John Dehlin Attempting To Change Bishop's Interviews

[bluebell]

From what I understand from his statements, he is no longer an orthodox believing member of the church.  He has said that he attends about 50% of the time.

 

The sites he suggested seem to be the ones he feels are most useful in helping members who struggle.  He doesn't feel that this site or FAIR are helpful in that regard.  I agree with him.

 

My question is, if he failed to keep himself active in the church, how does he know what other people will find useful in staying active?

 

What I mean is, doesn't the fact that he, using the sources that he believes are best for helping struggling members, failed to help himself, a struggling member, say something?  Doesn't it prove that what he believes is helpful really isn't?

 

I'm honestly wondering-leaving everything else out, the logic doesn't seem to add up.

[Spammer]

It is not actually that easy for some catholics. Usually the priest knows who is confessing their sin, if the person is local and present in the church. But some confessions are face to face if no booth is handy.

A Catholic can go to any parish of his choosing to confess. Don't want to risk the priest might recognize your voice? No problem. Drive across town or to a completely different town to a parish you've never set foot in with a priest you've never seen or met. Go into the confessional and confess. You won't be asked what parish you are registered with. Catholic confession can be 100% anonymous, if desired.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Spammer

[rockpond]

My question is, if he failed to keep himself active in the church, how does he know what other people will find useful in staying active?

 

What I mean is, doesn't the fact that he, using the sources that he believes are best for helping struggling members, failed to help himself, a struggling member, say something?  Doesn't it prove that what he believes is helpful really isn't?

 

I'm honestly wondering-leaving everything else out, the logic doesn't seem to add up.

 

That is certainly a valid criticism.

 

First, to be clear -- he is active.  But maybe not to the level you would consider acceptable.

 

Having listened to him for years, I would guess that he'd respond to that by saying that what he has learned over the course of all the interviews he has done has kept him much closer to the church than he otherwise would have been.

 

He's done plenty of things that I disagree with.  But he's also done a lot of good... take the Givens, for example.  Mormon Stories has many hours of interviews with them and they are doing great things to help people who struggle, stay in the church.

[Tacenda]

My question is, if he failed to keep himself active in the church, how does he know what other people will find useful in staying active?

 

What I mean is, doesn't the fact that he, using the sources that he believes are best for helping struggling members, failed to help himself, a struggling member, say something?  Doesn't it prove that what he believes is helpful really isn't?

 

I'm honestly wondering-leaving everything else out, the logic doesn't seem to add up.

He certainly isn't telling anyone to go home and fast, pray and read their scriptures.  I know it's a comment made by many that aren't believers anymore, that this is what they are told to do.  I think it might just work to keep them in the faith.  But they apparently know too much and can't put it out of their minds.  The going and reading their scriptures etc. may work for those that haven't heard of the anti stuff, and then found out it turned out to be factual. 

 

I don't know what John could do in that end, except to create Staylds.com.  Maybe it's just a place to land until they get it figured out.  Without turning their world upside down.  I think he had the right intentions, but didn't work hard enough to keep his faith, you pretty much have to put it on a shelf and leave it there, without anymore examination.     

[ERayR]

 

.  The going and reading their scriptures etc. may work for those that haven't heard of the anti stuff, and then found out it turned out to be factual. 

 

Facts need interpretation.  It all depends on whose interpretation you choose.

[Tacenda]

Facts need interpretation.  It all depends on whose interpretation you choose.

True!  I'm listening to Mormon Discussions Pod bean right now and DB is discussing faith with  Nancy Phippen Browne who wrote "Help Thou Mine Belief".  And just a moment ago she says and DB did also, that so many like me...study and find things unbelievable, but if we stop there and not research further and do it spiritually they can come around.  And they mention Don Bradley and how he relied on the intellect and not so much on the spirit, and when he leaned more on the spirit, he came back to the faith.  So part of my post you quoted, did leave out interpretation.  And I'll add the "spirit".  I can't seem to go there yet.       

