Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bsjkki

Bishopric confession

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

does that mean today? This week? All month? All year? The majority of the time or 100% of the time? Would 1 infraction of drinking a coffee, or a beer, or having a cigarette 1 time in the month mean that a person does NOT keep the WoW?

I think the "keep" questions are not about what you used to do.   I think they are about what you currently do, and what you plan to do going forward, and what you have done protect your boundaries going forward.

There is a big difference between "I got coffee at the drugstore where there was no caffeinated cold drinks when I needed it to get home urgently".    And, "I drink coffee at work to fit in with my friends once in a while and I'm going to keep doing it because it isn't a big deal and I don't understand why drinking coffee is a TR matter anyway."

If someone were to ask me when they should answer "no" to the question, I'd ask them if they sought spiritual confirmation to drink coffee or tea or alcohol or smoke in the circumstances they did, and felt that heavenly acceptance or approval.   Most would probably tell me that it didn't occur to ask whether they in the specific circumstances were an exception to the general rule.  But that is the only way we can ever know whether we do it and remain square with God (however our bishop responds).

I would suggest that the answer could legitimately be yes I do keep the word of wisdom, and plan to do so going forward.   I did use _____ [describe circumstances and timing] and I do [whatever way you've fortified your boundaries to reduce the risk for the future}.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Honestly if I were disciplined so I’d just disappear and make it right between me and god.  Waaaay too much human shaming that has nothing to do with the true repentance process.  

 

I'm with you on this!

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Honestly if I were disciplined so I’d just disappear and make it right between me and god.  Waaaay too much human shaming that has nothing to do with the true repentance process.  

Thank goodness I’m a rule follower. 

I was excommunicated and kept coming to church for years before my blessings were restored. It wasn’t fun at the beginning, but I got used to it.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I agree that is how most people would interpret the question, yet I'm certain leaders have given TR to people who have indulged in prohibited substances more recently than a year. In which case, perhaps the difference is whether or not the person confesses it to the bishop, in which case it would imply that WoW is a serious transgression which necessitates formal confession to a bishop. IMO the WoW isn't a "serious transgression" as in a breaking of a commandment so much as it's an infraction against the policies of the church (I'm sure most will disagree with me)

I'm curious if we had a test pool of 100 bishops, what kind of timeline they'd put on a WoW infraction before giving a TR. I think it would vary quite a bit, but I think people who actually confess the infraction would be treated more softly than someone whose infraction is know, but not confessed. I'd guess most bishops would put a timeline of 3-6 months before giving a TR, but some would be shorter and some longer.

ETA- I think intent is a huge part of it. I think a person who intends to have a drink a couple of times a year wouldn't receive a recommend while a person who intends to be 100% obedient, yet falters and has 4 drinks per year, would be more likely to get the TR.

I agree that intent is a huge part of it. I’ve heard of bishops who will pardon a long period of tithing arrears and issue a temple recommend if the person will promise from that moment on to pay a full tithe. 

Edited by Scott Lloyd
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Anijen said:

Sadly, I have seen this too often and most of the time the Bishop only had the best interest involved. I have stopped counting how many times I sat in leadership meetings, counsel meetings etc., when the Bishop might say something like;

"Brother John Doe was excommunicated last night for adultery which arose out of his porn addiction. Brother Doe needs help with his STD. Please tell your teachers not to have Brother Doe invited to say any prayers in class."

I have seen/heard Bishop slip out many details that should have been kept confidential. I also think a leadership meeting is not the right place. I would have preferred to see the Bishop pull the EQP aside and privately say to him; "do me a favor and don't have Brother Doe say any of the prayers for a while, thanks." That would have been so much more in keeping up Bishop/Confessor confidentiality, and would help keep rumours and gossip a little at bay.

 

Edited to add; Just last week, my Bishop in a very crowded hallway said in a loud voice "Brother [Anijen], please take your wife to an empty classroom and give your wife a very needed blessing." Nothing wrong with this, but one of the sisters jokingly said to me right after the Bishops remarks;  "Brother [Anijen] you need to stop beating your wife."  I know the Bishop was well intentioned, but I did feel a little bit a little under the magnifying glass. I asked myself these questions. Why didn't I know my wife needed a blessing, why did she tell the Bishop and not me?  I later asked my wife if I could administer to her and she laughed at me and said I didn't ask the Bishop for you to give me a blessing, the Bishop told me; "I looked down and overwhelmed," he just assumed I needed a blessing."

