Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bsjkki

Bishopric confession

Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

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.

Do you worry about breaking Gods laws or are you trying to point out that we are fools? 

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Do you worry about breaking Gods laws or are you trying to point out that we are fools? 

I don’t want to breaking god’s laws, and I want to keep my covenants. So I’m trying to make sense of them.

But, I have been disappointed with how little there is written or taught about these covenants, despite the STRONG teaching that we must keep them.

Are you a fool?  No more than I am. I am lost about certain covenants and hoping you or others have real truth about what they mean.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, SouthernMo said:

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.

OK, that helps. I was speaking (or as I posted) that “evil speaking”, in private is not usually something one would hardly need to talk to a Bishop about. If done within the Church, Family, and Community, for the purpose of leading others “astray”, that is a very serious thing. If done at work to those who are not members, where little harm is done, I would suggest telling the Bishop the truth, unvarnished. As to “loud laughter”, I pray my answer was sufficient. As I have pointed out, working in law-enforcement, many who have felt humiliated by such laughter, have become so angry, they have killed, or tried too. It is also what those did, and do, that cause believers to be ashamed, to deny their Faith, and who wander into darkness, and n many cases become lost forever. 

While workng for the City of Atlanta, I would often have to enter those very, “Large and Spacious”, filled with law-firms, 50-70 floors over the city. It was most all wanted to be, so they (having lost their testimonies) too could point their fingers at those below, “laughing  to scorn”. So God help us, and just as important, my God bless their souls before all is lost. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

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. 

I could and should have been more diplomatic in my approach. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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?

I personally judge "evil speaking" of anyone as a sin...just the word "evil" gives it that context for me.

For me, I equate it to maliciousness.

Edited by Calm
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I don’t want to breaking god’s laws, and I want to keep my covenants. So I’m trying to make sense of them.

But, I have been disappointed with how little there is written or taught about these covenants, despite the STRONG teaching that we must keep them.

Are you a fool?  No more than I am. I am lost about certain covenants and hoping you or others have real truth about what they mean.

Fair enough! 

Im not worried about the loud laughter.  Maybe that’s foolish, since we take all the others so deeply seriously.  I’m taking my chances. ;)

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Fair enough! 

Im not worried about the loud laughter.  Maybe that’s foolish, since we take all the others so deeply seriously.  I’m taking my chances. ;)

I know you’re semi-joking, but what if I said that I’m not worried about the law of chastity?  I’m taking my chances...

I’d have half this forum pounce on me, and my bishop would revoke my temple recommend. That covenant’s boundaries and importance are discussed ad nauseam!  

But, we (relatively) ignore some other covenants, shrug our shoulders, and don’t fret even if we have no idea what they mean.

That bothers me, and I don’t want to live under covenants that I don’t understand, and my bishop or stake president don’t either.

Its not just the loud laughter. Others, too.

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I don’t want to live under covenants that I don’t understand ...

Have you ever engaged in lightmindedness that drove away the Spirit? Or made fun at another person's expense? I know I certainly have!

Edited by Hamba Tuhan
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

I know you’re semi-joking, but what if I said that I’m not worried about the law of chastity?  I’m taking my chances...

I’d have half this forum pounce on me, and my bishop would revoke my temple recommend. That covenant’s boundaries and importance are discussed ad nauseam!  

But, we (relatively) ignore some other covenants, shrug our shoulders, and don’t fret even if we have no idea what they mean.

That bothers me, and I don’t want to live under covenants that I don’t understand, and my bishop or stake president don’t either.

Its not just the loud laughter. Others, too.

There’s definitely some inconsistency there.  

The laughter one is an odd one.  Jokes on us if the C kingdom is full of sadsacks and humorless sorts.  

I don’t fret.  I’ve got other things on my mind- and too much laughter isn’t top concern.  I trust if there’s a problem we will be told. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

I trust if there’s a problem we will be told. 

Yep, no need to fret. If we really want, we can have Someone by our sides who will tell us if we ever cross the line.

Edited by Hamba Tuhan

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/6/2019 at 9:01 PM, JAHS said:

Anyone who has been taught the Gospel well enough to be baptized should not have any problem making an assessment of their own temple worthiness. If they are not sure about a temple recommend question they can  ask the Bishop about it. If he feels they are not ready he can tell them. As a judge in Israel that is part of his job. 

If this is true, does the 1 year membership before endowment not have any development in this regard? Given how little people know or understand when they often get baptized mere weeks after their first missionary lesson and that so much about the temple is not taught them (during that year, let alone before they are baptized) is this an accurate statement?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Joshua Valentine said:

If this is true, does the 1 year membership before endowment not have any development in this regard? Given how little people know or understand when they often get baptized mere weeks after their first missionary lesson and that so much about the temple is not taught them (during that year, let alone before they are baptized) is this an accurate statement?

It helps but the temple interview questions aren't much different from the Baptism interview questions. And a member is not going to go to the temple until they have been taught the temple preparation lessons. 

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, SouthernMo said:

I know you’re semi-joking, but what if I said that I’m not worried about the law of chastity?  I’m taking my chances...

I’d have half this forum pounce on me, and my bishop would revoke my temple recommend. That covenant’s boundaries and importance are discussed ad nauseam!  

But, we (relatively) ignore some other covenants, shrug our shoulders, and don’t fret even if we have no idea what they mean.

That bothers me, and I don’t want to live under covenants that I don’t understand, and my bishop or stake president don’t either.

Its not just the loud laughter. Others, too.

