"But the Wedding is Coming Up...!"...LDS Video of a Bishop's Interview

[ksfisher]

2 minutes ago, rongo said:

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. 

Balancing the needs of a hurt spouse can be difficult.  A disciplinary council is not a forum for revenge.  On the other hand a spouse needs to see that the council is mindful of what they've experienced.

 

[rongo]

4 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Balancing the needs of a hurt spouse can be difficult.  A disciplinary council is not a forum for revenge.  On the other hand a spouse needs to see that the council is mindful of what they've experienced.

Revenge isn't and shouldn't be a factor, but as you said, the needs of the victims/family are certainly a factor that needs to be considered and weighed. 

We had a sister in another ward who was 100% there with godly sorrow/broken heart and contrite spirit, but for whom a big reason disfellowshipment was the decision was because of the needs of her husband. A slap on the wrist (real or perceived) would have been catastrophic for him and their family, and she fully understood and supported that. 

I don't know that a lot of people know this, but bishops can't just decide to hold a council. The stake president determines whether one is necessary, and if so, whether it will be at the ward or stake level. Ward disciplinary councils cannot excommunicate MP holders, so if a stake president sets the venue for a MP holder at the ward level, that automatically "caps" the outcome at disfellowshipment. In my experience, there is conferral between the SP and the bishop after meeting with them, and they counsel together before the SP makes his decision. Often, these sorts of things are part of the calculus.

The three purposes of church discipline are: 1) to bring the sinner to a state of true repentance, 2) to protect the innocent, and 3) to protect the reputation of the Church.

I have known people for whom too-lenient action has resulted in a hit for the Church's reputation, and this also bleeds over into #2 as well sometimes. 

[cinepro]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

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?

 

I'm talking about "Bishop roulette", where the consequences of confession can vary widely between different Bishops, to the point that two people living in different wards who commit the same sin can face drastically different levels of response.

[rongo]

2 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I'm talking about "Bishop roulette", where the consequences of confession can vary widely between different Bishops, to the point that two people living in different wards who commit the same sin can face drastically different levels of response.

That isn't my experience. Not saying it never happens, but usually (in my experience), the two bishops are in communication, and if one is going to be administering formal discipline, then the other one isn't going to just have the other one not take the sacrament for a week. You're right ---- that would be bad on a lot of levels, and for a lot of people. 

ETA: In fact, that is one of the items on the report sent to Salt Lake: "Did the transgression involve another Church member?" If the answer is yes, then that information is part of the paperwork. If the other party isn't a member, then nothing further is needed. 

Edited December 21, 2017 by rongo

[Duncan]

15 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I'm talking about "Bishop roulette", where the consequences of confession can vary widely between different Bishops, to the point that two people living in different wards who commit the same sin can face drastically different levels of response.

from Elder Cecil Samuelson, "At least two of you in attendance have mentioned to me the frustration that occurs when you have felt it necessary to deny a temple recommend to one of these young people only to see them a few weeks later in the temple with a recommend issued from another unit. This ought not to be. We know that you who work with this highly mobile group of young people carry a tremendous load. We also know, and hope you know as well, that we have policies and procedures established for our use that would not make such an unfortunate occurrence possible. Please make the necessary calls and follow the essential procedures to see that we avoid these kinds of errors."

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-9-number-2-2008/holy-habits-and-righteous-routines

[ksfisher]

15 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I'm talking about "Bishop roulette", where the consequences of confession can vary widely between different Bishops, to the point that two people living in different wards who commit the same sin can face drastically different levels of response.

The repentance process for two people, even who've committed the same sin, is different. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

The stake president told her they don't dis- or ex- in their stake. 

Welp, someone is probably going to hell.

2 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Repentance is a process, not an event.

Not generally true, most repentance is fast and quick and does not involve a process. Of course things where a bishop should be informed usually take longer than general repentance.

 

This video is kind of odd. I had a missionary companion who had it and had shown it to investigators. The question is what circumstances made showing that video to an investigator seem like a good idea?

[ksfisher]

Just now, Duncan said:

from Elder Cecil Samuelson, "At least two of you in attendance have mentioned to me the frustration that occurs when you have felt it necessary to deny a temple recommend to one of these young people only to see them a few weeks later in the temple with a recommend issued from another unit. This ought not to be. We know that you who work with this highly mobile group of young people carry a tremendous load. We also know, and hope you know as well, that we have policies and procedures established for our use that would not make such an unfortunate occurrence possible. Please make the necessary calls and follow the essential procedures to see that we avoid these kinds of errors."

https://rsc.byu.edu/archived/volume-9-number-2-2008/holy-habits-and-righteous-routines

A temple recommend should never be issued to member who is not on unit records.

A hold can be put on the church records of someone who is in the process of church discipline that prevents their records from being transferred to another unit.

[ksfisher]

1 minute ago, The Nehor said:

 

Not generally true, most repentance is fast and quick and does not involve a process.

I'm not sure I follow you.

[Duncan]

3 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

A temple recommend should never be issued to member who is not on unit records.

A hold can be put on the church records of someone who is in the process of church discipline that prevents their records from being transferred to another unit.

I don't know, I figure it must have been happening else why would he even bring it up?

[rongo]

Just now, Duncan said:

I don't know, I figure it must have been happening else why would he even bring it up?

It can't happen now with the bar coded recommends. You have to have the records for the activation to work. 

Weird that any units ever issued recommends for people who weren't even in their wards . . . 

[ksfisher]

Just now, Duncan said:

I don't know, I figure it must have been happening else why would he even bring it up?

Perhaps these are the procedures that Elder Samuelson is referring to. 

[Duncan]

6 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Welp, someone is probably going to hell.

