cinepro Posted December 21, 2017 Posted December 21, 2017 With the recent hubbub regarding Bishop's interviews, this video on the Church website takes on new importance. And it's got Aaron Eckhart! It's about 10 minutes long, but the most important part is the interview from about 1:00 - 5:00. https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2012-06-2350-godly-sorrow-leads-to-repentance?lang=eng Honestly, I'm not sure I agree with the Bishop on this one.
ksfisher Posted December 21, 2017 Posted December 21, 2017 4 minutes ago, cinepro said: With the recent hubbub regarding Bishop's interviews, this video on the Church website takes on new importance. And it's got Aaron Eckhart! It's about 10 minutes long, but the most important part is the interview from about 1:00 - 5:00. https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2012-06-2350-godly-sorrow-leads-to-repentance?lang=eng Honestly, I'm not sure I agree with the Bishop on this one. What don't you agree with?
smac97 Posted December 21, 2017 Posted December 21, 2017 9 minutes ago, cinepro said: With the recent hubbub regarding Bishop's interviews, this video on the Church website takes on new importance. And it's got Aaron Eckhart! It's about 10 minutes long, but the most important part is the interview from about 1:00 - 5:00. https://www.lds.org/media-library/video/2012-06-2350-godly-sorrow-leads-to-repentance?lang=eng Honestly, I'm not sure I agree with the Bishop on this one. How so?
cinepro Posted December 21, 2017 Author Posted December 21, 2017 18 minutes ago, smac97 said: How so? D&C 58: Quote 43 By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them. Unless that only applies to "men" and women have a different standard, everything in the video indicated she had confessed her sin and forsaken it. So according to the scriptures, she had repented.
Duncan Posted December 21, 2017 Posted December 21, 2017 I am guessing she slept with the man previous to Matt or Mark or whatever and I am surprised she was disfellowshipped or exed for that. It seemed like in the 90's any whiff of smexual smituations warranted more than a couple of interviews but then again I guess it depends on who you got for your Bishop
ksfisher Posted December 21, 2017 Posted December 21, 2017 4 minutes ago, cinepro said: D&C 58: Unless that only applies to "men" and women have a different standard, everything in the video indicated she had confessed her sin and forsaken it. So according to the scriptures, she had repented. 2 Cor 7 9 Now I rejoice, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to repentance: for ye were made sorry after a godly manner, that ye might receive damage by us in nothing. 10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death. The bishop in the video felt, rightly in my opinion, that the woman was not sorrowful because of her sin, but because of the social consequences. Repentance is a process, not an event. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted December 21, 2017 Posted December 21, 2017 7 minutes ago, cinepro said: D&C 58: Unless that only applies to "men" and women have a different standard, everything in the video indicated she had confessed her sin and forsaken it. So according to the scriptures, she had repented. From the video: Quote True repentance is not merely the stopping of something we know is wrong. It's much more involved. 1
smac97 Posted December 21, 2017 Posted December 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, cinepro said: D&C 58: Quote 43 By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them. Unless that only applies to "men" and women have a different standard, everything in the video indicated she had confessed her sin and forsaken it. So according to the scriptures, she had repented. I'm not sure about that. Confession is good and necessary, but "forsaking" a sin, I think, requires some real effort, sincerity, and "godly sorrow." I have long appreciated the teachings of the LDS Church as requiring sincerity and real intent, because "except he shall do it with real intent it profiteth him nothing." (Moroni 7:6). "And likewise also is it counted evil unto a man, if he shall pray and not with real intent of heart; yea, and it profiteth him nothing, for God receiveth none such." (Moroni 7:9). I think repentance, like prayer, requires "real intent of heart." So according to the scriptures (cumulatively), the bishop was right on the money. Thanks, -Smac 3
cinepro Posted December 21, 2017 Author Posted December 21, 2017 (edited) Of course, if the Church was trying to be really accurate, they would produce a video showing the "other boy" talking to his Bishop before he gets married, and the other Bishop telling him "Oh, it sounds like you've confessed and forsaken the sin, so it's no problem." Edited December 21, 2017 by cinepro
smac97 Posted December 21, 2017 Posted December 21, 2017 14 minutes ago, Duncan said: I am guessing she slept with the man previous to Matt or Mark or whatever and I am surprised she was disfellowshipped or exed for that. It seemed like in the 90's any whiff of smexual smituations warranted more than a couple of interviews but then again I guess it depends on who you got for your Bishop Is there any significance to "smexual smituations?" Or is that just a weird typo? Does the video depict her as being "disfellowshipped or exed?" I'm not sure I got that. Thanks, -Smac 1
