Crywithasmile87

We are baptized in similitude of the Savior... we die with him and then rise from the water as he did... it is symbolism for what He did, and what binds us to Him. Surely you aren't implying that the Lord was baptized in similitude of Himself, or that He was binding Himself back to Himself? (there is a word for this, and it has completely escaped my mind! Paul used it a lot.) I assure you that had Christ not been baptized, He would have still returned to Heavenly Father. However, I can't say that the atonement would have worked, that mankind could have been redeemed, etc.

Christ was already God. Are you implying that a sin-removing ordinance - required for exaltation - was required of one who was sinless and exalted? (Please don't misunderstand... I realize that the Lord's baptism was necessary... just not in the way that you seem to understand it)

Well gee, I wish I knew as many perfect, inhuman people as you do. Funny, I always thought sinning was natural and a way that we can grow and improve in mortality... you perfect people have really rained on my parade!

They have talked once or twice. I'm not sure how much they agree or not, I just know that one is handling things in a much more Christlike way than the other. And your first point is true as well. I can't stand it when people throw around the word "representative," as if having that title gives you diplomatic immunity or something. Being a representative of something doesn't grant infallibility... bishop's are just as prone to mistake and error in judgment as anyone else. Being EXPECTED to represent Christ in a positive manner does not excuse improper use of power. That anyone would even suggest that is disgusting.

True. The Savior did not NEED to be baptized by John the Baptist. It was an example.

You lost my attention at "is it love or lust?"

Today we both again met with our separate bishops. I won't go into details, but again the other person's bishop took up about 50% of their meeting basically saying things that are not true (again, I will not go into details) and forming false judgments about me. After a couple meetings now, he has still failed to even give so much as even a hint how long the repentance process might be. Both myself and the other person involved have done all that has been asked of us, and have been praying constantly on this issue. Just has it has been for a couple months now, there has been no desire to even consider repeating the sin... it is completely behind us. Additionally, the other person's bishop is now trying to control things in that person's life that have NOTHING to do with what his role is right now. He has dominated the conversations and put extreme pressure on this person to submit to his will... on matters that, again, he has no jurisdiction over, and have nothing to do with the repentance process for this sin. He keeps telling them "don't beat yourself up for it," but continues to say things that come off as coercive, uninformed, and judgmental towards both this person and myself. This is beginning to get very frustrating. To have one bishop being understanding and trying to set a reachable, reasonable goal date for repentance - while the other seems to get more and more off-topic with each meeting - is making this process unnecessarily painful and mentally exhausting. I don't understand - when both people have completely put the sin away and forsaken it, and have had the courage and faith to confess the sin - why is it so necessary to add insult to injury? Why can't we be told to pray, read scriptures, etc. and be able to move on without threats and judgments? Half of me is trying very hard to sustain this bishop (even though he is not mine), and the other half of me is saying that what he is doing/saying is flat out wrong.

You seem to be assumming that there has been no remorse here for either member of this transgression. I assure you there has been. Tell me, if a person who has transgressed has already felt immense guilt for that sin and has already turned from it - and on TOP of that has confessed the sin, would you care to explain to me the purpose in continuing that person's pain, or "real pain" as you call it? I guess the Savior felt our pain for nothing. Again, the difference seems to be that one bishop sees no use in furthering the damage done, and sees the importance in helping the person to move on and feel peace. The other has shown obvious anger, has mis-judged, and seems reluctant to just "let it pass" (which he wouldn't be doing anyway even if he were more merciful) Additionally, the person who has the more "harsh" bishop is by far the one who deserves it the least. So don't give me the whole "Well everyone gets what they deserve." That does not apply here.

When you and a significant other confess sins you committed together to each of your bishop's... and they both have completely different reactions? For example: One bishop - without making light of the sin - is understanding, compassionate, empathetic, and focuses on the atonement of Christ and mercy. Wants to make the repentance process as effective and short as possible so that you can move on with your life. The other bishop? Acts more like a robotic interrogator... makes the whole entire interview more of a systematized guilt-fest (followed by confessions of love and concern) and jumps to conclusions? Seems to want to make the repentance process hurt. I'm not starting this thread with the intention of disrespecting church leaders, but it just really gets to me...

Every response so far has been extremely helpful and insightful except for this one. Thanks to everyone else though.

If a couple has broken the law of chastity (not full blown intercourse, but oral, etc.), has followed all the steps of repentance save it for confession, goes months and months without repeating the sin, and then gets married in the temple after that long period of staying chaste, would the Lord regard that marriage as eternal and legit, or would that couple technically not be sealed for all eternity because they never told the bishop about what they had done in their past? A second question... if that couple decided AFTER they were married (say a matter of weeks/months/whatever afterward) to clear the air and tell their bishop about it (you know, "just in case), would there be a risk in their marriage being "revoked?" Can the church do that? Or would the Bishop tell them that they have finally completed their repentance? Or would it not matter since they were already sealed? Thanks for the input! Feel free to share any stories dealing with the same questions/scenarios.

Sweet, hope things go well for you