bluebell Posted August 7, 2020 Posted August 7, 2020 10 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: I haven't talked with many folks who have had children go in to confess sins. I can only think of once, and that was in a confidential setting of which I was a participant. That seems to me an odd conversation and a breach of confidence. I can see why you would assume that.
Bernard Gui Posted August 7, 2020 Posted August 7, 2020 43 minutes ago, bluebell said: I can see why you would assume that. Why is that?
Bernard Gui Posted August 7, 2020 Posted August 7, 2020 46 minutes ago, bluebell said: I agree. But I think that the new caveat in the handbook shows that bishops had been to quick to restrict the taking of the sacrament, regardless of the known understanding that they were to use the spirit when deciding the proper course of action. Perhaps.
bluebell Posted August 7, 2020 Posted August 7, 2020 25 minutes ago, Bernard Gui said: Why is that? I just meant that I can see why that would be your perspective if you've never actually had those kinds of conversations.
Bernard Gui Posted August 7, 2020 Posted August 7, 2020 57 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Yes, that IS the question isn't it?? Without knowing the exact situation, I would think it likely that probably more formal action is warranted. For me, those kinds of things were a nightmare because in some such cases, individuals who have no desire to repent could spread that attitude to others in the Ward, or convince others that their actions were "ok" because no action was taken. "I know what he did and nothing happened, so it must be ok" That's the attitude you do not want to foster. It's a horribly tough decision point. Suppose someone comes to you and tells you that they were unfaithful to their spouse one time, ten years ago, and never repeated the indiscretion, and never revealed it to the spouse. You know the family and the spouse well and the person before you says that if the spouse found it, even though all those years ago, it would be a divorce for sure. Because you know both individuals, and that the spouse tends to be a rather unforgiving person, you believe them. They have four children and the oldest is 12 years old. A divorce would be disastrous for the children. The standard teaching is that the spouse should be informed, and that the couple receive therapy. There should be no secret indiscretions between spouses. Welcome to being a bishop. What would you counsel? If you prohibit taking the sacrament, it would alert the family for sure, and probably half the ward would become aware that something was going on. And then it comes out that another member of the Ward, knows the secret, as a "best friend" of the offender. If you do nothing as bishop, what will that be signally to the other person who knows? The point is that there are seldom clear answers in the real world. And those who aspire to be bishops don't get it. It is like walking a tightrope. Anyone aspiring to be a bishop is (can I say it?) muy loco. Wouldn't it be nice if we really were our brothers' and sisters' keepers and held their eternal welfare paramount in our thoughts and actions? Especially when we deal with repentance, confession, reconciliation, and forgiveness. Regarding disclosure of past indiscretions (which is part of recovery), our Addiction Recovery Program manuals say the following. Timing and the direction of the Spirit are crucial. I think these might have application here. Quote STEP 9: Restitution and Reconciliation (for those in addiction... There may be times when approaching another person or seeking to provide restitution is painful for that person or even harmful. If you think that might be the case, discuss the situation with a trusted adviser before proceeding. This part of recovery must never lead to the further harm of others. Also, at times you may have caused harm that is beyond human ability to repair. Elder Neal A. Maxwell spoke of this reality: “Sometimes . . . restitution is not possible in real terms, such as when one contributed to another’s loss of faith or virtue. Instead, a subsequent example of righteousness provides a compensatory form of restitution” (in Conference Report, Oct. 1991, 41; or Ensign, Nov. 1991, 31). PRINCIPLE 9: We Have Renounced Dishonesty (for family and friends of those in addiction).... Our loved ones may be hesitant or unwilling to speak with us about their struggles or challenges. Likewise, we may not be comfortable sharing our feelings with them. Although it may be difficult, we can find ways to be open and honest with our loved ones. Both