Not generally true, most repentance is fast and quick and does not involve a process. Of course things where a bishop should be informed usually take longer than general repentance.

 

This video is kind of odd. I had a missionary companion who had it and had shown it to investigators. The question is what circumstances made showing that video to an investigator seem like a good idea?

DC 109:21

And when thy people transgress, any of them, they may speedily repent and return unto thee, and find favor in thy sight, and be restored to the blessings which thou hast ordained to be poured out upon those who shall reverence thee in thy house.

[rongo]

It does happen (especially in YSA wards) where people will try to switch wards in order to get out of or get around pending Church discipline. This is where putting move holds on records is key (and calling bishops of previous wards for a pass-down). 

Edited December 21, 2017 by rongo

[rongo]

Just now, Duncan said:

DC 109:21

And when thy people transgress, any of them, they may speedily repent and return unto thee, and find favor in thy sight, and be restored to the blessings which thou hast ordained to be poured out upon those who shall reverence thee in thy house.

I think the spirit of this is that people speedily be inclined to repent, not that repentance should entail a quick (speedy) prayer and then you're good to go!

[Duncan]

There's also this doozie

"Most of what I have said here has been addressed to persons who think that repentance is too easy. At the opposite extreme are those who think that repentance is too hard. That group of souls are so tenderhearted and conscientious that they see sin everywhere in their own lives, and they despair of ever being able to be clean. The shot of doctrine that is necessary to penetrate the hard shell of the easygoing group is a massive overdose for the conscientious. What is necessary to encourage reformation for the lax can produce paralyzing discouragement for the conscientious. This is a common problem. We address a diverse audience each time we speak, and we are never free from the reality that a doctrinal underdose for some is an overdose for others."  Elder Oaks, BYU 1990

for some God is what the Church does. Par example, a girl I grew up with but never hung out with, she is several years older than me. Anyways she moved to Alberta just temporarily IIRC but she for sure was attending church there, well she slept with some man there and then came back here for something well, her dad was the Bishop at the time and exed her. Well, that was the 1990's sometime and we haven't seen her since then, she's totally out of the church. She's now married to some millionaire guy and lives in California which is lightyears away from the life she lived growing up. I think her schmuck of a dad forgot that he was a Bishop but not her bishop and now she and all of her family are  not members

Edited December 21, 2017 by Duncan

[phaedrus ut]

1 hour ago, cinepro said:

I'm talking about "Bishop roulette", where the consequences of confession can vary widely between different Bishops, to the point that two people living in different wards who commit the same sin can face drastically different levels of response.

I had a similar situation happen in a ward of mine 20+ years ago.  A young engaged couple wanted to get married in the temple and went to the bishop to repent for recently slipping up and having sex.  Because of their sincerity and the single occurrence the bishop put them on probation and told them they would have to wait 6 months to get their recommends back and get married.  A few weeks later and surprise surprise the woman discovers she is pregnant.  6 months later this pregnant couple was married in the Salt Lake Temple.  This is the one and only time I've heard of this happening. 

Phaedrus 

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Welp, someone is probably going to hell.

Not generally true, most repentance is fast and quick and does not involve a process. Of course things where a bishop should be informed usually take longer than general repentance.

 

This video is kind of odd. I had a missionary companion who had it and had shown it to investigators. The question is what circumstances made showing that video to an investigator seem like a good idea?

None that I can think of.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Duncan said:

DC 109:21

And when thy people transgress, any of them, they may speedily repent and return unto thee, and find favor in thy sight, and be restored to the blessings which thou hast ordained to be poured out upon those who shall reverence thee in thy house.

I think an appropriate synonym for "speedily" in this case would be promptly.

[filovirus]

So we are all talking about if the woman has truly repented, which from this video, we don't know. It's easy to be an arm chair analyst, but no one has yet brought up the fact that the bishop may have indeed be inspired to postpone the temple recommend. I mean, shouldn't the spirit be prompting him on how to handle the situation as well as prompting her to complete the repentance process? He is, in fact, her spiritual adviser. And it was all done in a loving and tactful way. I'm OK with how it turned out.

P.S. I remember watching that video in seminary. Brought flashbacks to early mornings.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, ksfisher said:

I'm not sure I follow you.

Most repentance does not require an extended repentance process. Being lazy one morning and late for a church meeting, being short with someone, missing home teaching, and things like that. Repentance is not time consuming in most minor sins like this. A quick prayer and turning it around can take less than a minute.

Edited December 22, 2017 by The Nehor

[Gray]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This video is kind of odd. I had a missionary companion who had it and had shown it to investigators. The question is what circumstances made showing that video to an investigator seem like a good idea?

Extreme boredom on the part of the missionary?

[The Nehor]

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

Extreme boredom on the part of the missionary?

And they picked this instead of Johnny Lingo? That is a seriously disturbed missionary.

Edited December 22, 2017 by The Nehor

[Exiled]

10 hours 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.

I don't like it either. I have a friend who left the church because an overzealous bishop made him change his wedding plans twice. It's an unnecessary show of authority by the bishop here, making the young lady wear a scarlet letter for a while because of something in the past. Weddings are probably one if the most public times in a young person's life and it should be about them and not the church.

[Kenngo1969]

9 hours ago, rongo said:

...  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. 

Those stakes and their leaders may not dis[fellowship] or ex[communicate] "as a policy," but, if not, that means, more than likely that such leaders are dis[respect]ing and dis[count]ing the consequences of the sins to innocent third parties for which such sinners ought, perhaps, to be dis[fellowshipped] or ex[communicated].

Rongo, I know you likely agree with me on this, I'm simply making the implicit explicit and pointing it out as "Captain [Blindingly] Obvious."