Popular Post rongo Posted December 21, 2017 Popular Post Posted December 21, 2017 43 minutes ago, cinepro said: Honestly, I'm not sure I agree with the Bishop on this one. The bishop is Dr. Charles Metten (BYU film departments). I had him for Theater and Film at BYU. Speaking from my experience as a bishop, I completely agree with the bishop on this one. When people confess major sins right before a major event (a sealing, performing an ordinance, etc.), it puts the bishop in a really tight spot because of the time constrain and the pressure involved. Even if the person is very sorry and has asked for forgiveness through prayer, they need to allow the process to play out with formal discipline, if needed. Since the person is unloading everything on the priesthood leader with an imminent time deadline, this adds an element of urgency and pressure into the process that shouldn't be there. I have found that when sympathetic leaders try and accommodate that with quicker-than-usual action, it is actually detrimental to the person's repentance process. It doesn't work out for the person, and is not a good thing, in my experience. The person may indeed be at the point of godly sorrow and a broken heart and contrite spirit, but given the imminent deadline of an ordinance, should not expect/demand a quick beating with a few stripes so that the ordinance can continue on schedule. 10
rongo Posted December 21, 2017 Posted December 21, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, cinepro said: Of course, if the Church was trying to be really accurate, they would produce a video showing the "other boy" talking to his Bishop before he gets married, and the other Bishop telling him "Oh, it sounds like you've confessed and forsaken the sin, so it's no problem." What are you talking about here? Are you insinuating that men regularly get slaps on the wrist, while women regularly are saddled with restrictions and delays? That hasn't been my experience. Most of the people on my repentance process docket (needing a disciplinary council to consider reinstatement or rebaptism) have been and are men. Almost all men, with a few exceptions. Edited December 21, 2017 by rongo 2
Calm Posted December 21, 2017 Posted December 21, 2017 30 minutes ago, cinepro said: D&C 58: Unless that only applies to "men" and women have a different standard, everything in the video indicated she had confessed her sin and forsaken it. So according to the scriptures, she had repented. There was a sense she felt bad about it, but all that mattered in her mind was that she stopped it rather than changed herself so if in that situation again she wouldn't be tempted. There was also no sense from her that she had possibly damaged anything or healing needed to take place, she was just confessing as part of a checklist. On the other hand, while I didn't watch the whole thing...I would have led with "how did you feel about your relationship,with God while it was happening and do you believe you should be doing anything to change where you are now". She had confessed it and quite possibly forsaken it, even if her focus was on the social consequences. I can see it as appropriate for the bishop to require some serious soul searching and prayer and discussion of what she could have lost, but not sure in every case postponing the temple marriage would be necessary as she may have been worthy having repented and then confessed, even if it wasn't top tier full Gospel understanding type of repentance, she came across as just lacking in understanding, not any desire to do bad. Otoh, they did present it as her only being afraid of what others would think, ignoring any spiritual aspects. It was definitely written as that was the proper course since she had never been so happy before. 2
Duncan Posted December 21, 2017 Posted December 21, 2017 42 minutes ago, smac97 said: Is there any significance to "smexual smituations?" Or is that just a weird typo? Does the video depict her as being "disfellowshipped or exed?" I'm not sure I got that. Thanks, -Smac I don't want to say the word s*x! exactley, she doesn't appear to have been exed or disfellowshipped which usually happens when someone goes all the way
ksfisher Posted December 21, 2017 Posted December 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, Duncan said: she doesn't appear to have been exed or disfellowshipped which usually happens when someone goes all the way It really depends on the situations and the level of repentance shown by the individual. I've been in a number of disciplinary councils at the stake and ward level and never seen anyone excommunicated who willingly confessed and showed a desire to repent. 1
