That's Just Some Bishops

[Give It Time]

Next time you try to raise any issue where there's a serious transgression of one member endangering another member and the bishop gets it wrong--unintentionally or not, the outcome is the same--and the person you're talking to says, "oh that's just some bishops". I propose this response.

What if that's your child who is in that dangerous situation and you happen to get one of those bishops?
Your grandchild?
Your aging parent?
Your friend?
You?

The major areas where a person can be in peril are molestation, rape, abuse, suicide. After the unthinkable happens, "oh that's just some bishops" seems a pretty immoral statement. Why is it an acceptable statement before the fact? Why is it an acceptable statement when it doesn't directly impact you? Why is it okay for your ward member to suffer? Why is it moral to tell someone who is needlessly and preventably suffering to "have faith"?

[The mood in my ward has changed. I think the bishop shared my comments about how the previous bishop condoned abuse. Or it could be that it's summer and grad week is over.]

One last thing. Let me be perfectly clear. This isn't a condemnation of our overworked, underappreciated bishops. This goes straight to the top.

[Mormorrisey]

You're absolutely correct. This one goes straight to the top, as the leadership simply assume dentists, accountants and lawyers can counsel people about their lives with ZERO training just because they have "keys." Then, when they are faced with REAL social problems that even professional social workers, therapists and cousellors would have a difficult time with, they can bugger it up pretty effectively. In that way, you are absolutely correct, it's the system, not the bishop.

Having been one, the only saving grace I had was a realization that I might have a PhD, but I knew jack about how to counsel someone who had been abused, had mental illness challenges or anything a professional could deal with better than I. I regularly sent people to LDS services, and then just paid for them, thinking they needed the help more than the ward needed the money. We had (have? I don't know anymore) decent counsellors in the LDS services in our area, and they were much better at helping the victims of abuse/those suffering from mental illness then I ever could. All I had to do after that was support and encourage, which was a lot easier. I can't imagine the damage an ignorant person can do without some training.

I'm pretty sure I didn't screw up too many people, but one of the things keeping me awake at night is the possibility I did. Pretty glad I won't ever have to deal with this again.

[redjay]

On Sunday I spoke to a couple of members about how good it would to be to have a paid professional ministry - I smiled and they laughed at the absurdity of the suggestion (I was being serious).

[Give It Time]

You're absolutely correct. This one goes straight to the top, as the leadership simply assume dentists, accountants and lawyers can counsel people about their lives with ZERO training just because they have "keys." Then, when they are faced with REAL social problems that even professional social workers, therapists and cousellors would have a difficult time with, they can bugger it up pretty effectively. In that way, you are absolutely correct, it's the system, not the bishop.

Having been one, the only saving grace I had was a realization that I might have a PhD, but I knew jack about how to counsel someone who had been abused, had mental illness challenges or anything a professional could deal with better than I. I regularly sent people to LDS services, and then just paid for them, thinking they needed the help more than the ward needed the money. We had (have? I don't know anymore) decent counsellors in the LDS services in our area, and they were much better at helping the victims of abuse/those suffering from mental illness then I ever could. All I had to do after that was support and encourage, which was a lot easier. I can't imagine the damage an ignorant person can do without some training.

I'm pretty sure I didn't screw up too many people, but one of the things keeping me awake at night is the possibility I did. Pretty glad I won't ever have to deal with this again.

I'm so glad you wrote this, because you shouldn't have to deal with this. Also, I read about a possible molestation case between someone in the primary and a toddler.

I was shocked at how they were told to handle it. No mention of the handbook. They were to say they were volunteers and that in their ward, they do it this way. That way, if it did turn out the perpetrator was guilty and it could be proven, the church couldn't be sued. However, the local leadership could.

Just... nothing...to...say...right...now.

