What Do You Do...

[Crywithasmile87]

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...

[Elgama]

each of your Bishop's is there for a reason and has the calling and keys to deal with the person they interview, the same Bishop may have been prompted to treat each person differently. Chances are the person being dealt with gets what they need.

If you really think its out of order and cannot sustain a Bishop in this then go to the Stake President and return and sustain the Bishop and allow the correct order of things to deal with it

-Charley

[Hemidakota]

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...

Different personalities are involved here. Whole purpose of confessing is to release the burden and not worry about the character of the Bishop, he has the mantel to release that burden under the guidance of the Spirit. Though, most Bishops do not have the mantel to forgive the Sin. Only the Savior and those who are sealed [ones] can forgive the sins. Being an interrogator does not negate the atonement but the atonement negates the confession.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Hemidakota

[rameumptom]

Bishops have different strengths and weaknesses. Yet they still hold the mantle. It is also a case of background of the man and woman. What is their level of repentance? How much remorse does each feel? The Spirit can tell each bishop to handle the situation as needed.

That said, sometimes Bishops can be lighter than they should be on serious sins. I was stake clerk to a stake president who was concerned because a branch president was not severe enough on a young man who returned from his mission, due to transgressions he did before his mission. He wished there was someone like me in the branch, who would have helped the boy truly repent, rather than get pampered and made feel like he really didn't do anything wrong.

Pain, real pain, causes us to truly hate the sin and to ensure we won't do it again. Consequences, when oversimplified or eased by a bishop or parent, does not help the person involved. We now live in a nation that seeks to absolve all guilt, pain and remorse. We're not going to be saved in such a world where absolution comes too easy.

At the same time, we need to remember mercy. But only where mercy is merited. True remorse brings mercy. Alma 32 teaches that those who are compelled to be humble are blessed, but more blessed are those who humble themselves without being compelled. Some need consequences to reach that level of humility to properly repent and respond, as they will not do it fully on their own.

[georgia2]

Even though Bishops are called of God, have the Priesthood and are A Judge in Israel, they are still just men. Men are not perfect. Bishops and Stake Presidents also make mistakes. When dealing with issues of such strong importance each would take into his counsel what he has had experience with.

Each calling a person receives is not only because they can help others BUT so that they can LEARN certain spiritual, and emotional insights that THEY NEED. Unfortunately that learning curve is in how they counsel and deal with the issues that they are given to deal with through their congregation.

In your case it would also bother me. HAve you considered going together to talk to your Bishops together? HAve you considered talking to your Stake President?

Also, sometimes when you feel that a mistake has been made and you have been treated more harshly than another, it can be a blessing in disguise. I've experienced it.

[Hemidakota]

In your case it would also bother me. HAve you considered going together to talk to your Bishops together? HAve you considered talking to your Stake President?

Excellent question....

Edited June 22, 2009 by Hemidakota

[Crywithasmile87]

Bishops have different strengths and weaknesses. Yet they still hold the mantle. It is also a case of background of the man and woman. What is their level of repentance? How much remorse does each feel? The Spirit can tell each bishop to handle the situation as needed.

That said, sometimes Bishops can be lighter than they should be on serious sins. I was stake clerk to a stake president who was concerned because a branch president was not severe enough on a young man who returned from his mission, due to transgressions he did before his mission. He wished there was someone like me in the branch, who would have helped the boy truly repent, rather than get pampered and made feel like he really didn't do anything wrong.

Pain, real pain, causes us to truly hate the sin and to ensure we won't do it again. Consequences, when oversimplified or eased by a bishop or parent, does not help the person involved. We now live in a nation that seeks to absolve all guilt, pain and remorse. We're not going to be saved in such a world where absolution comes too easy.

At the same time, we need to remember mercy. But only where mercy is merited. True remorse brings mercy. Alma 32 teaches that those who are compelled to be humble are blessed, but more blessed are those who humble themselves without being compelled. Some need consequences to reach that level of humility to properly repent and respond, as they will not do it fully on their own.

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.

[Elgama]

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?

.

noone else is the Bishop in the situation, my experience has been even when Bishop's make mistakes the Lord takes that into account and if we sustain them the Bishop's actions become what was supposed to happen in that circumstance. If its not yourself your talking about then you do not know the full story inside and out, the Lord does, he also knows the end from the beginning. For all you know the strength the person will gain from the situation will make other harder ones in their life easier to deal with - or maybe you know everything that will happen between this incident and the persons death?. Or may help them stop beating themselves up as someone else has taken that off their shoulders, maybe they will feel better at the end.

Sustain both Bishops or talk to the Stake President and then move on or bitterness will be the downfall. You are not the Bishop you don't have the keys, maybe one person needed to be treated kindly because there was no more growth for them but maybe the other can grow more, its upto them to find it.

-Charley

[georgia2]

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.