Sometimes, I feel Bishops need to reel it in just a little bit keep things more confidential and even keep good things between bishop and member and not the loud publication he thinks it might need.

Personally, I don’t like to give a blessing unless the recipient him/herself has taken the initiative to ask for it. To me, it is part of exercising “faith to be healed.”

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Just last week, my Bishop in a very crowded hallway said in a loud voice "Brother [Anijen], please take your wife to an empty classroom and give your wife a very needed blessing." Nothing wrong with this, 

I’d have been mad, and I don’t offend terribly easily at church. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Anijen said:

Sadly, I have seen this too often and most of the time the Bishop only had the best interest involved. I have stopped counting how many times I sat in leadership meetings, counsel meetings etc., when the Bishop might say something like;

"Brother John Doe was excommunicated last night for adultery which arose out of his porn addiction. Brother Doe needs help with his STD. Please tell your teachers not to have Brother Doe invited to say any prayers in class."

I have seen/heard Bishop slip out many details that should have been kept confidential. I also think a leadership meeting is not the right place. I would have preferred to see the Bishop pull the EQP aside and privately say to him; "do me a favor and don't have Brother Doe say any of the prayers for a while, thanks." That would have been so much more in keeping up Bishop/Confessor confidentiality, and would help keep rumours and gossip a little at bay.

 

In another thread, it was mentioned that Catholic priests would rather face death than break confidentiality. Doing so would lead to immediate excommunication. Perhaps our bishops could take a lesson from their example.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

I’d have been mad, and I don’t offend terribly easily at church. 

Yeah, that’s awful (if it’s what happened).  Way too personal and way too public.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, JulieM said:

Yeah, that’s awful (if it’s what happened).  Way too personal and way too public.  

I really don't blame my Bishop, he is a good man and did have good intentions for my wife to get a blessing. Having said that, what you said is exactly right and how I felt, it was too public for such a personal thing. When later that night when I asked my wife if she would like me to administer to her, she was a little bit upset that he voiced it so loud in the hallway, where the ward gossip could hear (and did remark that I should stop beating my wife). She of course was joking, but if that is the first thing she thought of, even if it was in a joking manner it makes me wonder... My wife then got upset that the Bishop felt she needed a blessing because of her looks (she looked down and overwhelmed). I think my wife was feeling a little bit overwhelmed, we have been dealing with a lot of family health issues and exam failing, etc., A lot of worrying, but still not a good enough reason to loudly proclaim I need to give my wife a very needed blessing. I'm just venting here, all will be well...

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

I’d have been mad, and I don’t offend terribly easily at church. 

Why did you attribute that quote to me? I didn't say it.

Please be careful with the quote function here.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Why did you attribute that quote to me? I didn't say it.

Please be careful with the quote function here.

 

Not sure what happened there, sorry.  I highlighted and hit “quote “ and added my thoughts.

oh I see, I quoted your quote of anijen and it attributed it to you.  

Edited by MustardSeed
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Not sure what happened there, sorry.  I highlighted and hit “quote “ and added my thoughts.

oh I see, I quoted your quote of anijen and it attributed it to you.  

If you had clicked the quote function under Anijen’s post instead of mine when responding,  it would have correctly stamped Anijen’s name at the top instead of mine as the author of the quoted content. 

Share this post


Link to post
20 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If you had clicked the quote function under Anijen’s post instead of mine when responding,  it would have correctly stamped Anijen’s name at the top instead of mine as the author of the quoted content. 

I’ve fired my secretary. Onward ho-

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, rpn said:

I think the "keep" questions are not about what you used to do.   I think they are about what you currently do, and what you plan to do going forward, and what you have done protect your boundaries going forward.

There is a big difference between "I got coffee at the drugstore where there was no caffeinated cold drinks when I needed it to get home urgently".    And, "I drink coffee at work to fit in with my friends once in a while and I'm going to keep doing it because it isn't a big deal and I don't understand why drinking coffee is a TR matter anyway."

If someone were to ask me when they should answer "no" to the question, I'd ask them if they sought spiritual confirmation to drink coffee or tea or alcohol or smoke in the circumstances they did, and felt that heavenly acceptance or approval.   Most would probably tell me that it didn't occur to ask whether they in the specific circumstances were an exception to the general rule.  But that is the only way we can ever know whether we do it and remain square with God (however our bishop responds).