I may have some details wrong, but here's the link

http://www.feministmormonhousewives.org ... rspective/

[Give It Time]

On Sunday I spoke to a couple of members about how good it would to be to have a paid professional ministry - I smiled and they laughed at the absurdity of the suggestion (I was being serious).

That, or our bishops just handle administration and stay out of the rest. The Q15 starts preaching over the pulpit that members seek qualified professional help.

[Not Buying It]

Yep, the old "well they are volunteers" defense the Church drags out in cases of sexual molestation really disgusts me. On the one hand they want the membership to believe that all callings come from God, but they want courts to think that members in callings are "volunteers" whenever there are cases of molestation. Apparently sometimes God does a crap job of keeping predators away from kids in the Church with his "callings".

Also, I am not sure which I find more troubling, the outrageous things some bishops and stake presidents say and do in the Church, or the system that empowers ignorant, incompetent men to do those things.

I gotta get outta this Church, if it's the last thing I ever do.

[SeeNoEvil]

Thank you for saying this. I would like to think none of us will ever be faced with this but sadly all of us either will or have had someone or ourselves be abused in this way. And you have provided us with some great tools. It is a conversation that cannot be given enough. I feel sorry for bishops though. Are any prepared to take on the role?

I've never been a bishop. I lack the exterior plumbing needed so never will. I don't look fondly back on any bishop as being the best/worst, but one does stand out above all the rest. He was my last bishop. He was called to be bishop about the time my shelf fell so our paths crossed with him entering and me falling into inactivity. I knew who he was though. He and his family sat two rows up from mine. There is always one family in the ward that slips in and out without being noticed.... that was them. Humble, plain folk, not a lot of money, who seemed to just want to come to church and go home.... and be left alone. Then he was called to be bishop over our very affluent ward. Fast forward one year later. The executive called to make an appointment. He said the bishop just wanted to chat. I said if the bishop wanted to talk to me he needed to come to my house. And he did.

I lived about 25 miles from the ward building. He arrived in slacks and a colored shirt. No tie. Open collar. After the usual chit chat he got right down to it. Said he missed me at church (I didn't think he even knew who I was) and wanted to know what he could do to help me. He really seemed sincere. I told him I knew all the churches warts and ugly moles and wanted no part of it. He said he understood and went on to tell me about his missionary son who was still out preaching but no longer believed. Then.... he leaned forward in the chair he was sitting in, rested his elbows on his legs and buried his head in his hands and let out a huge sign. I could feel the weigh on his shoulders as he agreed with me and confessed he was way over his head and unprepared to be a bishop. We talked a bit more and I told him about my abusive ex husband and he was brought to tears. He promised to follow up with my exes bishop and I am pretty confident he did. I felt sorry for this kind, gentle man who clearly was out of his element and did not want to be there.

You know, I wouldn't wish this position on any one. I have a good friend who's husband is the youth minister in his church. He has a certificate from a college and then goes to all sorts of training all year long on handing these types of issues. He also refers members out to professionals when he can't help. He is amazing. I send my kids to him if they need counseling! Again, this is another place where the church misses it's mark.

[Rob4Hope]

I grew up right smack dab in SLC...in Liberty Stake (where several GAs came from). I am aware of the culture, and it runs thick and deep. That culture has jumped generations through the "golden age" during the 80s with Spencer Kimball and his successors for about a decade.

The idea has ALWAYS been that the church is all. There is no life outside of the church. There is no LIFE outside of the church: no friends, no general entertainment, no counseling--nothing. No marriage outside the church, .... etc. I could go on.

So, people end up having these horrible things happen, and they run to the Bishop who is supposed to fix it. And the bishop is like: "What am I supposed to do?" The members are like: "Well, you are the Bishop. Get revelation directly from GOD HIMSELF. GOD knows what to do, and since you are his mouthpiece for me, all you have to do bishop is ask God. Then you will know more than even the mental health advisors or anyone...because YOU SPEAK TO GOD!"

And there lies the problem.

