Bishops forgetting confessed stuff

[oMtonic]

I have liked the qualifier that President Hinckley used:

Quote

Let me first assure you that if you have made a mistake, if you have become involved in any immoral behavior, all is not lost. Memory of that mistake will likely linger, but the deed can be forgiven, and you can rise above the past to live a life fully acceptable unto the Lord where there has been repentance. He has promised that He will forgive your sins and remember them no more against you (see D&C 58:42).

Source: President Gordon B. Hinckley, "How Can I Become the Woman of Whom I Dream?" (emphasis added)

[smac97]

23 hours ago, Duncan said:

I was talking earlier with a former Bishop of mine from years ago and he reminded me about the time I got Chiclets from a vending machine creatively I paid for one but it shot out a bunch of packs so I kept all of them and ate my blessings. I felt guilty about it and told him. Now, years later he reminded me about it, jokingly of course. I thought Bishops when they get released have all that junk forgotten somehow? Does that really happen that they forget confessed items?

A few thoughts:

1. To some extent, I believe that many bishops, once released, experience something of a "stupor of thought" as to other people's confessed transgressions.  Perhaps the Spirit is at work in this, as knowing everyone else's weaknesses and sins and whatnot can be quite a burden.  So perhaps the stupor is something of a blessing.

2. I also think that many bishops want to forget.  These men do not ask for this calling.  And once called, they serve for many years.  Unpaid.  Away from their own families.  Sacrificing time that could be spent on personal/professional pursuits.  And much of the ministering involves hearing confessions of friends and neighbors.  Some of these confessions can be about very serious, very painful matters.  However, once released, what is the value of re-visiting memories of such confessions?  There is none.  They are a burden.  So if a bishop encourages himself to "forget," we can hardly blame him.

3. Although bishops are characterized as "common judges in Israel," I think most bishops find being judgmental to be rather exhausting.  Bishops are put in a unique situation, in that they do not have to rely on gossip or hearsay in order to lean about other people's "dirty laundry."  Being told about that dirty laundry is part of the job description.  Bishops can therefore choose to forget as a way of avoiding cynicism, judgmentalism, etc., and basically just get back to being a regular person.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Hebrews 8:12

I think that it got confused with the idea that God "forgets" offenses.  Yeah, right.  We postulate an omniscient God who knows everything but what we did wrong.  A little problem with that, I would say

Exactly.  That used to bother me so much until .I figured out it wasn't erasing knowledge of past sins.

[smac97]

 

7 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

The notion that bishops don't remember is a load of crap...

I have an acquaintance who previously served as a bishop who has said that he has forgotten much of what he found out as a bishop.

7 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

I remember every single confession made to me...and their faces...what I probably wouldn't remember were their names...What is worse still and is a little known fact is that in some situations Bishop must share these private confessions with not only the Stake President but also the bishops that replace them....so the confessed sin gets passed on and the privacy of the confession is not respected. 

In our stake, the bishops get permission before sharing anything with the stake president (at the instruction of the stake president).  There are also certain instances where the law requires disclosures to law enforcement.

7 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Also when someone confesses SSA (hate that term) or anything Gay...they get a permanent " * " put in their file for ever and ever and ever.

CFR.  I'd like to learn more about this claim.

7 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said:

Edit to Add: Believers should confess to God and NO ONE ELSE...its no ones elses business

From the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

Quote

Confession of sins is a necessary beginning step in the process of repenting and gaining forgiveness. It is a test of true repentance: "By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins-behold, he will confess them and forsake them" (D&C 58:43).

...

At least three confessions may need to be made to help the sinner repent: To the Lord, to proper ecclesiastical officers, and to the injured party. Latter-day Saint doctrine holds that all must confess their sins to the Lord, from whom alone ultimate forgiveness can come. In addition, major sins (such as adultery, fornication, robbery, embezzlement, fraud, false swearing, and comparable transgressions), which may have a bearing upon Church membership, must be confessed to ecclesiastical officers such as bishops. Church officers are counseled to respond to confessions with confidentiality and understanding, and also to encourage members to seek the Lord's forgiveness, forsake transgression, and make restitution. Transgressors are taught to make proper reconciliation with and restitution to those they have injured.

