Appropriate Discussions With Your Bishop

So for the first time with this blog I’m going to talk openly about an LDS church policy/traditional/cultural norm. I hope this isn’t too off putting for some of you. Sunday in church I was part of a discussion of the appropriateness of certain discussions between kids and their Bishop.

Sunday School

The Sunday School lesson we were having led to a discussion on families and raising kids. Then we went into protecting kids from sexuality and such. It was kind of a discussion on how parents are responsible for teaching them VS. “it takes a village” mentality.

One man spoke up and said his bit about how we need to not assume kids aren’t hearing or talking about sexual activities. How Bishops have stopped asking IF they’ve seen porn, but rather asking what porn they’ve seen – they now assume everyone has seen it from somewhere.

Then he kind of generalized that we need to be discussing with kids the same things that they are hearing about from friends or media (movies/music/etc). He didn’t say it this way, but what that means is if they are hearing about “blow jobs” (or oral/anal sex, condoms, masturbation, etc) at school, then parents or leaders need to be able to use the term and talk about it with them. He didn’t use these terms in church, but that is what I believe he was trying to say.

STOP GENERALIZING!

And I agree with him. The LDS church has a cultural history of generalizing about sex and not really speaking to kids about these issues. I’m not sure if a leader ever used the term “sex” when I was growing up, instead they’d just generalize and say things like “keep yourself clean” or “obey the law of chastity.” There was no specifics about anything.

I don’t know if my leaders were embarrassed, or just naïve. But that lack of detail meant I was naïve as well until I experienced things for myself or had them described by classmates. That is poor preparation indeed.

Don’t believe me? Studies say that 80% of young kids don’t think of oral sex as “sex” at all. So if you aren’t specific with them, what do they know? Is “petting” such an obvious term that you think you don’t need to describe what that means? In a kids mind they could still be living the law of chastity and also regularly pleasuring their “partner”. That is a problem. We need parents AND leaders who can have these discussions with kids and tell them what is and isn’t acceptable.

Youth based magazines are publishing articles about explicit sexual acts (This Teen Vogue article for instance). As much as I love and support the ideal, our response can’t simply be “be virtuous.”

Bishops Interview

Back to Sunday School. After the one gentleman said his bit, another man spoke in an effort to agree that we can’t be vague with kids, only he went further. He said something along the lines of this:

Now days you even have pushback against Bishops. They say that Bishops shouldn’t be asking about specific sexual acts, saying that Bishops shouldn’t talk about that in interviews, but only be very basic. But that’s their job!

To this I couldn’t disagree more. I didn’t even raise my hand but just jumped in saying something along the lines of this:

I’m going to push back on that. My oldest is a 15 yr old girl. There is no way any middle aged man should be having sexually explicit discussions with her. In groups, fine. More explicit discussions, fine. But one on one? No way. Aside from asking about the law of chastity, no man should be questioning my daughter about explicit sexual acts.

Group vs One on One

While I think we DO need to be specific with our youth, and talk to them using the same terms they hear elsewhere, I don’t think it should be in one on one settings between youth and unrelated adults. Meaning a parent is fine one on one with their kid, but any other leader/adult better be in a group setting. Any church leader better be in a group if they are going to talk about explicit things like masturbation, anal/oral sex, intercourse, etc.

But what about worthiness interviews? Well, a Bishop needs to ask if they obey the law of chastity. That is part of their job. But questioning about specifics beyond that should be left out. If the kids answers yes, they live the law, then move on. If the Bishop is concerned for some reason that the youth might not realize what constitutes violation of this, then it better be explained in a group. When a youth answers no, they aren’t living the law of chastity, have a plan to involve someone else, preferably a parent.

I would totally support any Bishop who had a group event and told all of his youth, “When I ask ‘Do you live the law of chastity?’ I don’t simply mean ‘sex’ in the traditional sense.” and then went on to talk about the various other activities that would be chastity violations. Be blunt. Say things like, “Anal sex qualifies as sex, and needs to be confessed.” If we can assume they are encountering porn, we can assume they are hearing sexual terms that we MUST be prepared to talk about and give guidance about.

Parental Involvement

Also set another expection as well. Tell them, as a group, that if they come in to talk to you as the Bishop, answer No to the law of chastity question, and start confessing a sexually explicit event, then you are going to stop them and ask for permission to bring their parents in. There is no reason not to, other than being afraid a parent will be abusive upon finding out, and then that should be known and dealt with too! But get permission for someone else to be there, another Bishop or the SP if necessary, but don’t be alone!

There is no reason that confessions MUST be one on one! None. A confessor can have anyone with them. A parent, a leader, a friend. Anyone who helps them feel better and safer. The parents are going to be a youth’s best support moving forward anyway, so ASK to get them involved. If the kid refuses, fine, but TRY!

All explicit questioning for a simple worthiness interview should be off limits. Under no circumstances should a Bishop ask searching questions about explicit sexual activity from a youth on a one on one basis.

