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

[Kenngo1969]

37 minutes ago, Exiled said:

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.

Nothing prevents an LDS couple, even one who engaged in premarital intimacy repeatedly, from getting married civilly.  If the couple wants to make it about them and not about the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, even if one or both of them have issues which ecclesiastical leaders feel are serious enough to delay their going to the temple, nothing prevents them from marching down to the local justice of the peace or to any other official who's authorized to perform civil weddings and having such a ceremony.

I realize that's an unpopular position in an era in which churches aren't supposed to have "rules" (or, if they do, churches are supposed to be so flexible as to allow those "rules" to be bent beyond all recognition), but there you go.

And that little exhibition of bluntness right there, ladies and gentlemen, along with the whole "husband-of-one-wife" thingy, is why I'll never be called as a bishop, but there you have it!  

[bsjkki]

I should not have watched that. So...she had to tell her parents, her fiance, and face questions from all her friends and relatives invited to the wedding. Sometimes, I think our repentance process has turned into "survival of the fittest." If you're faith is strong enough and  you are emotionally strong enough to run this gauntlet, then you will be forgiven but not until everyone you care about knows you are a sinner.  No wonder, some ponder suicide. Sometimes, the act of confessing such a transgression is all the faith someone has. How that person is treated when they are at their most vulnerable is very important. They are seeking relief because they have already sorrowed for their transgression, sometimes for years, before  the confession. Sometimes, they are there because their burden is so very heavy. Do you really think this conversation would empower most people to think there is relief in the atonement through Christ. She obviously did not feel she could use blunt language to describe her sin. Did he ask enough questions to know the circumstances of what happened?

The Bishop also tells her, "Godly sorrow is a deep realization that our actions have offended our Father in Heaven." Later he says this, "What you should be feeling, Kim, is an awareness that our actions caused the Savior to endure agony and suffering."

Lovely. I'm sure most young women can handle the public shame and then being told they offended their God (why would he ever love her again?) and that she made Christ suffer because of her actions. (She really is just the worst, isn't she?) 

I kept waiting for this Bishop to remind the young lady how much her Heavenly Father loves her and how much the Savior loves her. That He had already payed the price for her sins and that through the atonement she can be whole. I watched this and thought, 'this is why I can't trust them..." 

Like I said, I should not have watched that. And, now, you can all tell me how repentance requires us to take a few lashing as well, just to make sure we are really sorry. I have a hard time understanding the difference between the repentance process and punishment. Sometimes, it seems punishment is required for lds repentance. 

 

 

 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Exiled said:

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.

A nice show of sympathy but a bit of a misrepresentation. It is more like scheduling your wedding in a foreign country and then neglecting to get a passport and the required visas to take care of it and then insisting that the officials speed up the process so as not to disrupt your plans instead of, you know, taking care of it in a timely fashion.

Also, if you do not want your wedding to "be about the Church" then definitely do not get a temple sealing. Seriously, do not do it. A sealing is about covenants with God. If you want your wedding to be entirely "about you" use another church or do a drive through wedding in Vegas or have a beautiful wedding in some meaningful place. Just do it without the temple.

Edited December 22, 2017 by The Nehor

[The Nehor]

11 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I should not have watched that. So...she had to tell her parents, her fiance, and face questions from all her friends and relatives invited to the wedding. Sometimes, I think our repentance process has turned into "survival of the fittest." If you're faith is strong enough and  you are emotionally strong enough to run this gauntlet, then you will be forgiven but not until everyone you care about knows you are a sinner.  No wonder, some ponder suicide. Sometimes, the act of confessing such a transgression is all the faith someone has. How that person is treated when they are at their most vulnerable is very important. They are seeking relief because they have already sorrowed for their transgression, sometimes for years, before  the confession. Sometimes, they are there because their burden is so very heavy. Do you really think this conversation would empower most people to think there is relief in the atonement through Christ. She obviously did not feel she could use blunt language to describe her sin. Did he ask enough questions to know the circumstances of what happened?

In the video she picks the worst time possible to confess when the penitent person has already created expectations they cannot meet. Also, you may have missed the end where if I remember correctly she talks about how the pain is gone.

The video has issues but...... that Priesthood leaders should be pressured to accelerate repentance or allow the unworthy to enter into the higher ordinances of the gospel to avoid social scorn is laughable. Repentance is confidential. If you need to repent do not put yourself in circumstances where you are basically setting yourself up to force it to not be confidential.