The general members are frightened to make any choices themselves. As a culture, they are afraid someone may say: "Well, didn't you pray? If you got an answer that wasn't what you needed, why didn't you go to your bishop?"

In hind sight, I can't imagine how I let my children have worthiness interviews alone in the bishop's office. WHAT WAS I THINKING AS A PARENT!?

They ARE NOT GOD!....but the culture has made them almost into that. How crazy is that!

[blazerb]

On the one hand, our leaders are to be followed without question. On the other, if they screw us up, well they are just men (and only men). Those at the top know there are problems, but fixing the problems might endanger their positions, so nothing is done to fix the problem.

[Give It Time]

Thank you for your thoughts, everyone.

NBI, the longer I stay in, the more I see the same things as you.

SNE, thank you for your compassionate view. My previous bishop, I do believe thought he was doing a good thing. We didn't really talk, but I think he was trying to teach me a lesson. That the church couldn't possibly condone abuse. Interestingly, he availed himself of the opportunity to prove me right, but he thought I needed humbling. However, I did recognize that he worked long hours. He worked very hard. He was an excellent administrator. I try to remember we're all doing our best and we're all here to learn.


R4H, thank you for saying this. I grew up, up the hill from you. While my life wasn't so thoroughly entrenched with the church, I think that's because my father was a convert and my mother's siblings were inactive. There were a few non-members around us and my parents always made sure we included them. However, when I went to the Y, I very much experienced what you describe. I thought it was the strangest thing and they would treat me like the woman caught in adultery because I had friends and interests outside the church. This mindset, including considering the bishop the Mouthpiece for the ward is very real.

blazerb, you are absolutely right. This is why I say the church has painted itself into a corner. There really is no way out. Well, there are always miracles...

Some of my recent thoughts on this are as follows:

It would have been very difficult for my Aaronic priesthood-aged sons to participate in the sacrament with their father, knowing their bishop knew of the situation. I know I stepped out in the hall and refused the Sacrament during this time period.

I know that bishops might just be trying to let the abuser know he is still loved and valued by the Lord by allowing him to participate in priesthood ordinances or hold a temple recommend. I know a large part of why the abuser wants to have these privileges is they allow him to save face. My ex is currently trying to hold it over my head that our sons are not active. He's been trying to get my ward on his side. I think it's interesting. My ex could have turned down the recommend, could have refused to participate in administering the sacrament. He could have said his sons are watching and they could get the wrong impression about abuse if he did those things. Saving face was more important to him than how his children felt about the church.

Also, during that previous bishop's tenure, it was extremely difficult to sit in the pews week after flipping week and hear speaker after flipping speaker say that they knew all the bishop's decisions were guided by the spirit. Seriously, they're lucky people in my position still attend.

[PalmSprings]

So, people end up having these horrible things happen, and they run to the Bishop who is supposed to fix it. And the bishop is like: "What am I supposed to do?" The members are like: "Well, you are the Bishop. Get revelation directly from GOD HIMSELF. GOD knows what to do, and since you are his mouthpiece for me, all you have to do bishop is ask God. Then you will know more than even the mental health advisors or anyone...because YOU SPEAK TO GOD!"

And my experience has told me they don't receive any revelation from (a) God. Because they would at least have a decent batting average when it comes to making the right decision helping people. Which most of the time would be "You aren't smart enough to handle this problem Bishop. Do the right thing and send them to someone who can."

[Give It Time]

So, people end up having these horrible things happen, and they run to the Bishop who is supposed to fix it. And the bishop is like: "What am I supposed to do?" The members are like: "Well, you are the Bishop. Get revelation directly from GOD HIMSELF. GOD knows what to do, and since you are his mouthpiece for me, all you have to do bishop is ask God. Then you will know more than even the mental health advisors or anyone...because YOU SPEAK TO GOD!"