Have you inquired of the Lord?

Seriously, this is temple stuff. It should not have to be spelled out in every detail.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Have you inquired of the Lord?

Seriously, this is temple stuff. It should not have to be spelled out in every detail.

Yep, and he's been quiet on the matter.  Does that mean I should not ask others for their perspective and just wait for a warm and fuzzy?

The church seems fine spelling out the law of chastity pretty often and clearly, so I don't buy the "it's secret and sacred because its in the temple" angle on that.

Edited by SouthernMo

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, SouthernMo said:

Yep, and he's been quiet on the matter.  Does that mean I should not ask others for their perspective and just wait for a warm and fuzzy?

I am talking about revelation not “warm and fuzzies”.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, SouthernMo said:

Yep, and he's been quiet on the matter.  Does that mean I should not ask others for their perspective and just wait for a warm and fuzzy?

The church seems fine spelling out the law of chastity pretty often and clearly, so I don't buy the "it's secret and sacred because its in the temple" angle on that.

It’s my opinion that the only Reason that the law of chastity is spelled out is because We human beings Are fascinated by the topic. Laughter is quite a bit less interesting. I think it’s safe to come to your own personal understanding between you and God as to what that means and as long as you live with and that I think you’re golden. That is my opinion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I am talking about revelation not “warm and fuzzies”.

You’re right, man. Sorry for being cynical. I’m just not getting answers and doubting all those “seek and ye shall find, ask and ye shall receive, knock and it shall be opened unto you” scriptures that aren’t working out for me. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, MustardSeed said:

It’s my opinion that the only Reason that the law of chastity is spelled out is because We human beings Are fascinated by the topic. Laughter is quite a bit less interesting. I think it’s safe to come to your own personal understanding between you and God as to what that means and as long as you live with and that I think you’re golden. That is my opinion.

I think part of the reason could be that hormones are a very powerful thing, and have a lot of sway over our thinking.  I think that without it being more spelled out, that it would be a lot easier for us humans to justify breaking it.  I know for me, the hardest time that I have of recognizing the Spirit is when I really really want to get a specific answer.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 5/7/2019 at 9:23 PM, Hamba Tuhan said:

If you lose (or interfere with) the companionship of the Holy Ghost, you're doing something wrong. If after doing something wrong, you again enjoy the companionship of the Holy Ghost, then you've been forgiven.

Funny that just came up. We talked about that just last evening at the preparation meeting for my temple shift. One of the counselors in the temple presidency said that exact thing.

On one level that had always been kind of obvious to me, but I never saw anyone else voice that. It was a wonderful verification of what I had always felt.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

One of the counselors in the temple presidency said that exact thing ... It was a wonderful verification of what I had always felt.

Thanks. I got it straight from Pres Oaks. To me, it was also a wonderful verification of what I had always felt.

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Thanks. I got it straight from Pres Oaks. To me, it was also a wonderful verification of what I had always felt.

Well I am kind of an expert on repentance because I have had to practice it so many times in my life. ;)  I have not found it easy.  But to me it is as objectively true as the fact that I am typing on a computer right now, that when you are in sin the light goes off and you are alone.

Get your act together for a while, and suddenly the light comes on again.  It's the greatest feeling in the world.

It's a powerful inducement to never lose it again.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

I want to point out that it is not always doing something wrong that leads to feeling one has lost companionship.  My decision to take medication when I was falling asleep when I shouldn't was based on a desire to be a better mother, wife, and friend (I feel asleep while babysitting kids whose moms had gone to the temple).  The medication prevented me from feeling the Spirit for a couple of years...it came back not through repentance, but stopping the medication.

I believe that sin can cut the connection just as it can with our loved ones who are with us physically, emotionally, and spiritually.  And it feeling strong again can be a result of forgiveness.

I just don't think that is the only way it works and people may be inaccurate blaming themselves and suffering needlessly by doing so.

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

I think part of the reason could be that hormones are a very powerful thing, and have a lot of sway over our thinking.  I think that without it being more spelled out, that it would be a lot easier for us humans to justify breaking it.  I know for me, the hardest time that I have of recognizing the Spirit is when I really really want to get a specific answer.  

I recall a particular Sunday School lesson a while back where the teacher was analyzing sin and asked "But what IS sin"?

My jokey and I guess irreverent reply was "Doing something that seemed like a good idea at the time, that you are sorry for later."

Yes it was a joke but I think there was some truth in it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well I am kind of an expert on repentance because I have had to practice it so many times in my life.

Same. I often say I'm the master repenter!

Quote

But to me it is as objectively true as the fact that I am typing on a computer right now, that when you are in sin the light goes off and you are alone.

Precisely! It's as experiential and repeatable and observable as flicking a light switch on and off a few thousand times.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Same. I often say I'm the master repenter!

Precisely! It's as experiential and repeatable and observable as flicking a light switch on and off a few thousand times.

It totally is.  For me it is "scientifically" accurate and clearly observable.

Others claim it is not like that for them, but I can only speak for myself.  Because they either do not have the same experience or interpret it differently, we are dead in the water in trying to communicate about it.

Either - they would say that we are "blind" and irrational or we would say they are blind and irrational.  Which is right is a toss up with each camp supporting one view or the other, but the result is no communication between camps.  Of course each group can also just call the other side "stupid"

Sigh.

The blind men and the elephant- and the argument becomes which group is blind!

But I suppose we are being insensitive for even mentioning it.

Edited by mfbukowski

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...