I would suggest that the answer could legitimately be yes I do keep the word of wisdom, and plan to do so going forward.   I did use _____ [describe circumstances and timing] and I do [whatever way you've fortified your boundaries to reduce the risk for the future}.

 

I mostly agree. But the "keep" seems to signal to me a required level of perfection and timing even though it is not precisely stated. Personally, I prefer the "striving" questions. Do you "strive" to ..... 

I think those questions are better indicators of what a person hopes and works for, while recognizing imperfection.

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I mostly agree. But the "keep" seems to signal to me a required level of perfection and timing even though it is not precisely stated. Personally, I prefer the "striving" questions. Do you "strive" to ..... 

I think those questions are better indicators of what a person hopes and works for, while recognizing imperfection.

I don’t know that the difference is all that pronounced. To me, keep in this context means to observe or to follow. As in this passage of dialogue from “A Christmas Carol”:

— Nephew, keep Christmas in your way and let me keep it in mine. 

— But you don’t keep it. 

— Let me leave it alone then. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I might not have said anything about it except that I wouldn’t want anyone thinking incorrectly that I am publicizing personal circumstances or complaining about my own bishop’s behavior. I’m guessing Anijen doesn’t post under his real name, in which case, this would not be an issue for him. 

That makes perfect sense and I am happy to be more informed on procedure for quoting.  I will admit that you seem to have an abrupt communication style that in this case made me feel a bit ashamed publicly but my brains took over and decided to not be hurt.  Having all the info as you shared here helps.  Thank you friend. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/6/2019 at 9:37 PM, bsjkki said:

What sins must be reported to the Bishop? In order to answer the temple recommend question, don’t we need to know exactly what they are?

Please only answer using official church sources. Someone asked me this today and it seems very subjective. I’ve heard it taught very subjectively too. 

Is there more concrete information in Handbook 1? But then general membership doesn’t know that information so again, how do you know how to answer the Temple Recommend question?

1. Tithing more a sin of omission, only comes up at the end of the year and recommend interviews. It is also (as taught by Church leaders and past Prophets), one is which God will forgive, without making restitution. Although many do so without being asked. 

2. Many things need to be brought before the Bishop when it comes to the question of one’s behavior toward family members. Physical abuse, sexual abuse, without any doubt and even verbal abuse at times. Since physical abuse and sexual abuse are crimes, the Bishop can, and must report it to authorities. In fact if “sexual abuse” if confessed, the Bishop could be charged with a crime for not reporting it, and seeking to find a way to separate those abused. Also even if one repents, fully. They can never have a calling in Church where children are involved. However the sexual abuse of children, according to experience, and the medical community, a those who sexually abuse children, can never healed. This must be done until the authorities can act! 

3. Wearing of Temple Garments, only requires change as it relates recommend being issued, no need for confession, just notification.

4. Being honest with one’s fellow man or woman, needs change. If thief is involved, then serious enough to lead to any number of actions by the Bishopric. 

5. Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed, not as serious when private. Very serious if done publicly, especially when trying to foster apostasy in others, as many recent events have evidenced. 

6. Affiliation with groups who are in open opposition, or open rebellion is very serious, and if one is serious about repentance, requires one’s Bishop. 

7. Of course the final question about “do you feel worthy to attend the Temple”, is a difficult one, as most good men and women are the harshest of judges. 

Anyway, it has been such a long time since I have done a Temple Recommed interview, these 7 items are what come to mind. I may be able to remember more since my recommed expires on May, 31...my birthday. So, I will have to have another interview, although I may do it sooner.  

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

5. Evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed, not as serious when private. Very serious if done publicly, especially when trying to foster apostasy in others, as many recent events have evidenced. 

Could you explain this to me? What is evil speaking?  Who are the Lord’s anointed (and who is not anointed)?  When were they anointed?

Cite sources if you can. I’ve never understood this covenant and how it somehow seems more important than it’s covenant neighbor “loud laughter.”

Thanks!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Could you explain this to me? What is evil speaking?  Who are the Lord’s anointed (and who is not anointed)?  When were they anointed?

Cite sources if you can. I’ve never understood this covenant and how it somehow seems more important than it’s covenant neighbor “loud laughter.”

Thanks!

Good question! Some believe this relates to any Priesthood leader and some interpret it more narrowly to meaning Jesus Christ. 

Edit: I would expand that to any church leader...not just Priesthood leaders.  

