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

[Calm]

17 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 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.

It felt like a lose-lose (her repentance becomes a public affair because she has delayed confession until the last moment, the bishop would not be helping by ignoring it, but it has an extended social effect that is not necessary for pure repentance) situation for both involved and while such can be turned around into a win-win, what I get out of it is 'if only they had the temple recommend interview several months before scheduling the temple'..that should be required imo and then at least if they forget and do it last minute they can tell those who have no business knowing that there is repentance going on that they forgot and they had to wait the required three months or whatever.  Otherwise they are encouraging people to put off repentance until after the sealing.

Edited December 23, 2017 by Calm

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, Exiled said:

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.

 

The problem with the continuum model is that it requires the one to displace the other. That is, the more charitable you are, the less true you can be to commandments, law and obedience. Or the more obedient you are, the less charitable  you can be. This seems totally alien what I have read and learned about as I have studied the gospel of Christ.

Quote

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?

I find it ironic that you are ascribing sternness and harshness to baby boomers, as it is they who came of age in the free-love, do-your-own-thing, sex-drugs-and-rock and roll era of the 1960s. Much of the sexual permissiveness and free-wheeling substance abuse that plagues society today emerged from that period of social upheaval.

Edited December 22, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[ksfisher]

On 12/21/2017 at 9:37 PM, The Nehor said:

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.

My comments were within the context of the OP, a serious violation of the law of chastity.

However, I think you're conflating repentance with receiving forgiveness in your comments.  I believe our Father is very quick to forgive those who sincerely wish to repent.  However, repentance is a life long process as we change from the natural man to a new person, alive in Christ.  We need to change from being the kind of person who will be lazy or miss their home teaching (I'm assuming you mean through laziness).  Becoming that new person requires more than just a quick prayer.  No bishop is involved, but it's still a process.

Edited December 23, 2017 by ksfisher
sp

[Exiled]

9 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

The problem with the continuum model is that it requires the one to displace the other. That is, the more charitable you are, the less true you can be to commandments, law and obedience. Or the more obedient you are, the less charitable  you can be. This seems totally alien what I have read and learned about as I have studied the gospel of Christ.

I find it comical that you are ascribing sternness and harshness to baby boomers, as it is they who came of age in the free-love, do-your-own-thing, sex-drugs-and-rock and roll era of the 1960s.

Mormon babyboomers were part of Nixon's silent majority. I don't think they participated much in the free love culture but I could be mistaken.

If it isn't a dichotomy and not a continuum, then what is it? To me, punishment seems to be too harsh, too easy, or somewhere in between, like a continuum. Do you think a bishop in the too harsh camp can still claim it was done out of love and still be regarded as a reasonable person? 

[Danzo]

Y'all do realize that this was a work of fiction.  The girl wasn't really going to marry Aaron Eckhart.

She probably wasn't guilty of any sin, and that wasn't her real bishop.  

 

[rongo]

13 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.

What alternative are you recommending? That we don't have any firm standards for temple ordinances if it will be embarrassing and difficult for people? The temple isn't going to mean anything to people who get in like that. 

Sometimes, the act of confessing such a transgression is all the faith someone has.

I think confessing to something that is going to result in years of membership restrictions, deferment/postponement of a sealing, etc. is the most courageous thing I have personally been a party to. It especially shows how deep their integrity is that they are willing to do whatever it takes (and they know that it's out of their hands, and that they don't control their fate) to resolve unresolved sin. In many cases, people have carried this guilt with them for years, and have already lied in interviews and they reach a point where they are ready and determined to finally face it square on. 

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?

I think it does for most and in most cases. Usually, there is a great lifting of the burden because all things are now on the table, and there is no more deceit or holding back. Priesthood leaders, almost to a man, are very supportive and empathetic and offer hope through the atonement. Most people do not expect a quick indulgence before being sent on their way, and would actually feel something were missing if that were suggested (for something serious).

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?

As an aside, can you imagine the howling if he had asked more "probing" questions in the video? 

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?)

Public shame? Because her sealing is going to have to wait? It's not like they are pounding a sign into her front yard. 

 

[rongo]

3 hours ago, churchistrue said:

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.

So, the bishop's sole consideration, when the sealing is imminent, is that it's too far along and that nothing should be done. 