[ERayR]

True!  I'm listening to Mormon Discussions Pod bean right now and DB is discussing faith with  Nancy Phippen Browne who wrote "Help Thou Mine Belief".  And just a moment ago she says and DB did also, that so many like me...study and find things unbelievable, but if we stop there and not research further and do it spiritually they can come around.  And they mention Don Bradley and how he relied on the intellect and not so much on the spirit, and when he leaned more on the spirit, he came back to the faith.  So part of my post you quoted, did leave out interpretation.  And I'll add the "spirit".  I can't seem to go there yet.       

 

I would maintain that accurate interpretations can only be bate with the help of the spirit. 

[saemo]

LMBO!

Are you really using Catholic practices as an example of a good practice? And I used to think that I was funny.

Most of the practicing Catholics I know are wonderful people and I think that ALL Christians owe a debt to the institution itself. But to answer your question, I wouldn't allow my son to have a private conversation about sex with a Catholic priest ... and neither would YOU.

It would be, and is, highly inappropriate for a priest to ask detailed sexual questions of anyone. A person can confess as they feel appropriate, generalized as a sin against purity, or just spell it out. But a priest is trained to not delve all creepy like into details. That is not the point of the confession, or of absolution. I have never had a priest ask me for more details about anything I've confessed. Always it is comments or advice on how to live a Christian life, forsaking sin, not delving into private details that I don't choose to divulge.

A child or teen should never be asked questions of a sexual nature in a confession. Never. If a Catholic parent ever heard of such an "interview" they should report it immediately to their Bishop and never allow their child or teen to confess to that priest again. In the milieu of the current sexual abuse crisis, it is all the more sensitive, for all involved. Zero tolerance.

Edited May 9, 2014 by saemo

[ERayR]

It would be, and is, highly inappropriate for a priest to ask detailed sexual questions of anyone. A person can confess as they feel appropriate, generalized as a sin against purity, or just spell it out. But a priest is trained to not delve all creepy like into details. That is not the point of the confession, or of absolution. I have never had a priest ask me for more details about anything I've confessed. Always it is comments or advice on how to live a Christian life, forsaking sin, not delving into private details that I don't choose to divulge.

A child or teen should never be asked questions of a sexual nature in a confession. Never. If a Catholic parent ever heard of such an "interview" they should report it immediately to their Bishop. In the milieu of the current sexual abuse crisis, it is all the more sensitive, for all involved. Zero tolerance.

 

 

Wouldn't this cause some difficulties in teens getting clerical absolution for their sins?  Teens do sin, sometimes quite seriously.

[saemo]

Wouldn't this cause some difficulties in teens getting clerical absolution for their sins?  Teens do sin, sometimes quite seriously.

I don't understand your question. What difficulty?

[saemo]

The Catholics and certain Evangelical groups require confession like this. I wonder how he feels about that.

I think there is confusion in this thread a little between confession and a worthiness interview. There is no such thing as a worthiness interview for a Catholic. I don't know about Evangelicals. A Catholic confession is not a worthiness interview. Catholics already know that we are not worthy of the Cross, and never will be. Confession is a sacrament of healing, in the same vein as anointing of sick.

We say at every mass, Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

Hope that helps.

Edited May 9, 2014 by saemo

[ERayR]

I don't understand your question. What difficulty?

 

My understanding is that as long as it is between the Priest and the penitent it is confidential and the Priest can confer absolution.  With a third party (parent) it is no longer a confidential matter. 

 

Educate me please.

[ERayR]

 Confession is a sacrament of healing, in the same vein as anointing of sick.

 

 

So is a worthiness interview.  However,  it is not universally understood that way.

[saemo]

My understanding is that as long as it is between the Priest and the penitent it is confidential and the Priest can confer absolution. With a third party (parent) it is no longer a confidential matter.

Educate me please.

True. A parent would not be aware of what a priest says and should not ask. But, a parent can teach their child what is appropriate to occur during confession and ask to be made aware of anything that makes the child feel uncomfortable.

All Catholics are taught how to make an examination of conscience, what to confess, aligned to the Ten Commandments and precepts of the church. All are taught what happens in confession before making their first confession, and discussing confession without going into what is confessed is perfectly fine.