And my experience has told me they don't receive any revelation from (a) God. Because they would at least have a decent batting average when it comes to making the right decision helping people. Which most of the time would be "You aren't smart enough to handle this problem Bishop. Do the right thing and send them to someone who can."

Just being pointlessly repetitive.

Plus one to this statement.

[Grace2Daisy]

For the last five years on the HC I was asked to train new bishops. I found a surprising amount of them basically waived off advice and went directly to being "directed" by the spirit. Here's the deal, the SP was fully supportive of that concept. Time after time I would go to the SP and voice concerns about specific bishops, and the answer, "Well G2D, they'll eventually figure it out."

- We had bishops who were giving specific consideration to relative when it came to welfare (years of rent and financial assistance)
- Bishops who called their entire family to leadership positions (mother RSP, wife as PP, sister-in-law in YWP, father as HPGL, brother as EQP - keep in mind the SP had to approve the father and brother's callings, which he did),
- Bishops who revealed confidential information about teens and adults,
- Bishops who would not take the time to plan Sacrament meetings and wing them by just calling members from the congregations,
- Bishops who would continually allow Sacrament meetings to extend an additional 30 minutes,
- Bishops who were horrible at their callings and when they asked to extend past their 5 year period, were granted that request,

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that these guys were not theologically trained, they were not administrational trained, they did not have degrees or studies in psychology, they were most in their upper 20's or lower 30's in age and inexperienced. They constantly "led by direction of the spirit" and were consistently wrong.

[SeeNoEvil]

For the last five years on the HC I was asked to train new bishops. I found a surprising amount of them basically waived off advice and went directly to being "directed" by the spirit. Here's the deal, the SP was fully supportive of that concept. Time after time I would go to the SP and voice concerns about specific bishops, and the answer, "Well G2D, they'll eventually figure it out."

- We had bishops who were giving specific consideration to relative when it came to welfare (years of rent and financial assistance)
- Bishops who called their entire family to leadership positions (mother RSP, wife as PP, sister-in-law in YWP, father as HPGL, brother as EQP - keep in mind the SP had to approve the father and brother's callings, which he did),
- Bishops who revealed confidential information about teens and adults,
- Bishops who would not take the time to plan Sacrament meetings and wing them by just calling members from the congregations,
- Bishops who would continually allow Sacrament meetings to extend an additional 30 minutes,
- Bishops who were horrible at their callings and when they asked to extend past their 5 year period, were granted that request,

I could go on and on, but the bottom line is that these guys were not theologically trained, they were not administrational trained, they did not have degrees or studies in psychology, they were most in their upper 20's or lower 30's in age and inexperienced. They constantly "led by direction of the spirit" and were consistently wrong.

Would you pay someone off the street to operate on you just because they said, "sure, I'll do it!. Or hire a contractor to build your house who had no training, ask someone to fix your car engine who didn't know a wrench from a screw driver... of course not but with God all things are possible and if God says it is so then it is so. If God chooses a completely inexperienced and untrained man who knows diddly about guiding and counseling to oversee an entire congregation of 300 plus people then it must be so and we must trust and obey. I was completely blind to this type of irrational and irresponsible decision making until I disaffected from the church. I was astounded by the lack of training that went in to such an important position where the only requirement was that you were a man. Heck, you didn't even have to attend church. My proof? ..... I was in a ward in Ca. once years ago where they called a man to be bishop and his wife (who I visit taught) to be RS president and they had been inactive for years. He was a salesman and she was a SAHM to 5 kids, 5 and under. Zero training or qualifications.

[Give It Time]

After reading these two posts from G2D and SNE, there's no other way to say this. The church looks kind of desperate​.

[Thoughtful]

I read "Life and Death in Shanghai" about living under the Mao regime.

Mao would pull doctors into the fields to be farmers, and vice versa. Anyone could be anything. We are all equal.

But ultimately, when Mao needed a doctor, he would pull a real one off the farm to treat him.