President Oaks said, “‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24.)” (Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.)

Edited by bsjkki

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Good question! Some believe this relates to any Priesthood leader and some interpret it more narrowly to meaning Jesus Christ. 

Edit: I would expand that to any church leader...not just Priesthood leaders.  

President Oaks said, “‘When we say anything bad about the leaders of the Church, whether true or false, we tend to impair their influence and their usefulness and are thus working against the Lord and his cause.’ (In Conference Report, Apr. 1947, p. 24.)” (Address to Church Educational System teachers, Aug. 16, 1985.)

I know a lot of people also think of it as being anyone who has been to the temple.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I know a lot of people also think of it as being anyone who has been to the temple.

I had not heard that before. Here is an article by Fair Mormon about the quote by President Oaks. https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Dallin_H._Oaks/It’s_wrong_to_criticize_leaders_of_the_Church,_even_if_the_criticism_is_true

President Oaks addressed this talk in the a Ensign article titled Criticism. 

How serious do members take this question? Do they truly evaluate if they have criticized or gossiped about a church leader? What raises gossip to evil speaking. Does it matter if it is public, private or anonymous?

Edited by bsjkki
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

Could you explain this to me? What is evil speaking?  Who are the Lord’s anointed (and who is not anointed)?  When were they anointed?

Cite sources if you can. I’ve never understood this covenant and how it somehow seems more important than it’s covenant neighbor “loud laughter.”

Thanks!

My assumption is that certainly the Prophet and 12 Apostles are anointed. As too the term “loud laughter”, is not simply have have fun, or even to laugh at something funny, such as jokes, or other things. But the laughter that comes in the form of “laughing someone to scorn”, which is often meant to embarrass and humiliate an individual. In my 60+ years of life, I have noted than when someone is, “laughed to scorn”, is a serious matter. I have seen others so hurt that is becomes hatred, and others to commit murder, or attempt it. Besides, the thread was about something different, and no one is asked about “loud laughter” in a Temple Recommend interview, nor does any such thing need to be confessed to any Bishop. Or did I wonder into the wrong thread, or did I bring it up in my response? Also, help me understand why, since it was not a question in the thread, nor in any of my remarks. 

So, how did we get from you first question, to your second question. If you could draw me a map, to let me know how it came up in your mind, and how I am the one you asked. Unless you are asking me of the question and the teaching we receive in the Temple. Either way, none of my remarks suggested I was an expert on all questions, and as I pointed out, I was answering from memory. So, are you asking because you think I know, or did you do so because you have an issue with the question or the teaching, and again; why me?  

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, Bill “Papa” Lee said:

My assumption is that certainly the Prophet and 12 Apostles are anointed. As too the term “loud laughter”, is not simply have have fun, or even to laugh at something funny, such as jokes, or other things. But the laughter that comes in the form of “laughing someone to scorn”, which is often meant to embarrass and humiliate an individual. In my 60+ years of life, I have noted than when someone is, “laughed to scorn”, is a serious matter. I have seen others so hurt that is becomes hatred, and others to commit murder, or attempt it. Besides, the thread was about something different, and no one is asked about “loud laughter” in a Temple Recommend interview, nor does any such thing need to be confessed to any Bishop. Or did I wonder into the wrong thread, or did I bring it up in my response? Also, help me understand why, since it was not a question in the thread, nor in any of my remarks. 

So, how did we get from you first question, to your second question. If you could draw me a map, to let me know how it came up in your mind, and how I am the one you asked. Unless you are asking me of the question and the teaching we receive in the Temple. Either way, none of my remarks suggested I was an expert on all questions, and as I pointed out, I was answering from memory. So, are you asking because you think I know, or did you do so because you have an issue with the question or the teaching, and again; why me?  

Your mention of “evil speaking of the Lord’s anointed” is something that one needs to talk to the bishop about. So, I asked you about what that meant because every time I’m told it’s about criticizing leaders, it never makes sense - even though that is how most define it.

I then asked you about loud laughter because it is in that same temple covenant (Law of the gospel) that we also covenant to avoid loud laughter.

So why in your mind is evil speaking of the lords anointed bad enough to talk to the bishop about, but you excluded another part of that same covenant: loud laughter?

Lastly - it is entirely made up that the 12 are anointed. Maybe it’s true. But maybe they all eat turtles on Tuesday. We’re just making both of those ideas up.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...