By that I mean, I have said here the general advise I have received from a priest during confession, but I'm not going into details. A priest is under the seal of confession, I am not. But I consider it a sacred experience, between me and God, and one of those things I keep in my heart.

Edited May 9, 2014 by saemo

[saemo]

I'll also add, all Catholic priests have training for hearing confessions, and all Catholics know this. So we can teach what occurs in a confession, because the priests are trained to hear confessions in the same way. So I can go to a priest at my parish or one 2000 miles away, and what happens in a confessional has a uniformity to it, in the form of how to confess and what to expect from the priest, In some very specific ways. Of course there are details that can vary but it is all within the normal framework. We expect a screen, some confessionals will have chairs to sit face to face, we know the ritual, and listen to what the priest may say, but he doesn't have to give advise. He gives absolution and a possibly a penance, and that's it.

It is up to the confessor to examine their conscience, which includes real contrition and an intent to not sin again. We confess our sins, a priest does not ask probing questions with the intent to draw out confession of a sin that may be forgotten or hidden. Not ever. He may ask a question to clarify what sin is being confessed. Or if the confessor asks for advise, he may ask a question to clarify what the advise being sought entails. Of course, we are sinners, and so sinning again means confessing the sin again. So it goes.

Edited May 9, 2014 by saemo

[Scott Lloyd]

They are assigned a bishop that is not exercising choice, even if you take into consideration recommendations of people you trust, similar to LDS trust in God, you still can choose a different doctor than the on recommended. You can choose a different doctor for every member of your family if that's what works best for you, and if you later find it doesn't work you can pick another. There is no choice in an LDS bishop so yes the analogy fails at it's base.

I already said the analogy doesn't compare in every respect, and I added that most analogies apply in only limited respects.

 

You're reading a comparison into the analogy that was not intended.

 

The analogy was about relying on someone you trust to fill a role that you wouldn't ordinarily allow to someone else. The analogy assumes that faithful Latter-day Saints already trust their bishops (most do), just as it can be assumed you trust a pediatrician you have already chosen to care for your family.

Edited May 9, 2014 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

True. A parent would not be aware of what a priest says and should not ask. But, a parent can teach their child what is appropriate to occur during confession and ask to be made aware of anything that makes the child feel uncomfortable.

All Catholics are taught how to make an examination of conscience, what to confess, aligned to the Ten Commandments and precepts of the church. All are taught what happens in confession before making their first confession, and discussing confession without going into what is confessed is perfectly fine.

By that I mean, I have said here the general advise I have received from a priest during confession, but I'm not going into details. A priest is under the seal of confession, I am not. But I consider it a sacred experience, between me and God, and one of those things I keep in my heart.

 

Pretty much the same with LDS Bishops interviews.  Parents not only can but are taught that it their responsibility to teach their children what is appropriate, not only in Bishops interview, in all aspects of life.

 

As LDS are taught to examine their lives and conscience.  Part of that process is a personal interview with the common judge who is called to preside over them.  Parents can request an interview with the Bishop prior to their teens interview and set parameter they are comfortable with if they are not comfortable with their Bishop's judgement.  Frankly I have only seen one Bishop in my 70 + years in the Church that I would have reverted that course of action. 

 

I understand the feelings of it being a sacred experience.  These experiences should be sacred and a Bishop's interview is for most one of those sacred experiences.

[saemo]

Pretty much the same with LDS Bishops interviews.  Parents not only can but are taught that it their responsibility to teach their children what is appropriate, not only in Bishops interview, in all aspects of life.

 

As LDS are taught to examine their lives and conscience.  Part of that process is a personal interview with the common judge who is called to preside over them.  Parents can request an interview with the Bishop prior to their teens interview and set parameter they are comfortable with if they are not comfortable with their Bishop's judgement.  Frankly I have only seen one Bishop in my 70 + years in the Church that I would have reverted that course of action. 

 

I understand the feelings of it being a sacred experience.  These experiences should be sacred and a Bishop's interview is for most one of those sacred experiences.

I hope so.

For me, as a LDS teen, they scared me to death and the last I went to was the last. I got all light headed and dizzy and just wanted to get out. No way was I ever going back. That was many years ago, and I suppose as an adult I'd react differently, but that was my experience then, and I won't be going back. Just for different reasons.