Outside the Norm

I know that this is outside the normal cultural happenings in LDS circles. But I don’t think I’m wrong. It should be easy to see that middle aged men should NOT be asking young girls explicitly sexual questions in settings where they are alone together. Give training and set expectations in a group, where kids are with their peers, and then when alone simply ask if they are following those guidelines already set out.

I recently read a harrowing account of an interview held very poorly.

“when will the Church finally stop having young women and young men face middle-aged or older men in private rooms for interviews about their sex lives? My youngest daughter refuses to go into a Bishop’s interview with our current Bishop because his questions were so intrusive.

In her last interview with him, he asked her “Do you keep the law of chastity? My daughter answered in the affirmative. He then asked follow-up questions about female masturbation, oral sex, etc. She felt cornered and trapped. She thought he was accusing her of those actions, that he did not believe her initial answer. It was days before I found out, she was depressed for days before she finally confided in her mother and myself.”

I concur with his conclusion as well, “That form of interview is a form of sexual assault.” The type of probing questions asked as follow up are totally inappropriate as given in this account.

I don’t know if you all agree, but now you have my take on the matter.

Take-Aways

Get over the ridiculous notion that confessions need to be private one on one things… they don’t! Have another person there. A parent would be ideal. Don’t go into sexual details alone.

Be blunt, specific, and to the point, but do it in groups. Private settings between adult men and teenage girls isn’t the setting for talks about sex.

Be adult enough to have the discussions with all youth AND their parents. Set good expectations and boundaries so kids know what path any confession will follow.

Be open and truthful. There is no room for shyness or embarrassment in these discussions. These youth are becoming adults, show them how to have an adult conversation about adult topics while maintaining respect and worthiness. Model adult behavior.

Your thoughts?

Follow Up

Julie proof read this and brought to my attention that she has seen a petition going around asking the church to end these interviews all together. I assume that is what the gentleman I referred to was talking about when he said there is pushback against Bishops. I didn’t know about the petition, and therefore haven’t read the petition nor know if I agree with it.

It is a Bishop’s duty to ascertain the worthiness of his members, including the youth. It can’t be scrapped, but it can be improved. We are wrong to suppose that it must be done one on one. It doesn’t. Repentence doesn’t require it at all. The interviews must take place, but when it is known, or becomes known, that sexual activity is going to be discussed there is no reason another person (agreeable to the confessor) can’t be brought in.

19 November 2017

Thanksgiving Invite

Our family tradition for Thanksgiving? To offer a hot meal and place to relax to everyone we know. If you have no other place to go this Thanksgiving, then you are welcome with the Jensens!

With the events of the last year, you can be sure that it won’t be very fancy, but we will have plenty of good food and we always have lots of laughs. So don’t sit home alone, don’t feel unwanted, and don’t be depressed. Come share in the joy of the holiday and the friendliness of our family.

Some years we have more people come than others, but nobody is ever turned away. If you need or want a place to go, come see us!

Even if you don’t come here, I hope you all have a great Thanksgiving!

12 November 201712 November 2017

PTSD and Church Attendence

My journey for mental wellness continues. Ever since I was a young boy, church attendance has been a consistent part of my life. Except when illness, pain, or military duty kept me away, I’ve attended every week. I don’t remember a time when I didn’t go simply because I didn’t want to go.

PTSD and Church Attendance

I didn’t go today though. Not because I didn’t want to, but because I don’t feel up to it. Though not what you would normally think of when I say “illness,” my mental state (mental illness) kept me home today. This has happened before, but today is easier for me to explain why. Hopefully it is easier for some to understand.

With my PTSD I will often find myself having a moment of panic about the “what if’s” of a certain location. It’s happened at football games, restaurants, choir concerts, Thanksgiving Point, anywhere and everywhere, even at church.

What if a gunman comes running through that door? What if a car starts running people over? What if that bus explodes? What if someone grabs one of the kids? What if some kids come through with knives? What if… ? What if… ? What if…?

Logic/Reason

My own thought processes tell me those thing won’t happen. Or at least that the odds of them happening are so small that I shouldn’t be bothered by them at all. The same thoughts that YOU have about these things are usually what I have too. But sometimes the PTSD is stronger than that, and reason goes out the window.

Last Sunday

But sometimes those things DO happen. The attacks with knives, cars, guns, bombs… those do happen at times, and so it makes me even more prone to the moments of panic.

And last week it did again. I assume if you are reading this that you know about the shooting at the Texas church house. 26 dead, countless affected. Families torn asunder. Unimaginable pain and grief.

Because of the regularity with which I’m at church services (where as I’m almost never in restaurants or football games), church is one of the more common panic inducing thoughts/locations that I have. So when it does happen in real life, even if its a thousand miles away, I’m not really in a good mental position to head back to my own church house.

Vulnerability

After a night filled with more nightmares, I made the conscious decision not to go to church today. I don’t ever “know” when a moment of panic will occur, but for some reason I just felt more vulnerable than normal today. Is that excusable? Does that make me less faithful of a Christian? Will my friends think less of me for admitting it? Is it as acceptable to stay home because of mental illness as it is for a physical illness? Would you judge me more harshly (in your opinion of me) for this slip in my church attendance?

