bytor2112 Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 I have a friend who recently went to see there Bishop regarding some ancient transgressions... just to clear it up I guess. He told the Bishop the name of the sins but no details. His Bishop sent him to the Stake President. He said the Stake President asked him a few questions and didn't ask any details. but in the process uncovered another sin. In the end the Stake President thanked him for coming in and explained that he felt as though he (my friend) was already repentant. Much to his relief.He asked me a couple of things: 1. Was his confession ok... no details just the name of the sin. (he didn't tell me, I didn't ask)2. Did what the SP said take presedence over his Bishop?3. Since he told the SP things he didn't tell his Bishop, does he now need to tell his Bishop?He is a Melchizedic Priesthood holder now, wasn't when he transgressed. I told him that I thought his Bishop sent him to the SP because techniquely he is his eclesiastical leader and the buck stops whith him, so to speak. He worries that he didn't confess correctly or maybe he could have expressed his sin differently or that he should have been more detailed. I told him that the SP is set apart to make these type of decisions and to relax and be happy.Any comments for my friend would be appreciated. I hope to get him on the forum soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prospectmom Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 The Stake pres rules and he dosen't have to keep repenting over and over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Misshalfway Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Much of the process is discernment of the Spirit. Perhaps the details weren't important because the SP was feeling the heart of this persons spirit. Perhaps if he still feels burdened, he could pray those details out in a confession to God. The most important discernment is that of the repentance state of your friend. He took care of what was required. The SP said it was enough. Your dear friend needs now to forgive himself and set himself free from his history and live in the freedom and cleanliness of the now. And yes. The SP is the final word. Bishop doesn't need to know anymore at this point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adeipho Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Your "friend" has obeyed the Lord's command to confess his sins. If what ever he did deeded to be told to the bishop, then the SP will do so. Your friend is in the clear since he has repented to the Lord and also done as commanded and confessed to the bishop and SP. Its all good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Palerider Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 The Stake President will let the Bishop know about your conversation and will probally encourage him to speak with you. It will not be a confession type session. He will probally just speak with you and offer encouragement. Welcome back!!!:) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 I have a friend who recently went to see there Bishop regarding some ancient transgressions... just to clear it up I guess. He told the Bishop the name of the sins but no details. His Bishop sent him to the Stake President. He said the Stake President asked him a few questions and didn't ask any details. but in the process uncovered another sin. In the end the Stake President thanked him for coming in and explained that he felt as though he (my friend) was already repentant. Much to his relief.He asked me a couple of things: 1. Was his confession ok... no details just the name of the sin. (he didn't tell me, I didn't ask)2. Did what the SP said take presedence over his Bishop?3. Since he told the SP things he didn't tell his Bishop, does he now need to tell his Bishop?He is a Melchizedic Priesthood holder now, wasn't when he transgressed. I told him that I thought his Bishop sent him to the SP because techniquely he is his eclesiastical leader and the buck stops whith him, so to speak. He worries that he didn't confess correctly or maybe he could have expressed his sin differently or that he should have been more detailed. I told him that the SP is set apart to make these type of decisions and to relax and be happy.Any comments for my friend would be appreciated. I hope to get him on the forum soon.A friend huh? Okay.Neither the Stake Pres, nor the Bishop, grant forgiveness - that comes from God and the Atonement. Speaking with Ecclesiatical authorities merely puts him right with the Church and hopefully provides guidance.He has done his duty and nor it's between him and his maker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytor2112 Posted July 8, 2008 Author Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Yes, a friend. I went through repentance quite some time ago and he knew that I had so he asked me about my experience. I posted my experince with repentance a while back. I think he, and I understand this, felt like it would be a much more complicated and drawn our process. It wasn't so it left him with some questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VisionOfLehi Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 I think one of the hardest think about being forgiven is forgiving yourself.If he's repentant, then the LORD has forgotten it.But your friend hasn't. I haven't forgotten my sins, either. But if I don't pick them up again, then I don't have to worry.I believe this is a relevant scripture: 28 ¶ Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. 29 Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. 30 For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Your friend may have been sent to the Stake President because the Bishop might have recognized potential for Church Disciplinary Action. Disciplinary Action against Melchizedek Priesthood holders (even if the sin was before they had it conferred upon them) falls under the jurisdiction of the Stake President. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justice Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 The reason the Bishop sent him to the Stake President is because if there is to be any action against a Melkizedek Priesthood holder, it is the Stake President who presides, not the Bishop. If I were your friend I would take his Stake President at his word concerning his level of repentance. If you follow the direction of a Priesthood holder with keys who presides over you, you are in a unique win/win situation. The only way you can go wrong is to not take his counsel. Because if you do, and it is wrong, he is the one who is wrong, not you. Oops, I didn't see MarginOfError's post. Oh well, in the mouth of two witnesses... :) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarginOfError Posted July 8, 2008 Report Share Posted July 8, 2008 Actually, I was preemptively repeating what you had to say, Justice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.