Popular Post Scott Lloyd Posted December 21, 2017 Popular Post Posted December 21, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, rongo said: The bishop is Dr. Charles Metten (BYU film departments). I had him for Theater and Film at BYU. Speaking from my experience as a bishop, I completely agree with the bishop on this one. When people confess major sins right before a major event (a sealing, performing an ordinance, etc.), it puts the bishop in a really tight spot because of the time constrain and the pressure involved. Even if the person is very sorry and has asked for forgiveness through prayer, they need to allow the process to play out with formal discipline, if needed. Since the person is unloading everything on the priesthood leader with an imminent time deadline, this adds an element of urgency and pressure into the process that shouldn't be there. I have found that when sympathetic leaders try and accommodate that with quicker-than-usual action, it is actually detrimental to the person's repentance process. It doesn't work out for the person, and is not a good thing, in my experience. The person may indeed be at the point of godly sorrow and a broken heart and contrite spirit, but given the imminent deadline of an ordinance, should not expect/demand a quick beating with a few stripes so that the ordinance can continue on schedule. Speaking in the abstract only, and not referring to anyone personally, as I don't know anyone who has been in a situation like this, it would seem to me that a mark of godly sorrow would be an earnest desire on the part of the transgressor to get this cleared up before proceeding with the major event (wedding plans, performing an ordinance, etc.). Otherwise, it almost seems like an entitlement mentality on the part of the transgressor, which would not be consistent with godly sorrow. I believe godly sorrow entails a willingness to endure any just penalty that might be required as part of godly chastening, including denial of a temple recommend or worse if need be. With that in mind, I wouldn't go ahead and schedule the marriage until I had cleared this up. Edited December 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd 5
Scott Lloyd Posted December 21, 2017 Posted December 21, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, cinepro said: And it's got Aaron Eckhart! Didn't make the connection until now, but I loved his performance in "Sully"! Edited December 21, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Duncan Posted December 21, 2017 Posted December 21, 2017 (edited) 19 minutes ago, ksfisher said: It really depends on the situations and the level of repentance shown by the individual. I've been in a number of disciplinary councils at the stake and ward level and never seen anyone excommunicated who willingly confessed and showed a desire to repent. see, in May of of 1997 I and another 18 year old guy were called into an EQ Presidency and the newly called President was literally just off his mission, AP and everything. From May to Oct?. he came to church maybe 6 times? yet he was called to give talks, firesides etc. but he hardly ever came to church so when he didn't we were scrambling around to figure out what to do and how to run the show in his absence. In the fall he got a newly baptized girl pregnant. Guess what happened to him. Nothing. no discipline, nothing. His dad was the Bishop in the other ward. I don't know if there was any cahootinizing going on between those two but I wouldn't put it past either of them. Like, Dr. Phil said you learn what you live and I learned at that time I tellya. Come to find out later our Branch President at that time had molested his daughter while she was growing up, his wife complained, she got shut down, "oh he wouldn't do that, he's such a good man" and he got called into a Temple Presidency not long after. He's dead now so God can deal with him as he sees fit. So, for me unless it affects my standing in the Church I ain't telling the Bishop a blooming thing Mind you when I was 16 I got put on informal probation for a couple of months for passing out at a dance, "it doesn't look good for a priest to be passing out on friday and blessing the sacrament on sunday" when you have killer dance steps like me you get hot you know I think he was just jealous Edited December 21, 2017 by Duncan 4
ksfisher Posted December 21, 2017 Posted December 21, 2017 2 minutes ago, Duncan said: see, in May of of 1997 I and another 18 year old guy were called into an EQ Presidency and the newly called President was literally just off his mission, AP and everything. From May to Oct?. he came to church maybe 6 times? yet he was called to give talks, firesides etc. but he hardly ever came to church so when he didn't we were scrambling around to figure out what to do and how to run the show in his absence. In the fall he got a newly baptized girl pregnant. Guess what happened to him. Nothing. no discipline, nothing. His dad was the Bishop in the other ward. I don't know if there was any cahootinizing going on between those two but I wouldn't put it past either of them. Like, Dr. Phil said you learn what you live and I learned at that time I tellya. Come to find out later our Branch President at that time had molested his daughter while she was growing up, his wife complained, she got shut down, "oh he wouldn't do that, he's such a good man" and he got called into a Temple Presidency not long after. He's dead now so God can deal with him as he sees fit. So, for me unless it affects my standing in the Church I ain't telling the Bishop a blooming thing Canada seems like a really weird place. 2
