in a religion that is laying out rules, it most deffinately is NOT their choice.

There just isn't a 100% right or wrong answer with that. It's all so relative

To this I will agree with you 100%. And FWIW, I honestly don't mean to offend anyone, or talk down on anyones faith. It IS JMO, and I respect yours, even if I don't agree with it.

[holyhelianthus]

Originally Posted by MammaB21

I'm not sure what you are reffering to here. If you are talking about teaching a child that a natural and healthy part of growing up will somehow harm them in the future, well, I just have to dissagree with that. They are free to chose what they want to do. Certainly, if they chose not to do said thing, then that is their choice. But in a religion that is laying out rules, it most deffinately is NOT their choice.

And on the flip side if they are told it is ok and not to be ashamed and to go right ahead if they want and grow to feel differently about that I can see them feeling like their parents didn't enforce any guidelines which in and of itself forces a child/teen/anybody into a box. This can be just as detrimental to someone. A child is raised to believe that sex is natural and normal and ok whenever s/he feels comfortable with it. That child becomes a teen and adult who is sexually active. The his/her beliefs shift and now s/he has adopted the belief in saving oneself for marriage. I have seen this before. It tears people up inside. SOME people, not all. The same goes for the flip side.

The fact is we all have the choice. A religion/family might teach one thing but merely teaching it doesn't take away choice unless it involves someone sitting on your chest and holding your hands down- and that is where the force comes in. A doctrine isn't force. A belief isn't force. Force is force.

My point is that all sides are going to have those that disagree and feel wronged by it. There is no safe zone. There is no point where everyone will feel 100% great about the choices laid before them because not one family can give their child every last choice out there. Choices cancel out other choices. Sometimes it has to be one or the other. It's the parent's tough decision to decide their values for their family. Sometimes that is based on a religious belief and sometimes not. Sometimes it is something in between. It's too complex.

To this I will agree with you 100%. And FWIW, I honestly don't mean to offend anyone, or talk down on anyones faith. It IS JMO, and I respect yours, even if I don't agree with it.

Not offended at all and I agree!