we and our loved ones will benefit from talking to each other regularly about our journey toward recovery and healing. This includes discussing times or circumstances in which our loved ones become tempted or experience a relapse. Elder Richard G. Scott said, “A [spouse or family member] must have no private, hidden agenda that is kept secret from [his or her loved one]. Sharing everything about each other’s personal life is powerful spiritual insurance” (“The Sanctity of Womanhood,” Ensign, May 2000, 37). It may be difficult to know when, how often, and what kinds of things we should ask our loved ones to share with us. The method and frequency of our communication may differ depending on our role as a spouse, a parent of a minor child, or a parent of an adult child. Again, a bishop, friend, or counselor can help us find the right balance. Open and honest communication is the beginning of rebuilding trust. As we patiently speak with our loved ones, if they are willing, the Spirit will guide and support us. And Elder Holland's wonderful talk in 2015... Quote There is something in many of us that particularly fails to forgive and forget earlier mistakes in life—either our mistakes or the mistakes of others. It is not good. It is not Christian. It stands in terrible opposition to the grandeur and majesty of the Atonement of Christ. To be tied to earlier mistakes is the worst kind of wallowing in the past from which we are called to cease and desist.... That also happens in marriages and other relationships. I can’t tell you the number of couples I have counseled who, when they are deeply hurt or even just deeply stressed, reach farther and farther into the past to find yet a bigger brick to throw through the window “pain” of their marriage. When something is over and done with, when it has been repented of as fully as it can be repented of, when life has moved on as it should and a lot of other wonderfully good things have happened since then, it is not right to go back and open some ancient wound that the Son of God Himself died to heal. Let people repent. Let people grow. Believe that people can change and improve. Is that faith? Yes! Is that hope? Yes! Is that charity? Yes! Above all, it is charity, the pure love of Christ. If something is buried in the past, leave it buried. Don’t keep going back with your little sand pail and beach shovel to dig it up, wave it around, and then throw it at someone, saying, “Hey! Do you remember this?” Splat! Well, guess what? That is probably going to result in some ugly morsel being dug up out of your landfill with the reply, “Yeah, I remember it. Do you remember this?” Splat. And soon enough everyone comes out of that exchange dirty and muddy and unhappy and hurt, when what our Father in Heaven pleads for is cleanliness and kindness and happiness and healing. https://latterdayarray.com/2015/12/26/elder-holland-forgive-and-forget/
Bernard Gui Posted August 7, 2020 Posted August 7, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, bluebell said: I just meant that I can see why that would be your perspective if you've never actually had those kinds of conversations. I have had a lot of conversations over these 73 years. Not many folks I know have told me what goes on in their confidential bishop interviews. A few times people have brought them up in Addiction Recovery meetings, but those are few and strictly confidential. We don't discuss that with anyone outside the meetings. I guess I just don't run with the right (or wrong) crowds. As far as the bishop is concerned, he cannot divulge such things. Edited August 7, 2020 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted August 7, 2020 Posted August 7, 2020 4 hours ago, MustardSeed said: Honestly I think it should only apply when someone has been ex’d or disfellowshipped. NEVER with youth. Imo Setting such hard and fast rules would restrict the possibility of the influence of the Spirit, IMO. 2
bluebell Posted August 8, 2020 Posted August 8, 2020 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: I have had a lot of conversations over these 73 years. Not many folks I know have told me what goes on in their confidential bishop interviews. A few times people have brought them up in Addiction Recovery meetings, but those are few and strictly confidential. We don't discuss that with anyone outside the meetings. I guess I just don't run with the right (or wrong) crowds. As far as the bishop is concerned, he cannot divulge such things. These are just conversations, mother to mother. You’re right, you probably don’t run in the right crowd to have experienced them.