Some of you guys have no idea what damage and baggage people carry for decades because they were allowed to unworthily make covenants. You're not doing them any favors, actually, and their marriage is starting off on false pretenses. Hens come home to roost years later. Many members try to bury things without resolving them and just be really good from this point on, but when they get to the questions like "Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authority, but have not been?", it crucifies them afresh. 

Quote

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.

It's this very attitude of "Don't be stupid. Say nothing. None of their business, and it will ruin everything." that causes untold anguish and lack of spiritual power due to lack of confidence in one's standing before God for people. All hens come home to roost. 

People get to thinking and wondering whether their covenants and ordinances have been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, and it eats them alive (they lied, they weren't worthy. Is their ordinance really sealed?). Anyone who would counsel anyone to cavalierly just shrug this off either doesn't really believe that there is anything behind the ordinances, or . . .  what?

Edited December 22, 2017 by rongo

[bsjkki]

4 hours ago, rongo said:

What alternative are you recommending? That we don't have any firm standards for temple ordinances if it will be embarrassing and difficult for people? The temple isn't going to mean anything to people who get in like that. 

I don’t know where I ever said anything of the kind. But, it seems you feel a repentant sinner must suffer after coming to your office. My question is ‘why?’ Sometimes, the suffering has been done...the godly sorrow has been felt. That is why they are there. We are taught Christ suffered for our sins...so that we don’t have to. I saw a lot of Justice in the video but ‘mercy’, not so much. Some of you talk of ‘consequences’ and having to pay the price for sinning, but isn’t that why we have atonement? Doesn’t Christ require a broken heart and contrite spirit? Confession is one of the last steps in the repentance process, but some seem to think it is the first.

Edited December 23, 2017 by bsjkki

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

As an aside, can you imagine the howling if he had asked more "probing" questions in the video? 

Yep. You are correct. The Bishop can not ask probing questions without coming across as a creaper. The interviewee is not comfortable discussing details so we are left with a mess of assumptions. 

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, rongo said:

Public shame? Because her sealing is going to have to wait? It's not like they are pounding a sign into her front yard

Come on...you've been in a ward long enough to know, everyone will know or "assume" they know why the wedding is delayed. 

[ksfisher]

18 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Come on...you've been in a ward long enough to know, everyone will know or "assume" they know why the wedding is delayed. 

Is it more important to be clean in the eyes of the Lord, or to satisfy the ward busybodies? 

The choice seems pretty clear.

Edited December 22, 2017 by ksfisher

[bsjkki]

9 minutes ago, ksfisher said:

Is it more important to be clean in the eyes of the Lord, or to satisfy the ward busybodies? 

The choice seems pretty clear.

My point is, don't pretend this isn't going to be part of the repentance process. It will be and can lead to mental health issues and toxic shame. For the youth, this can be debilitating because they are young. 

[Robert F. Smith]

5 hours ago, Exiled said:

................................... Looks like the church's version of the scarlet letter?  ...........................................

There is no comparison at all.  Nathaniel Hawthorne's tale has a pastor who is himself an adulterer meting out punishment to someone else.  The pastor is an utter hypocrite who has no right to make judgments on another.  In addition, Hawthorne was dealing with his personal demons, fully knowing that his ancestor was a judge in Salem, Massachusetts, who put people to death on false charges of witchcraft.  He was ashamed and embarrassed by his Puritan heritage.

[Duncan]

Speaking of false premises we have this newly married couple in our ward. A few weeks ago she spoke and one thing she said was that her husband has never lied to her. A few of us afterwards, women included, were like, "oh puh leeeeeeeeeez! the first lie he told her is that he hasn't lied to her!", "Quilt with your Grandma for 5 hours, oh yeah, who wouldn't want to do that?.........."

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, Exiled said:

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?

So she can go to the temple with a serious sin unforgiven and make sacred covenants? That would be crueler than any alternative.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Exiled said:

Of course the member is always to blame in these scenarios (there you go blaming again ) 

The bishop is the one responsible for the penitent's sins now?

Of course the penitent person is to blame! They committed the sin!

What kind of bizarro world do you live in?

[The Nehor]

27 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is no comparison at all.  Nathaniel Hawthorne's tale has a pastor who is himself an adulterer meting out punishment to someone else.  The pastor is an utter hypocrite who has no right to make judgments on another.  In addition, Hawthorne was dealing with his personal demons, fully knowing that his ancestor was a judge in Salem, Massachusetts, who put people to death on false charges of witchcraft.  He was ashamed and embarrassed by his Puritan heritage.