...

Confession helps lift the burden and leads toward peace, freedom, and happiness. After warning his hearers of excruciating pain and punishments that follow unrepented sins, the Lord said: "Confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments" (D&C 19:20). Repentant persons find substantial psychological as well as spiritual strength in proper confession.

A few questions:

1. What are your thoughts about the need to confess wrongdoing to the injured party?  In your view, are there any circumstances under which such a confession might be a good thing?  Or are you strict in your assertion that "Believers should confess to God and NO ONE ELSE...its no ones elses business"?

2. What are your thoughts about John the Baptist?  Consider Matthew 3 (emphasis added):

Quote

 1 In those days came John the Baptist, preaching in the wilderness of Judæa,

 2 And saying, Repent ye: for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

 3 For this is he that was spoken of by the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.

 4 And the same John had his raiment of camel’s hair, and a leathern girdle about his loins; and his meat was locusts and wild honey.

 5 Then went out to him Jerusalem, and all Judæa, and all the region round about Jordan,

 6 And were baptized of him in Jordan, confessing their sins.

It sounds like these folks confessed their sins to John.  Were they wrong to do so?  If so, why?

3. The "believers" you are referencing here are Latter-day Saints.  Part of their beliefs is that bishops are to act as "judge{s} in Israel."  So confessing some types of sins to an ecclesiastical leader (usually the bishop) is, in the LDS paradigm, the right thing to do.  Do you acknowledge this aspect of LDS belief?

4. What are your thoughts about this statement from the EOM: "Confession helps lift the burden and leads toward peace, freedom, and happiness. ... Repentant persons find substantial psychological as well as spiritual strength in proper confession."

Isn't this a possible positive aspect of confessing?  Can you accommodate the possibility that some Latter-day Saints may appreciate the opportunity to confess?  To get the transgression out in the open, so that they can work on overcoming it?

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

Just now, smac97 said:

A few thoughts:

1. To some extent, I believe that many bishops, once released, experience something of a "stupor of thought" as to other people's confessed transgressions.  Perhaps the Spirit is at work in this, as knowing everyone else's weaknesses and sins and whatnot can be quite a burden.  So perhaps the stupor is something of a blessing.

2. I also think that many bishops want to forget.  These men do not ask for this calling.  And once called, they serve for many years.  Unpaid.  Away from their own families.  Sacrificing time that could be spent on personal/professional pursuits.  And much of the ministering involves hearing confessions of friends and neighbors.  Some of these confessions can be about very serious, very painful matters.  However, once released, what is the value of re-visiting memories of such confessions?  There is none.  They are a burden.  So if a bishop encourages himself to "forget," we can hardly blame him.

3. Although bishops are characterized as "common judges in Israel," I think most bishops find being judgmental to be rather exhausting.  Bishops are put in a unique situation, in that they do not have to rely on gossip or hearsay in order to lean about other people's "dirty laundry."  Being told about that dirty laundry is part of the job description.  Bishops can therefore choose to forget as a way of avoiding cynicism, judgmentalism, etc., and basically just get back to being a regular person.

Thanks,

-Smac

Always appreciate your thoughts! Thank you!

[Johnnie Cake]

9 hours ago, smac97 said:

 

I have an acquaintance who previously served as a bishop who has said that he has forgotten much of what he found out as a bishop.

That's called Alzheimer's

Quote

In our stake, the bishops get permission before sharing anything with the stake president (at the instruction of the stake president).  There are also certain instances where the law requires disclosures to law enforcement.

Rough Bishop and Stake President

Quote

CFR.  I'd like to learn more about this claim.

 

 

 

From Church Administration Handbook

6.13.4

Records with Annotations

In areas authorized by the First Presidency, an annotation may be placed on the record of a member whose conduct has threatened the well-being of other persons or of the Church. An annotation helps the bishop protect Church members and others from such individuals. When a bishop receives an annotated membership record, he follows the instructions in the annotation.