rongo Posted December 21, 2017 Posted December 21, 2017 15 minutes ago, ksfisher said: It really depends on the situations and the level of repentance shown by the individual. I've been in a number of disciplinary councils at the stake and ward level and never seen anyone excommunicated who willingly confessed and showed a desire to repent. Oh, I sure have. If the transgression is serious enough, willing confession and godly sorrow isn't enough. The Church has to make it clear that certain things (especially with covenants) will result in dissolving of those covenants. It is wonderful that that is where the person is at (best case scenario, out of the gate), but repentance for very serious things needs to have restrictions as part of the repentance process, in my view. Every single person I have worked with in repenting voluntarily confessed. I haven't ever had a person who had to be confronted first. All but one of the disciplinary councils I have presided over, or been the bishop of the person (stake level) have been disfellowshipped or excommunicated (I did have one we put on formal probation). This has overwhelmingly been positive for the people repenting. I think it is detrimental when there is a perceived "wrist slap" (that's it? For that?). On the other hand, I am aware of stakes that don't formally discipline as a policy. A man in a former ward of mine left his wife (after they had moved) for his 1st cousin. He wasn't even disfellowshipped, and the wife couldn't believe it. The stake president told her they don't dis- or ex- in their stake.
Duncan Posted December 21, 2017 Posted December 21, 2017 4 minutes ago, ksfisher said: Canada seems like a really weird place. come for the maple syrup and donuts stay for the free healthcare 2
ksfisher Posted December 21, 2017 Posted December 21, 2017 3 minutes ago, rongo said: On the other hand, I am aware of stakes that don't formally discipline as a policy. Doesn't sound like a policy that's in line with church policy. 1
rongo Posted December 21, 2017 Posted December 21, 2017 15 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: Speaking in the abstract only, and not referring to anyone personally, as I don't know anyone who have been in a situation like this, it would seem to me that a mark of godly sorrow would be an earnest desire on the part of the transgressor to get this cleared up before proceeding with the major event (wedding plans, performing an ordinance, etc.). I think in the minds of some, they are clearing this up before proceeding with the major event. The wedding/ordination isn't until Saturday, and I'm talking to you on Tuesday! That's my point. You can't drop a bomb like that on the bishop/stake president and expect to be merrily on your way in a few days/weeks. Serious things need to, at a minimum, appeal to the revelation of the disciplinary council. That has been a real addition to my testimony. Each council is different, and I have learned that you can't have preconceived notions going in. Through the course of the council, God's will becomes manifest to the participant (including, often, the subject). It is a key part of the repentance process --- even if the result is "no action." To proceed in serious matters without one is to not fully apply the repentance process as it has been revealed and provided to the latter-day Church. And that isn't going to / can't happen with a few days turnaround time. 3
rongo Posted December 21, 2017 Posted December 21, 2017 1 minute ago, ksfisher said: Doesn't sound like a policy that's in line with church policy. Not at all. The wife was furious and very hurt, but she's in a good place and has remarried. Her former ward member friends in our ward were a big help in getting her through this (and getting her through the ridiculous policy of no formal discipline). One of the considerations (one of many) in applying Church discipline is the effect of not having it on others, such as victims, those aware of what happened, etc. I think not holding DCs when there has been serious transgression is wrong, and does harm. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted December 21, 2017 Posted December 21, 2017 5 minutes ago, rongo said: I think in the minds of some, they are clearing this up before proceeding with the major event. The wedding/ordination isn't until Saturday, and I'm talking to you on Tuesday! That's my point. You can't drop a bomb like that on the bishop/stake president and expect to be merrily on your way in a few days/weeks. Serious things need to, at a minimum, appeal to the revelation of the disciplinary council. That has been a real addition to my testimony. Each council is different, and I have learned that you can't have preconceived notions going in. Through the course of the council, God's will becomes manifest to the participant (including, often, the subject). It is a key part of the repentance process --- even if the result is "no action." To proceed in serious matters without one is to not fully apply the repentance process as it has been revealed and provided to the latter-day Church. And that isn't going to / can't happen with a few days turnaround time. Yeah. I think one who has godly sorrow wouldn't even make the plans without letting the disciplinary process play out first.
Recommended Posts