11 November 2017

Happy Veteran’s Day!

Happy Veteran’s Day to all veterans out there! I wish you the best and thank you for your service and sacrifices.

I’ve been typing out a now fairly lengthy post on Veteran’s Day and what it means to me to be a veteran. Much like my previous PTSD post from last weekend, I’m not going to post it either.

Most of it was all pride and glory and sacrifice and nobility: like most of the stuff you read getting passed around on Facebook. And all of that is true and fair.

But then I also typed up a long list of how being a veteran also meant a lifetime of pain, wrangling your conscience about taking another human life, dealing with the betrayal of a “battle buddy” who hurt you, spending the rest of your life trying not to become a “22 a day” statistic, and on and on. There was just as large a host of negative aspects of military service as there was positive one.

There are a LOT of veterans out there for whom the negatives far outweigh the positives, and so I decided not to post my flag-waving, chest thumping, USA chanting post. I don’t want them reading that post and saying, “that isn’t what it was like for me” and feeling like their service wasn’t sufficient, or their sacrifice wasn’t meaningful, or that they somehow “did it wrong”.

Instead I’ll be happy to just wish all my veteran friends who see this a happy Veteran’s Day, and my hope that you are happy on all days after this as well.

Take care of each other out there…

8 November 2017

Connex Woes Be Gone!

I wrote last week about my shipping container woes (Connex). Here is an update on that.

Bluffdale City

I went in and met with the Bluffdale City Code Enforcement Officer, Ben Henrie. He’s a very nice guy who seemed willing to find a way to make things work for me. I was impressed with that. He discussed with me several options for how I could make this work within existing code.

Roof

He had printed out a picture of what another resident had done with their connex. This person had put a pitched roof over the top of it using what appeared to be pre-built trusses.

I kind of laughed at that because the connex’s are already water proof and so the roof was superfluous. It also did NOTHING to hide the sides of the container (the part that is visible) from the neighbors, and it was the appearance that made the container not work with city code. All adding a rood did was add to what the neighbor saw, not hide it at all. But it moved the container into a category of a building, and that fit that code just fine.

I don’t want to do this. It is needlessly expensive and provides no benefit other than to satisfy arbitrary rules imposed by government. Also, I might in the future want to bring my container from MO, and would probably then use them as the walls of a “barn” and put a roof over the middle. I don’t want to put up one roof and then in a few years tear it off to build another one.

Covering

If, as Ben and a co-worker (Pam) were telling me, the only real issue is that the connex shouldn’t be visible to neighbors, I would be happy to get it covered. My dad has a plethora of 2×6’s from a fence he de-constructed, and I would use them to make an edging around the top that I’d hang something from to hide the container. That would be something like a tarp or visqueen. They kind of frowned at that, but didn’t sound like they had a reason it wouldn’t fit the code. It would hide the appearance of the container.

Fence

Ben did say that another way around things was to put a “sight blocking fence” around it. It was here I think that he emphasized that the real issue is that it is a visual nuisance to the neighbors and that if it can’t be seen than it is perfectly acceptable. Heaven knows I don’t want to build a fence around one, so this option won’t work for me either.

Burial

With the issue being sight, this should be acceptable. I didn’t mention it, and neither did they, but I don’t see how they could object to it. I don’t want to do this, but it is doable.

Follow-Up

When we left we didn’t really have a good answer from Ben’s boss on what I could do to make a connex fit into the code. The boss wasn’t there and couldn’t be reached. They were having a staff meeting later that day however, with all persons who would have input on this including “the head man” who would have final say on these issues. I was told by Ben and Pam that they’d bring it up and see what was determined.

I reached out to Ben today to ask how that meeting went and what I can do. He said that they came to the conclusion that I CAN have a connex. He said as long as it is only one, and that it is in the back yard, that it is allowed under the current code. I asked for something in writing from them to that effect. He sent me this: “After my staff meeting it has been determined by the planning department that one container placed in the rear of the property will not constitute open storage under the current interpretation of the city code.”

Ben did tell me over the phone that the code was likely to change in the next 5 years or so. He wasn’t sure how it would change, but said that I shouldn’t have a problem. Apparently all the decision makers were present, and they agreed I’d be fine.

Getting a Connex

After posting about my woes finding a container, I got a message from someone telling me that they sell them in SLC and to give them a call. So with my good news in hand, I called. They do indeed have a variety of them available that I could have delivered in about a week. \

I’ve found me a connex. So I looked at finances, and the only woe at this point is affording one. I don’t exactly have thousands of dollars lying around. In fact, because I’m trying to pay for a home that no longer exists (rather than just declare bankruptcy), I’m decidedly upside down financially.

So… now what? Do I leave thousands of dollars of stuff out to be snowed on, stolen, or rusted? Or do I spend thousands I don’t have to protect that stuff AND to help clean up both the yard and the garage/driveway here at my parents place? I spend a couple thousand I don’t have in one situation, and potentially waste/ruin several thousand more if I don’t.

That’s the rock and hard place I’m trying to work out today.

Any good ideas?