Church headquarters will automatically annotate a person’s membership record in any of the following situations:

1.The stake president or bishop submits a Report of Church Disciplinary Action form showing that the person was disciplined for incest, sexual offense against or serious physical abuse of a child, plural marriage, an elective transsexual operation, repeated homosexual activities (by adults), predatory conduct, or embezzlement of Church funds or property.

2.The stake president or bishop submits written notification that the person has been criminally convicted for one of these transgressions.

3.The stake president and bishop jointly submit written notification that the person has committed one of these transgressions before or after excommunication or name removal.

In addition, the stake president and bishop may jointly recommend that a person’s membership record be annotated for other conduct that threatens the well-being of other persons or of the Church.

In all cases, an annotation on a membership record is removed only with First Presidency approval upon request of the stake president. 6.13.5 Records with Special Comments

The bishop and a clerk review the records of new ward members for special comments that Church headquarters or the assigned administrative office may have added. If a record includes such comments, the bishop contacts Church headquarters or the administrative office as needed and takes appropriate action.

6.13.5

Records with Special Comments

The bishop and a clerk review the records of new ward members for special comments that Church headquarters or the assigned administrative office may have added. If a record includes such comments, the bishop contacts Church headquarters or the administrative office as needed and takes appropriate action.

Edited March 9, 2017 by Johnnie Cake

[Calm]

I don't think you answered the CFR.  Your claim:

"Also when someone confesses SSA (hate that term) or anything Gay...they get a permanent " * " put in their file for ever and ever and ever."

The handbook: repeated homosexual activities (by adults)

 

[smac97]

11 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't think you answered the CFR.  Your claim:

"Also when someone confesses SSA (hate that term) or anything Gay...they get a permanent " * " put in their file for ever and ever and ever."

The handbook: repeated homosexual activities (by adults)

Yes, I don't think he answered the CFR, either.

I hope all is well with you, Johnnie.  Despite our differences, I hope we can get along.

Thanks,

-Smac

[6EQUJ5]

I was going to reply to the OP but I've already forgotten what this thread is supposed to be about.

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎3‎/‎7‎/‎2017 at 11:33 PM, Duncan said:

I was talking earlier with a former Bishop of mine from years ago and he reminded me about the time I got Chiclets from a vending machine creatively I paid for one but it shot out a bunch of packs so I kept all of them and ate my blessings. I felt guilty about it and told him. Now, years later he reminded me about it, jokingly of course. I thought Bishops when they get released have all that junk forgotten somehow? Does that really happen that they forget confessed items?

There's no magical Harry Potter potion or spell that makes bishops forget. It's all based on the individual's memory and/or the mental/emotional/spiritual importance they place on information. Frankly, bishops are inundated with so much information on a weekly basis it's kind of impossible for most people to remember all of that stuff so forgetting is just a natural consequence of life.

[Tacenda]

On 3/9/2017 at 10:02 PM, Calm said:

I don't think you answered the CFR.  Your claim:

"Also when someone confesses SSA (hate that term) or anything Gay...they get a permanent " * " put in their file for ever and ever and ever."

The handbook: repeated homosexual activities (by adults)

 

http://www.mormonstories.org/350-352-dance-champion-benji-schwimmer/ Benji mentioned that it happened to him. 

[Calm]

A podcast without a time as to where to hear the necessary reference is not an answer to a CFR any more than pointing to a book and saying "read that".

It is possible that some bishops instruct an annotation when someone says I have same sex attraction.  This would not, however, be in line with actual requirements.  Perhaps a bishop or former bishop can clarify what the process is and if there are safeguards to ensure annotation only occurs under conditions stated in the handbook, which is not solely experiencing SSA as was claimed.

Side note:  I still don't get it why SSA is not okay, but SSM is.  I do think it is totally appropriate to use OSA and do if using SSA for homosexual attraction if I am also referring to heterosexual attraction.  I could see it if people disliked SSM as a term as well, but I haven't seen any significant push back on that for some time.  It certainly seems more commonly used these days than homosexual marriage.  I try to remember not to use SSA because people dislike the term,  but  I am fond of using abbreviations so may slip.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Calm