Calm Posted August 8, 2020 Posted August 8, 2020 1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said: Wouldn't it be nice if we really were our brothers' and sisters' keepers and held their eternal welfare paramount in our thoughts and actions? As long as we didn’t assume responsibility for their choices and feelings. It is important not to let concern and commitment morph into ownership. That is detrimental for the individual and can really screw up the person one is trying to help (not only do they have to deal with their own feelings, now they have to worry about the other person who burdens themselves). 2
MustardSeed Posted August 8, 2020 Posted August 8, 2020 4 minutes ago, Calm said: As long as we didn’t assume responsibility for their choices and feelings. It is important not to let concern and commitment morph into ownership. That is detrimental for the individual and can really screw up the person one is trying to help (not only do they have to deal with their own feelings, now they have to worry about the other person who burdens themselves). Power can be intoxicating and can fool someone into thinking they are doing good. 2
Calm Posted August 8, 2020 Posted August 8, 2020 5 minutes ago, MustardSeed said: Power can be intoxicating and can fool someone into thinking they are doing good. It is not just leaders who do this, but friends and family. People who are problem solvers who make other people’s problems their own. 1
Bernard Gui Posted August 8, 2020 Posted August 8, 2020 (edited) 5 hours ago, bluebell said: These are just conversations, mother to mother. You’re right, you probably don’t run in the right crowd to have experienced them. Yep. Not a member. Edited August 8, 2020 by Bernard Gui
Bernard Gui Posted August 8, 2020 Posted August 8, 2020 (edited) 4 hours ago, Calm said: As long as we didn’t assume responsibility for their choices and feelings. It is important not to let concern and commitment morph into ownership. That is detrimental for the individual and can really screw up the person one is trying to help (not only do they have to deal with their own feelings, now they have to worry about the other person who burdens themselves). That is a lesson we have learned the hard way. Our mottos now are “I didn’t cause it, I can’t control it, and I can’t cure it” and “They have a Savior and it isn’t me.” Edited August 8, 2020 by Bernard Gui 2
Kenngo1969 Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 On 8/4/2020 at 9:58 PM, JAHS said: If I don't let my little grandkids get it first it will be all over the floor as they rush to see who can get it first. That sounds like a fun "problem" to have in Sacrament "meeting." Just sayin'! 1
Bernard Gui Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 On 8/7/2020 at 11:59 AM, 2BizE said: I don’t think this “unknown order of things” rule was created with the bishop in mind. People in the ward know who the bishop is. I believe this was invented over the years where GAs would go to a ward and sit on the stand. Nobody knew who they were...the deacons would pass to the bishop first and the GAs felt like they should have been first to get the sacrament. This was probably back in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s. At some point this information was passed around through various channels until it was trained to the bishops and deacons. I’m trying to imagine your scenario. There is a stranger sitting on the stand next to the bishop in sacrament meeting. Members of the ward have no idea who he is because they have never read a church magazine or seen photos of the General Authorities. The bishop neglects to welcome the guest or identify him to the congregation, so they have no clue who that fellow is sitting next to him. The deacon passes the sacrament to the bishop first, so the General Authority secretly seethes because of this gross insult to his massive ego. This happens so frequently around the world that the Brethren meet in the upper rooms of the Temple to put a stop to this insubordination. They establish a procedure that will teach the members a lesson in deference to their majesty, spread it across the Church over 3 decades, and eventually codify it in the Handbook. Sounds reasonable to me. 3
alter idem Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 On 8/4/2020 at 8:31 PM, nuclearfuels said: Wondering if the person presiding at church at Home - in your case - takes the Sacrament first, similar to the way the Bishop takes the Sacrament first at regular church. If the person requesting the blessing on the Sacrament partakes first because they are presiding or the head of the household (but not a Bishop, temporary calling) but a father (eternal calling), that seems kind of odd but likely the correct way to administer that ordinance, no? I think that since we were counseled in my area to not try to recreate Sacrament meeting, there should not be any concern for having one particular person be served the sacrament first. This is a non issue for home church, imo. 3
alter idem Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 On 8/5/2020 at 1:10 PM, Ahab said: President McKay's statement that the sacrament should be administered to the presiding officer first is what made that act a requirement in our sacrament services. He was speaking as the President of the Church, with the keys. We don't all need to agree with him or any other President before the pronouncements of a President of the Church become binding upon us as members of the Church. And I think it's importance to notice that in having Sacrament at home, no directive was given to us that the 'presiding priesthood holder' in the home should be taking it first, for any reason. Obviously it is a tradition and not a necessary part of the Sacrament ordinance. I think it's safe to say this is not important, other than to allow the presiding authority to observe and make sure the Sacrament is being administered properly and all who desire are able to take it.