Edited December 22, 2017 by The Nehor

[bsjkki]

34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

In the video she picks the worst time possible to confess when the penitent person has already created expectations they cannot meet.

I figured her soul was wracked by guilt and sorrow as she prepared for her wedding and that is what led to her confession.  So she felt sorrow, she had long ago forsaken her sins, so now, she knew she must confess. 

 

34 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

That Priesthood leaders should be pressured to accelerate repentance or allow the unworthy to enter into the higher ordinances of the gospel to avoid social scorn is laughable.

Not pressured but some Bishops may well have thought she had fully repented at this point...but others probably felt there was a required checklist of actions she must take or a wait time. It really depends on the Bishop.., maybe if she had been crying,  you would have thought she was more penitent. It’s always easy to judge demeanor.

Edited December 22, 2017 by bsjkki

[Duncan]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

In the video she picks the worst time possible to confess when the penitent person has already created expectations they cannot meet. Also, you may have missed the end where if I remember correctly she talks about how the pain is gone.

The video has issues. That Priesthood leaders should be pressured to accelerate repentance or allow the unworthy to enter into the higher ordinances of the gospel to avoid social scorn is laughable. Repentance is confidential. If you need to repent do not put yourself in circumstances where you are basically setting yourself up to force it to not be confidential.

confession is confidential but repentance usually isn't, especially if you get church discipline, now all sorts of people wonder what happened, why they can't take the sacrament. In saying that though in the million years i've been passing the sacrament I've never had any instance of us talking afterwards about why so and such didn't take the sacrament. When people don't you usually wonder and why wasn't I invited????????

[Robert F. Smith]

19 hours 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. 

Yes, and the Roman Catholic Church has in place a multi-step process which begins long before the wedding -- months away. I am not speaking of Confession, but of the stages of consultation with a marriage counselor, and a week-long marriage seminar conducted by successful married couples, and the actual scheduling of the marriage six months to a year in advance.  The Catholics have found that divorce is not as common among those who follow that program.

Of course any Mormon or Catholic can get a marriage license and be married civilly within a matter of days, and get divorced almost as quickly.  Obviously we are speaking here of people who put a high value on marriage, and for whom it has deep religious meaning.

[churchistrue]

I don't like this at all. Based on the clothes and Aaron Eckhart's age, this must be about at least 25 years old. It's dated 2012 on the church's website. I hope they remove it. And I hope we're more evolved 25 years later.

A bishop should think really, really seriously about messing with someone's marriage when they're that deep into the planning stage. Public humiliation like that stays with someone a long time. Maybe a lifetime.

Parents should also counsel their children not to be stupid with the bishop. So, you've got three stupid people here. The girl's parents. The girl. And the bishop. 

 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, Exiled said:

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.

Admittance to the temple is only for those who are worthy in every way. Every faithful Church member knows that or should be taught it if they don't.

One who has committed serious transgression and has not felt godly sorrow for it has not truly repented and hence is not eligible for a temple recommend. As I said in a prior post, to commit such a transgression and then to go ahead and make temple wedding plans before one has made confession to a priesthood authority reflects an entitlement mentality that is not consistent with godly sorrow. As I said in that post, godly sorrow entails a willingness to endure whatever just penalty might be imposed as part of the disciplinary process, and making temple wedding plans before that disciplinary process has been allowed to play out is bad planning at best.

[Scott Lloyd]

36 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

I don't like this at all. Based on the clothes and Aaron Eckhart's age, this must be about at least 25 years old. It's dated 2012 on the church's website. I hope they remove it. And I hope we're more evolved 25 years later.

A bishop should think really, really seriously about messing with someone's marriage when they're that deep into the planning stage. Public humiliation like that stays with someone a long time. Maybe a lifetime.

Parents should also counsel their children not to be stupid with the bishop. So, you've got three stupid people here. The girl's parents. The girl. And the bishop. 

 

The bishop in this hypothetical dramatization should not be blamed at all. He has a sacred duty and a responsibility with his calling. He has been placed in difficult situation, and he is working it out as kindly as he can. He is not stupid; on the contrary, he is acting with wisdom.

I don't see the girl's parents as bearing any blame either. From what is depicted in the video, they had no idea the girl had committed the serious transgression until she got around to disclosing it to the bishop. For all we know, her parents did properly teach her and they did counsel her "not to be stupid with the bishop." And of course, she wasn't "stupid" with him. She confessed, as she should have done.