You would hope that when you bite the bullet, go in, confess to a leader some terribly personal and shameful event, you would be treated with sensitivity and humility. Sometimes that doesn't happen. Your test now is how YOU handle this one! Are you going to stay humble and repentative? Are you going to let anger, humiliation, and perceived mistreatment drive the Spirit away from you? We don't know why people react the way they do, (especially Bishops), but we are responsible for how WE react.

You have done your part in confessing your transgression. In order to receive the forgiveness you must still remain repentant and not let this experience with your Bishop cause you an even greater transgression. Let peace into your heart and spirit. Let the Holy Spirit guide you. This won't happen if you feel anger and resentment. Draw closer to Heavenly Father and let Him comfort and guide you. Remain humble in all situations and it will work out. Rest assured the Spirit WILL also guide this BIshop and He may be directed in a different way the next time you meet.

If you remain humble and open, this WILL eventually build your testimony. The strongest trees are those who have borne the greatest winds.

[Carl62]

You have done your part in confessing your transgression. In order to receive the forgiveness...

But I guess this is what I'm still wondering about. This kinda goes back to my "Forgiveness from God vs. Forgiveness from The Church" thread where a friend of mine and I were debating on whether you can go just straight to God to recieve forgiveness from your sins without having to go to your Bishop/Stake President, or if the Bishop is our line to repentance from God. So if you don't go to your bishop but are still repentant and ask God for forgiveness, does this mean then that God absolutely will NOT forgive you unless you go through the entire confession process? And if He will forgive you without confessing, then what's the point in going to your bishop? There's been 25 posts on my thread and I STILL haven't got a straight answer to this.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Carl62

[Soul_Searcher]

Bishops are just men. Of course they react different, in what time warp could any Bishop react identically to any given situation?

I understand your frustration though. Ive been in a similar situation myself. Thats why it sucks to have to confess in the first place, I dont get it, why it cant just be between you and God I dont know.

[ztodd]

But I guess this is what I'm still wondering about. This kinda goes back to my "Forgiveness from God vs. Forgiveness from The Church" thread where a friend of mine and I were debating on whether you can go just straight to God to recieve forgiveness from your sins without having to go to your Bishop/Stake President, or if the Bishop is our line to repentance from God. So if you don't go to your bishop but are still repentant and ask God for forgiveness, does this mean then that God absolutely will NOT forgive you unless you go through the entire confession process? And if He will forgive you without confessing, then what's the point in going to your bishop? There's been 25 posts on my thread and I STILL haven't got a straight answer to this.

The point in going to the bishop is to show God you are willing to confess and forsake your sins and make restitution if possible. Even if it's possible to gain complete forgiveness without going to bishop (and I'm not sure if it is), your Heavenly Father would want you to go to your bishop to show true humility.

Let's consider a case where you have a child that does something wrong, and the child confesses to you or you find out about it - like stealing something from a fellow student in their school class. Do you think the child should go and confess to the student and to the teacher? Or was it good enough that your child confessed to you?

[Carl62]

Let's consider a case where you have a child that does something wrong, and the child confesses to you or you find out about it - like stealing something from a fellow student in their school class. Do you think the child should go and confess to the student and to the teacher? Or was it good enough that your child confessed to you?

Thanks for that example ztodd. I agree with you 100% and that makes my point even more. If I had a child who stole something from another child, yes I would definitely want him to go to the student and apologize and make amends. That would make 100% sense and be very fair all-round. Now, would we need to get the principal or even the teacher in on this? I don't think so. What would be the point? If everything can easily be taken care of between you and the party you offended and it's promised that it'll never happen again, then what's the point of bringing in the middle man?

[georgia2]

I haven't read the other post. But this is what I have been taught and feel is right for me. I have also been on all sides of this situation also so know where you are coming from.

THere are certain levels of transgression. All of us sin every day. If we are human, we sin. The process of growing spiritually brings us to be able to over come our temptations in steps. The stronger we grow spiritually the more we will be able to overcome the BIG transgressions. (hopefully) then we begin to work on the lesser nuances of our progression. What I mean is, lets say we have overcome drinking and smoking but now realize we need to work on not thinking ill of someone else.

Now in this progress Heavenly Father knows we will transgress and gives us the opportunity to go directly to Him to ask forgiveness and also strength to overcome this and also for Him to help us recognize when we are offending the Spirit. These things are transgressions but not so much so that we need to go to a Judge in Israel to confess. Heavier transgressions that we have been taught that He finds SUPER offensive, we need to get help with. These things such as adultery, murder, abuse of another person, repetitive sexual offensives, (like habitual pornography) we need to get help with. It is set up this way because when we transgress on this level, we have gone over a certain point and Satan has a pretty good hold on us, so to speak. Also we need to know through the proper authority that when we have fully repented, another person ( The Bishop) will receive inspiration from the SPirit and tell us that this has happened. If we don't do this then Satan has a tool to make us feel bad about ourselves for eternity! You think "Oh my Gosh! I did such horrible things there is no way I could be forgiven or feel good about my self." Heavenly Father doesn't want us to beat ourselves up when we are honestly trying to overcome and are making Him proud. The Bishop also has the right to inspiration for his congregation which is very helpful when someone has grieved the Spirit and it no longer is with them.. When He can't get the message through to us by the Spirit, then He can get the message through to you by the counsel of the Bishop.