Ahab Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 2 minutes ago, alter idem said: And I think it's importance to notice that in having Sacrament at home, no directive was given to us that the 'presiding priesthood holder' in the home should be taking it first, for any reason. Obviously it is a tradition and not a necessary part of the Sacrament ordinance. I think it's safe to say this is not important, other than to allow the presiding authority to observe and make sure the Sacrament is being administered properly and all who desire are able to take it. In our home, my wife and I preside, even when our bishop or other authority in the Church comes over for a visit, so we're talking apples and oranges here. And as I said in another post my wife feels more comfortable with me taking the sacrament first, so I do. It is the sacrament, though, and our Lord has proscribed certain procedures and terminology to be used while taking the sacrament emblems, so my wife and I do those things otherwise we would only be eating and drinking some things. 1
mfbukowski Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 On 8/7/2020 at 2:38 PM, bluebell said: If you talk to parents who’ve had children go in to confess sins (not immorality but other sins) you’ll find that for the majority, not taking the sacrament for a time was the number one result. I think that’s why the handbook has specifically said not to do that automatically. Well clearly we need more sinner bishops so they can learn that renewing Covenants is an important part of facing the Lord, and making a renewed promise to quit messing up and get their lives together. Better still if they decide on their own to not take the sacrament until they could do this, and face the Lord with a new promise they will not break. That needs to come from themselves internally if it is going to work, it can't be imposed upon them. The implication becomes "Ok, in one month, you can take the sacrament, if you feel worthy or not." The real objective in my opinion should be that they decide for themselves when they are worthy, or have full intent to change. 2
mfbukowski Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 On 8/7/2020 at 2:45 PM, Bernard Gui said: Indeed. It is not something handed out willy-nilly, as seems to be implied here. There have been a few times when I have refrained from partaking of my own volition because I knew I was not sincere in my repentance. Other than in Church discipline matters I don't recall imposing it on others as a bishop, but perhaps as a preliminary step before the need for a council became apparent? Maybe? Can't remember. Not surprisingly, I think we are on the same wavelength in this case. 1
mfbukowski Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 On 8/7/2020 at 2:38 PM, bluebell said: If you talk to parents who’ve had children go in to confess sins (not immorality but other sins) you’ll find that for the majority, not taking the sacrament for a time was the number one result. I think that’s why the handbook has specifically said not to do that automatically. As a parent I would never discuss that with others. Sounds a little strange to me frankly. 1
Ahab Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 (edited) 12 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Well clearly we need more sinner bishops so they can learn that renewing Covenants is an important part of facing the Lord, and making a renewed promise to quit messing up and get their lives together. Better still if they decide on their own to not take the sacrament until they could do this, and face the Lord with a new promise they will not break. That needs to come from themselves internally if it is going to work, it can't be imposed upon them. The implication becomes "Ok, in one month, you can take the sacrament, if you feel worthy or not." The real objective in my opinion should be that they decide for themselves when they are worthy, or have full intent to change. Yeah I think a good heart to heart talk about repentance and the covenant we make as members is what is needed at times like that. With some words that strike home and make it real to the covenant breaker. You said you would repent of your sins and then you did something like that!?! Do you realize that when you take the sacrament you are saying you will ALWAYS remember our Savior and keep his commandments? When you take the sacrament again are you going to keep that promise or are you going to break that promise again? You do know our Lord will always be there to help you do what is right, don't you? I think you need to take some time to think about what it means to take the sacrament before you take it again, otherwise you may not be worthy to take the sacrament as you should. Edited August 11, 2020 by Ahab
mfbukowski Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 On 8/7/2020 at 2:50 PM, MustardSeed said: If my bishops had not used it as a behavioral adjustment option I can’t help but wonder about my children’s activity in the church. Just this week a friend of mine shared that at age pre teen she went into the Bishop because she Had been forced to be sexual with somebody. At her young age she didn’t know how to articulate her situation but at any rate he withheld the sacrament. Guess who is inactive as an adult? I was the first to tell her that she never should have been kept from the redeeming and healing experience of the sacrament- I can’t help but be sad for her. Horrible!
bluebell Posted August 11, 2020 Posted August 11, 2020 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: As a parent I would never discuss that with others. Sounds a little strange to me frankly. If you’ve never been a part of such an experience, you don’t have enough information to judge it fairly. 1
2BizE Posted August 12, 2020 Posted August 12, 2020 21 hours ago, Bernard Gui said: I’m trying to imagine your scenario. There is a stranger sitting on the stand next to the bishop in sacrament meeting. Members of the ward have no idea who he is because they have never read a church magazine or seen photos of the General Authorities. The bishop neglects to welcome the guest or identify him to the congregation, so they have no clue who that fellow is sitting next to him. The deacon passes the sacrament to the bishop first, so the General Authority secretly seethes because of this gross insult to his massive ego. This happens so frequently around the world that the Brethren meet in the upper rooms of the Temple to put a stop to this insubordination. They establish a procedure that will teach the members a lesson in deference to their majesty, spread it across the Church over 3 decades, and eventually codify it in the Handbook. Sounds reasonable to me. Yes, that is pretty much the theory.
Recommended Posts