And fussing about how old you think the video is is really irrelevant to the timeless principles that are being taught here. I think this is an excellent teaching tool and I earnestly disagree with you that it should be removed. I hope it stays up a good long while yet.

 

[churchistrue]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Admittance to the temple is only for those who are worthy in every way. Every faithful Church member knows that or should be taught it if they don't.

One who has committed serious transgression and has not felt godly sorrow for it has not truly repented and hence is not eligible for a temple recommend. As I said in a prior post, to commit such a transgression and then to go ahead and make temple wedding plans before one has made confession to a priesthood authority reflects an entitlement mentality that is not consistent with godly sorrow. As I said in that post, godly sorrow entails a willingness to endure whatever just penalty might be imposed as part of the disciplinary process, and making temple wedding plans before that disciplinary process has been allowed to play out is bad planning at best.

It doesn't reflect entitlement to me. It reflects courage and desire to repent that she confessed at all. 

[Exiled]

18 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Admittance to the temple is only for those who are worthy in every way. Every faithful Church member knows that or should be taught it if they don't.

One who has committed serious transgression and has not felt godly sorrow for it has not truly repented and hence is not eligible for a temple recommend. As I said in a prior post, to commit such a transgression and then to go ahead and make temple wedding plans before one has made confession to a priesthood authority reflects an entitlement mentality that is not consistent with godly sorrow. As I said in that post, godly sorrow entails a willingness to endure whatever just penalty might be imposed as part of the disciplinary process, and making temple wedding plans before that disciplinary process has been allowed to play out is bad planning at best.

What do you think of the very public shaming aspect of the video scenario?  Everyone will know that the young adult made a young adult mistake.  Looks like the church's version of the scarlet letter?  Do you think the portrayal of the punishment is inspired?

[churchistrue]

16 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The bishop in this hypothetical dramatization should not be blamed at all. He has a sacred duty and a responsibility with his calling. He has been placed in difficult situation, and he is working it out as kindly as he can. He is not stupid; on the contrary, he is acting with wisdom.

I don't see the girl's parents as bearing any blame either. From what is depicted in the video, they had no idea the girl had committed the serious transgression until she got around to disclosing it to the bishop. For all we know, her parents did properly teach her and they did counsel her "not to be stupid with the bishop." And of course, she wasn't "stupid" with him. She confessed, as she should have done.

And fussing about how old you think the video is is really irrelevant to the timeless principles that are being taught here. I think this is an excellent teaching tool and I earnestly disagree with you that it should be removed. I hope it stays up a good long while yet.

 

I bring up the age of the video as a hope that this is ancient thinking and we have moved forward. Most bishops are in their 40's and 50's. The way this bishop is thinking and acting in this video is representative of the overly conservative baby boomer age group, and hopefully the damage they've done in the church is ending.

 

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, bsjkki said:

I figured her soul was wracked by guilt and sorrow as she prepared for her wedding and that is what led to her confession.  So she felt sorrow, she had long ago forsaken her sins, so now, she knew she must confess. 

 

Not pressured but some Bishops may well have thought she had fully repented at this point...but others probably felt there was a required checklist of actions she must take or a wait time. It really depends on the Bishop.., maybe if she had been crying,  you would have thought she was more penitent. It’s always easy to judge demeanor.

Bishops are supposed to use this thing called the gift of discernment. I am naive enough to believe it is a real thing. Not saying every Bishop does it right all the time but it works.

[The Nehor]

21 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

It doesn't reflect entitlement to me. It reflects courage and desire to repent that she confessed at all. 

No, the girl in the video did not show any entitlement.

Where is it coming from?

The entitlement is coming from INSIDE THE THREAD!!!!!!

[Scott Lloyd]

On 12/22/2017 at 11:11 AM, Exiled said:

What do you think of the very public shaming aspect of the video scenario?  Everyone will know that the young adult made a young adult mistake.  Looks like the church's version of the scarlet letter? 

There is no "public shaming" being imposed here by the bishop or the Church. Conceivably, very few would have needed to know about it had the girl not foolishly gone ahead with wedding plans, sent out the announcements, etc., without repenting first of a serious sin. In a very real way, she brought the consequences on herself. It is highly unfair to put a bishop in that difficult situation and then expect him to waive the consequences just because of bad planning on the part of the transgressor.