The idea of being called=qualified seems a lot like this. Training is a real thing. The combination of training and practice, like 10,000 hours of practice=expert.

But we don't want experts, we want magic. We don't want to think or be accountable.

[Give It Time]

I read "Life and Death in Shanghai" about living under the Mao regime.

Mao would pull doctors into the fields to be farmers, and vice versa. Anyone could be anything. We are all equal.

But ultimately, when Mao needed a doctor, he would pull a real one off the farm to treat him.

The idea of being called=qualified seems a lot like this. Training is a real thing. The combination of training and practice, like 10,000 hours of practice=expert.

But we don't want experts, we want magic. We don't want to think or be accountable.

Good points about mastery and magic, thoughtful. The area where bishops have ten thousand hours of practice is in serving the church.

Another thing, I believe possible to get a spiritual prompting about something, but I believe the prompting is more easily felt and understood by someone who already has the capability. For example, a surgeon needing to solve a thorny medical problem. I think inspiration is more likely to come to the surgeon than to the farmer.

[Thoughtful]

I read "Life and Death in Shanghai" about living under the Mao regime.

Mao would pull doctors into the fields to be farmers, and vice versa. Anyone could be anything. We are all equal.

But ultimately, when Mao needed a doctor, he would pull a real one off the farm to treat him.

The idea of being called=qualified seems a lot like this. Training is a real thing. The combination of training and practice, like 10,000 hours of practice=expert.

But we don't want experts, we want magic. We don't want to think or be accountable.

Good points about mastery and magic, thoughtful. The area where bishops have ten thousand hours of practice is in serving the church.

Another thing, I believe possible to get a spiritual prompting about something, but I believe the prompting is more easily felt and understood by someone who already has the capability. For example, a surgeon needing to solve a thorny medical problem. I think inspiration is more likely to come to the surgeon than to the farmer.

It seems the church encourages 10,000 hours of "obedience to leaders". Imagine leaders having 10,000 hours of counseling, management, human rights, or some other relevant training for clergy positions?

[Give It Time]

I read "Life and Death in Shanghai" about living under the Mao regime.

Mao would pull doctors into the fields to be farmers, and vice versa. Anyone could be anything. We are all equal.

But ultimately, when Mao needed a doctor, he would pull a real one off the farm to treat him.

The idea of being called=qualified seems a lot like this. Training is a real thing. The combination of training and practice, like 10,000 hours of practice=expert.

But we don't want experts, we want magic. We don't want to think or be accountable.

Good points about mastery and magic, thoughtful. The area where bishops have ten thousand hours of practice is in serving the church.

Another thing, I believe possible to get a spiritual prompting about something, but I believe the prompting is more easily felt and understood by someone who already has the capability. For example, a surgeon needing to solve a thorny medical problem. I think inspiration is more likely to come to the surgeon than to the farmer.

It seems the church encourages 10,000 hours of "obedience to leaders". Imagine leaders having 10,000 hours of counseling, management, human rights, or some other relevant training for clergy positions?

The church would be unrecognizable.

[alas]

I read "Life and Death in Shanghai" about living under the Mao regime.

Mao would pull doctors into the fields to be farmers, and vice versa. Anyone could be anything. We are all equal.

But ultimately, when Mao needed a doctor, he would pull a real one off the farm to treat him.

The idea of being called=qualified seems a lot like this. Training is a real thing. The combination of training and practice, like 10,000 hours of practice=expert.

But we don't want experts, we want magic. We don't want to think or be accountable.

Good points about mastery and magic, thoughtful. The area where bishops have ten thousand hours of practice is in serving the church.

Another thing, I believe possible to get a spiritual prompting about something, but I believe the prompting is more easily felt and understood by someone who already has the capability. For example, a surgeon needing to solve a thorny medical problem. I think inspiration is more likely to come to the surgeon than to the farmer.

It seems the church encourages 10,000 hours of "obedience to leaders". Imagine leaders having 10,000 hours of counseling, management, human rights, or some other relevant training for clergy positions?