[Sleeper Cell]

They are assigned a bishop that is not exercising choice, even if you take into consideration recommendations of people you trust, similar to LDS trust in God, you still can choose a different doctor than the on recommended. You can choose a different doctor for every member of your family if that's what works best for you, and if you later find it doesn't work you can pick another. There is no choice in an LDS bishop so yes the analogy fails at it's base.

 

Actually, you do have a choice of  bishops, if it is important enough for you.

 

1,  You can always move into a ward whose bishop you do “like.”

2.  You can change wards without moving, although it is discouraged.  It requires approval by the appropriate church authorities, and you need to have a good reason. 

 

Of course, both options may involve considerable personal difficulty.  Sometimes, making a choice is like that.

[Sleeper Cell]

No, interviews for recommends etc. must be done by your assigned bishops. He was saying that if someone wanted to talk to someone else just to talk or counsel with, one could. At least that is how I understood it.

I do not think there are ways around it unless one is a student and has both a 'home ward' where one's family lives and the student ward one attends while at school. Even it being more convenient to attend another ward because of work or something (say you have to work on Sunday and there is a chapel across the street which would allow you to attend on a regular basis rather than intermittently) I haven't heard of memberships being transferred.

 

I knew one person who not only changed wards, but changed to a ward in a different stake.  It required the approval of  the new bishop and both stake presidents.  IIRC, since it involved a transfer across stake boundaries, it also required the approval of a general authority (although, I would have been surprised had the GA not approved, given the approval of the local authorities).  It is my understanding that such transfers are discouraged and only approved when the member has a good reason.  

[USU78]

I think we've been missing something here.

 

The Bishop, as presiding officer on the ward/parish level in the Aaronic Priesthood, has a special duty to the 12-18 year old boys in his ward that is arguably more important than his Presiding High Priest with authority over nearly all local Church functions.

 

That special duty leads necessarily to a special relationship with the youth from the time they hit 6th grade to the time they leave home for school, missions and jobs.  Looking out for their spiritual welfare means there will be a bond between him, their leader and confessor, and them that should not have any intervenor.

 

What Dehlin is doing is attacking this relationship of trust, undermining (were his "suggestions" followed) the relationship and leaving youth without that person upon whom they can rely (for the most part) in not only the spiritual side of their lives.

 

This is an attack on a fundamental part of what it means to be a Mormon.  He wants to kill that relationship and leave youth with no human contact, but rather only functionary contact, with their confessor.

 

I have to disagree with our RC friends:  it is vital that the confessor be someone with whom one has a close relationship.  Training to be functionary and distant is, to my way of thinking, of less value than close up and personal caring.

[Yirgacheffe]

 

Actually, you do have a choice of  bishops, if it is important enough for you.

 

1,  You can always move into a ward whose bishop you do “like.”

2.  You can change wards without moving, although it is discouraged.  It requires approval by the appropriate church authorities, and you need to have a good reason. 

 

Of course, both options may involve considerable personal difficulty.  Sometimes, making a choice is like that.

 

In reality there is no free choice.

[ERayR]

In reality there is no free choice.

 

There is always a choice.  Accept or reject.

[Sleeper Cell]

In reality there is no free choice.

In response  to your statement in your post #511 in which you said you have “no choice in … [your]  LDS bishop,” I pointed out two ways you could have a choice..  Now you say that "in reality there is no free choice.”  To clarify, are you now admitting that there is a choice, but you simply don’t like that fact that making a choice may require some effort and involve some costs?  

Edited May 10, 2014 by Sleeper Cell

[Yirgacheffe]

In response  to your statement in your post #511 in which you said you have “no choice in … [your]  LDS bishop,” I pointed out two ways you could have a choice..  Now you say that "in reality there is no free choice.”  To clarify, are you now admitting that there is a choice, but you simply don’t like that fact that making a choice may require some effort and involve some costs?  

There are other choices too, you could join a different church or leave religion altogether but it's obvious that the LDS church doesn't present choices like those the Catholic poster here described, they can freely choose who they want to guide them, you can't.