Quote

Do you think the portrayal of the punishment is inspired?

It is what I would expect from any bishop or stake president who is conscientious about his calling and who thus acts under inspiration.

Edited December 24, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Exiled]

10 hours ago, The Nehor said:

A nice show of sympathy but a bit of a misrepresentation. It is more like scheduling your wedding in a foreign country and then neglecting to get a passport and the required visas to take care of it and then insisting that the officials speed up the process so as not to disrupt your plans instead of, you know, taking care of it in a timely fashion.

Also, if you do not want your wedding to "be about the Church" then definitely do not get a temple sealing. Seriously, do not do it. A sealing is about covenants with God. If you want your wedding to be entirely "about you" use another church or do a drive through wedding in Vegas or have a beautiful wedding in some meaningful place. Just do it without the temple.

Do you think public punishment is wise here?  This is a young adult and maybe the punishment should fit the crime?  What about letting her attend but still have some punishment that continues afterward?  Is it necessary to publicly announce her conduct, especially when it is implied that she didn't have intercourse but did something a little less?  Didn't the church stop the practice of making the excommunicated get up in priesthood and publicly confess because of the shaming nonsense?

[Scott Lloyd]

9 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, the girl in the video did not show any entitlement.

Where is it coming from?

The entitlement is coming from INSIDE THE THREAD!!!!!!

I agree with this. The sense of entitlement being shown by some of the comments here is palpable.

[Scott Lloyd]

39 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

It doesn't reflect entitlement to me. It reflects courage and desire to repent that she confessed at all. 

No question that it took courage.

But showing courage doesn't entitle one to a waiver of the consequences for choices one has already made, though it can prevent those consequences from being worse. In this case, had she had the courage to confess before making wedding plans, she would have spared herself considerable public embarrassment.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Exiled]

3 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

There is no "public shaming" being imposed here by the bishop or the Church. Conceivably, very few would have needed to know about it had the girl not foolishly went ahead with wedding plans, sent out the announcements, etc., without repenting first of a serious sin. In a very real way, she brought the consequences on herself. It is highly unfair to put a bishop in that difficult situation and then expect him to waive the consequences just because of bad planning on the part of the transgressor.

It is what I would expect from any bishop or stake president who is conscientious about his calling and who thus acts under inspiration.

Of course the member is always to blame in these scenarios (there you go blaming again )  As an aside, what do you think is the most important part of the gospel, obedience or charity?  It seems some young man asked an important person this question at some point ..... Also, some important person wouldn't condemn a certain women found in sexual transgression in some book (although scholars think this story is a later insertion)

[Scott Lloyd]

23 minutes ago, churchistrue said:

I bring up the age of the video as a hope that this is ancient thinking and we have moved forward. Most bishops are in their 40's and 50's. The way this bishop is thinking and acting in this video is representative of the overly conservative baby boomer age group, and hopefully the damage they've done in the church is ending.

 

I don't agree that it's "ancient thinking." That's why I applied the word "timeless" to the principles being taught.

[Exiled]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I agree with this. The sense of entitlement being shown by some of the comments here is palpable.

Do you view the church as a stern father?

[Scott Lloyd]

1 minute ago, Exiled said:

 As an aside, what do you think is the most important part of the gospel, obedience or charity? 

Look down at my sig lines on this post and see the quotation from Dallin H. Oaks for an answer to your question.

To put it another way and use wording from scripture, one should do the one and not leave the other undone.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 minutes ago, Exiled said:

Do you view the church as a stern father?

I would use the word firm. But yes, firm as well as loving. Both are required, and it is a false dichotomy to state or imply that the one precludes the other.

[Exiled]

13 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I would use the word firm. But yes, firm as well as loving. Both are required, and it is a false dichotomy to state or imply that the one precludes the other.

It's more like a continuum, in my opinion, because when punishment is levied, there certainly is a range. Some bishops are more charitable and some more firm. Also, some can be so draconian that love seems to disappear and retribution seems to dominate.

I think the girl in this case showed contrition and was shamed enough into obedience to where the public aspect wasn't needed. Perhaps this video is a relic of past babyboomer, stern father thinking as churchistrue hopes? Maybe this video will go the way of the 1981 pamphlet?

Edited December 22, 2017 by Exiled