Besides experience in obedience to leaders, bishops do get some training (very little, but once a month training meetings) on how to help people repent by using shaming and the church promising that if you are more obedient that the church will forgive you and everything will be hunky dory.

So, when a rape victim, a child abuse victim, or battered wife wants to know why God would allow bad things to happen when he/she was being obedient, his only tool is to shame them into repenting.

We really don't talk much in the church about why bad things happen to good people. Someone from another religion can write a book about it, but Mormons are really hung up on the idea that if you are obedient, then God will protect you. So, the bishop sees his job for someone that life has just shit on, he sees his job as to find out what they did wrong so he can help them repent. But the abused child, the abused wife, the rape victim has probably already been searching for what they did wrong that God would let something terrible happen. So, since they are already looking for how this was their fault, it feeds right into what the bishop sees as his job. The bishop can intellectually know that victimization is not the victim's fault, but there is still the idea of what they did that "allowed it to happen."

It is like when someone's car is stollen and the cops ask if the victim left the keys in the ignition. Then, if that was the case with theft, the cops says, "well, that was stupid." But he STILL treats it as a crime. With theft, people recognize the difference between stupid and deserving it. They don't tell the car theft victim that he must have let the guy borrow the car, so there was no crime. But if it is a battered wife, who burned the toast, and her husband beat her for it, breaking her ribs, then that same cop will tell her to go home and try harder to be a better wife (true story) She deserved to be beaten, while the guy with the stollen car was stupid but didn't deserve his car to be stollen, the beaten wife deserves it.

It is still the difference between stranger rape and acquaintance rape. If the victim knows her rapist, then there is an assumption that the victim did something to "lead him on" or even "to piss him off". One of my clients was 90, and her rapist was someone who often did deliveries, because she was house bound. But she KNEW him. So, after he broke into her home and raped her and beat her and left her for dead, (details have been changed) the cops asked her what she had done to piss the guy off. They assumed, that because this serial rapist had beaten her so badly (he also had killed one victim) that it was her fault that he picked her as his next victim. Had nothing to do with the fact that he knew she was disabled and couldn't fight back.

If the cops who ARE trained do things like this, imagine how untrained bishops act and the things they say.

My first task with many of my LDS clients was to undo the damage and self blame that the bishop had done. Bishops literally went looking for what the beaten wife or rape victim had done to deserve what happened, and then advised her to repent. Well, it is impossible to repent of something you didn't choose. So, most of my clients had struggled with it for a while, before they figured out that talking to the bishop was only making them feel worse. A person might be able to repent of "stupid" but with battered wives, the batterer will find some reason to be angry. They invent reasons then justify their anger, so no matter how perfect the wife is, the batterer will find some reason, because it is often stress other places in his life he is upset about and he takes it out on the wife because she is there, and if he hit his boss he would get fired, so he hits his wife instead. Or the rape victim can repent of going to his room, but she can't repent of the sex because she didn't choose it. And she can't repent of the physical violence done to her. Trying to just digs her in deeper to the feelings of helplessness. She can't heal the breach of trust or the trauma of physical violence while trauma and violence are being denied in the bishop's efforts to get her to repent. The bishop is essentially telling her, or the battered wife, that she SHOULD be able to control things that are not under her control. If she should be able to control things and fails, then she is a horrible person. So, the self blame and feelings of helplessness spiral out of control, until she can say to herself that her bishop is full of it, and go get some real help.

Ask me how much working as a social worker in Utah destroyed my faith in Mormon bishops. All of my Mormon clients had self blame issues that were compounded by Mormon attitudes of God protects the righteous and/or those feelings further coumpouned by bishop's poor attempts to help. My nonMormon clients never had those issues (even one who was molested by her preacher father.) even when I was laughed at by military people for not drinking, I never felt so embarrassed and ashamed to be Mormon.