Now agreed, they aren't perfect! But this is the plan and the way it is set up for ALL of our benefit. I know that I have been forgiven for heinous things (in my opinion) because I have gone through this process and am progressing, go to the temple, and strive to live all of the commandments. BUt, every once in a while a vile thought will break into my consciousness and remind me of something in my past. I find it so ugly and shameful that IF I didn't know I was forgiven through those steps set up, those things would torment me.

Now I do find myself transgressing, but on a much lesser scale. Like saying a cuss word, or thinking an ugly thought about someone , or gossiping. These things I can take t HEavenly Father myself and work out forgiveness and help from Him. This isn't to say that you don't talk to Him when you have committed a more serious sin, of course you do. But the added step of going though a Judge in Israel helps us move on the process more rapidly and throughly.

[Crywithasmile87]

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.

[Elgama]

Thanks for that example ztodd. I agree with you 100% and that makes my point even more. If I had a child who stole something from another child, yes I would definitely want him to go to the student and apologize and make amends. That would make 100% sense and be very fair all-round. Now, would we need to get the principal or even the teacher in on this? I don't think so. What would be the point? If everything can easily be taken care of between you and the party you offended and it's promised that it'll never happen again, then what's the point of bringing in the middle man?

even the Saviour could not be baptised without John the Baptist, sometimes a third party is necessary

-Charley

[Elgama]

if he is exerting unrighteous dominion then talk to the Stake President.

-Charley]

[Helgi]

each of your Bishop's is there for a reason and has the calling and keys to deal with the person they interview, the same Bishop may have been prompted to treat each person differently. Chances are the person being dealt with gets what they need.

If you really think its out of order and cannot sustain a Bishop in this then go to the Stake President and return and sustain the Bishop and allow the correct order of things to deal with it

-Charley

Hear hear!

Elgama is right. The Bishops have the keys, and represent Christ, as they are his envoys.

The question remains, were both bishops given ALL the facts. Sometimes, people say:"It´s all right, because we love each other."

But is it LOVE OR LUST. If you love and respect one another, then you can wait.

It´s hard owing to sexual drive of differing proportions, but well worth the wait.

[Carl62]

even the Saviour could not be baptised without John the Baptist, sometimes a third party is necessary

-Charley

You have the Savior, then John the Baptist. So where's the 3rd party there? Don't get the connection on that one.

[Carl62]

The Bishops have the keys, and represent Christ

Christ wouldn't give you two radically different responses for the same problem. It would make a LOT more sense if the two Bishops got together and discussed and prayed about this and resolve this with ONE mutual answer, then that way everybody and everything would all be on the same page. The way that this is going down is utterly ridiculous! I know I may get slammed for this, but I honestly believe that God is NOT in support of how this is all turning out. (1 Cor. 14:33)

Edited June 22, 2009 by Carl62

[Crywithasmile87]

Hear hear!

Elgama is right. The Bishops have the keys, and represent Christ, as they are his envoys.

The question remains, were both bishops given ALL the facts. Sometimes, people say:"It´s all right, because we love each other."

But is it LOVE OR LUST. If you love and respect one another, then you can wait.

It´s hard owing to sexual drive of differing proportions, but well worth the wait.

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

[Crywithasmile87]

You have the Savior, then John the Baptist. So where's the 3rd party there? Don't get the connection on that one.

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

[Crywithasmile87]

Christ wouldn't give you two radically different responses for the same problem. It would make a LOT more sense if the two Bishops got together and discussed and prayed about this and resolve this with ONE mutual answer, then that way everybody and everything would all be on the same page. The way that this is going down is utterly ridiculous!

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.

[rameumptom]

Thanks for that example ztodd. I agree with you 100% and that makes my point even more. If I had a child who stole something from another child, yes I would definitely want him to go to the student and apologize and make amends. That would make 100% sense and be very fair all-round. Now, would we need to get the principal or even the teacher in on this? I don't think so. What would be the point? If everything can easily be taken care of between you and the party you offended and it's promised that it'll never happen again, then what's the point of bringing in the middle man?

Carl,

I think you are missing part of the point. When we sin big, we often sin against the Church itself, which is represented by our bishop. If you stole from a store, you would go to the store manager, who represents the store. If you have made covenants of baptism/priesthood/temple, and sin big, you have sinned against the Church in this. Perhaps your bad example may even leave the Church in a bad light. For this, you need to confess.

The Bishop's also there as a judge in Israel to help you repent and get your life back on track. If you only confess to God, do you think you are ready to go in to see the bishop and stake president for a temple recommend interview? What would you say in the interview? Or would you stay out of the temple, simply to avoid speaking to the bishop about the sin (I have known people like that)?

[Misshalfway]

Well, if you don't do big sins, then you don't have to confess them. :)