More importantly in that story he was the person she committed adultery with in the original crime.

If the bishop was the person the young woman was involved with then yes, this would be a very different and much creepier situation and she should have gone to the Stake President instead.

I am guessing this church movie never gets made.  

[Exiled]

20 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The bishop is the one responsible for the penitent's sins now?

Of course the penitent person is to blame! They committed the sin!

What kind of bizarro world do you live in?

I think you are trying too hard to find something against my position that maybe the punishment the bishop gave didn't fit properly with what the young lady did. Of course everyone is still responsible for their own actions including the bishop and the church that supports the punishment scenario. It just seems the publicity was too much here.

[california boy]

My only question is: How quick was Jesus willing to forgive?  To not look to His example seems not in keeping with the gospel that He is the author of.  

There are several incidents in the life of Christ that might shed light on this issue.  The woman being stoned for adultery.  The woman at the well.  And those that hung Christ on the cross.   Perhaps others could suggest more.  Once we see how Christ behaved, maybe it will give us some guidance.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, Danzo said:

Y'all do realize that this was a work of fiction.  The girl wasn't really going to marry Aaron Eckhart.

 

I wonder if she laughs about that now.

[Calm]

3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Yep. You are correct. The Bishop can not ask probing questions without coming across as a creaper. The interviewee is not comfortable discussing details so we are left with a mess of assumptions. 

I thought they just clipped that part...as in assume they discussed the details so he knew it was a serious sin (I believe that is what he called it), but sharing the details would be inappropriate for the audience.

[jkwilliams]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

I thought they just clipped that part...as in assume they discussed the details so he knew it was a serious sin (I believe that is what he called it), but sharing the details would be inappropriate for the audience.

That was certainly implied. 

[Exiled]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

There is no comparison at all.  Nathaniel Hawthorne's tale has a pastor who is himself an adulterer meting out punishment to someone else.  The pastor is an utter hypocrite who has no right to make judgments on another.  In addition, Hawthorne was dealing with his personal demons, fully knowing that his ancestor was a judge in Salem, Massachusetts, who put people to death on false charges of witchcraft.  He was ashamed and embarrassed by his Puritan heritage.

No comparison at all?  Won't all the temple guests know about the temple wedding delays and rumors will probably abound as to why?  Like the unwanted publicity in the scarlet letter, the public punishment the bishop causes seems a little over the top.  Sure, the girl in the church video presumably won't have to wear a letter "A" on her dress (I guess they didn't write that part into the script ) ..... but she is publicly shamed .... the video shows her storming off from a meeting with her friends and one could presume that was part of the public punishment and the public shaming.

Now, of course the puritans were over the top and I am related to one of the people involved in the salem witch trials as are a lot of people, but the public shaming aspect of wearing the scarlet letter is part of the church video scenario, else why deny the recommend if not to lend a little publicity to the transgression/repentance process.  Some might say the public part is the purpose of generating the godly sorrow the bishop wanted to stimulate in our tragic heroine.

[Calm]

5 minutes ago, Exiled said:

 else why deny the recommend if not to lend a little publicity to the transgression/repentance process.  

If she had gone for the identical interview, but for her personal endowment without announcing it to anyone, how would the bishop's response be any different...yet no one would be the least aware of the denial of the recommend unless she told them she had planned to get her endowment and then told them it was delayed.  Publicity is a side effect of the wedding being delayed, not the temple recommend being denied.  That can take place and probably does most of the time with no publicity whatsoever.

It would have been the same for her if she had the interview prior to the time of choosing the wedding date.

[mfbukowski]

On 12/21/2017 at 12:15 PM, 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. 

Another problem with the short notice is that we don't know if she has mentioned her transgressions to anyone else, friends, etc. and yet the bishop is responsible to uphold church standards.  Another question would be how long it has been since the transgressions and her history with the young man she is marrying.

Should he give in to the pressure to give her a recommend and others know about the transgressions, his failure to stand up for church standards could give the impression that it is ok to ignore the standards and that others will also get a last-minute recommend without a problem.

I don't think anyone really knows how tough it is to be in that chair unless you have been there, not even Bishopric counselors.  There can be huge ramifications for the whole ward in these situations even if the bishop might be inclined to find her repentance has been sufficient.

Edited December 23, 2017 by mfbukowski