Are Confessions Kept Confidential by Bishops?

[Guest MormonGator]

5 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

I will say that I've been involved in a handful of disciplinary matters over the decades, either as executive secretary, ward clerk, or poor dude sitting in the hot seat.

What happens if the person resigns before the disciplinary meeting is held? Just curious, nothing more. Not a challenge or anything. 

[NeuroTypical]

Well, bishops and stake presidents have responsibility over members of the flock.  If someone has removed themselves from the rolls of the church, there's no member of the flock to discipline, and no reason for the church to hold a council.  

This is something that has been infrequently applied in the past.  Its hard to trust what you hear critical exmormons claim, but I think there may have been a lawsuit or two a decade or two ago that helped solidify church policy. 

[clbent04]

5 hours ago, Carborendum said:

It's all part of a bigger picture than "I had to tell my dad about it."

I could see that

[clbent04]

4 hours ago, anatess2 said:

Disagree.  Completely.  I can't even believe I'm reading this.

In a family of parents and children, the FATHER, if he has a righteous priesthood, is the Patriarch of that house and has the moral AUTHORITY more so than the Bishop.  @clbent04 should have confessed to his Father first.

A teen not wanting to talk to his Father is a denial of this Priesthood (and parental) authority and should be treated as an unrepentant kid who needs to learn more humility and discipline.

Now, if the Father abdicated his rights as a Patriarch through unrighteousness, then the Bishop will be the next in authority over that family.

 

You can't believe you're reading this because you don't have enough imagination to understand members grow up in different households.  My upbringing was very different from yours as was the upbringing of @LiterateParakeet.  The notion that "the Patriarch of that house and has the moral AUTHORITY more so than the Bishop" and that minors should confess sins to their dads first is not practiced or even expected in every Mormon household. Honestly this is the first time I've heard that's even a thing practiced or adhered to by Mormon families

Edited August 9, 2017 by clbent04

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

You can't believe you're reading this because you don't have enough imagination to understand members grow up in different households.  My upbringing was very different from yours as was the upbringing of @LiterateParakeet.  The notion that "the Patriarch of that house and has the moral AUTHORITY more so than the Bishop" and that minors should confess sins to their dads first is not practiced or even expected in every Mormon household. Honestly this is the first time I've heard that's even a thing practiced or adhered to by Mormon families

@anatess2,

I have to agree with him here.  I've never heard that either.  Could you have a family dynamic where this is most appropriate?  Ok.  Maybe.  But I haven't heard that you're FIRST supposed to confess things like this to your father, then the bishop.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

10 minutes ago, clbent04 said:

 My upbringing was very different from yours as was the upbringing of @LiterateParakeet.  

 

4 hours ago, Carborendum said:

That's just it, isn't it?  Is the father a worthy priesthood holder?  Is he presiding over his home with the guidance of the Spirit?

If he is exercising unrighteous dominion, then it would be horrific to have to tell him about it.  If not, then it is appropriate.  The bishop is supposed to be in a position to know.  We could say that we all make mistakes.  But is it a mistake to "expect" the father to be a worthy priesthood holder? He should be.  If not, should that be on the head of the bishop?

Lots of questions that I don't have the answers to.

Thanks clbent and Carb.  You said it better than I could have.  I realize that my experience colors my thinking on this (but it is true no less for everyone else as well.) Unfortunately, my experience in less than ideal fathers is hardly unique.  Neither of my step-fathers were active members (one was a non-member and the other less active.)  But I belong to a group on Facebook of women abused as chidren who grew up in LDS homes where they were abused by their Priesthood holding fathers.  I have a friend whose father was a Bishop when she was a girl.  She said he was a great Bishop for the ward, but at home he was physically abusive.  Those of us who lived with abusive fathers don't sing, "I'm so glad when Daddy comes home."  As teens, we would not confess to the Bishop if we knew that meant involving our fathers in any way.  I shudder to think of it. 

[Guest MormonGator]

2 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

 

Thanks clbent and Carb.  You said it better than I could have.  I realize that my experience colors my thinking on this (but it is true no less for everyone else as well.) Unfortunately, my experience in less than ideal fathers is hardly unique.  Neither of my step-fathers were active members (one was a non-member and the other less active.)  But I belong to a group on Facebook of women abused as chidren who grew up in LDS homes where they were abused by their Priesthood holding fathers.  I have a friend whose father was a Bishop when she was a girl.  She said he was a great Bishop for the ward, but at home he was physically abusive.  Those of us who lived with abusive fathers don't sing, "I'm so glad when Daddy comes home."  As teens, we would not confess to the Bishop if we knew that meant involving our fathers in any way.  I shudder to think of it. 

I'm so glad your schedule allows you to post more @LiterateParakeet. We've missed you. 

[person0]

@clbent04,

I am late to this party, however, in my opinion you ought to have confessed to your father, possibly even before confessing to your bishop.  Your father was the steward over your household when you were a teenager, it is his responsibility to protect you physically and spiritually to the best of his ability.  Not going to your father/parents about it has a similar effect on your household to how the Angel Moroni would not appear to Joseph Smith and the Three Witnesses until Martin Harris left, due to Martin Harris' unworthiness.  Just as the Liahona did not work when Laman and Lemuel were wicked.  Regardless of whether or not your bishop went too far (I have trouble thinking he did since you were a minor), he should not have even been placed in that situation in the first place.

[anatess2]

2 hours ago, clbent04 said:

You can't believe you're reading this because you don't have enough imagination to understand members grow up in different households.  My upbringing was very different from yours as was the upbringing of @LiterateParakeet.  The notion that "the Patriarch of that house and has the moral AUTHORITY more so than the Bishop" and that minors should confess sins to their dads first is not practiced or even expected in every Mormon household. Honestly this is the first time I've heard that's even a thing practiced or adhered to by Mormon families

This has nothing to do with upbringing and everything to do with the GREAT RESPONSIBILITY that God heaped on the heads of parents so much so that failure to raise their children righteously can have the sins of their children heaped on their heads.  You, as a child, should respect that.  It is cowardice to think you have the courage to tell your Bishop but not your own Father who is responsible for your upbringing.  And it is the height of disrespect to say you don't even want to.  A commandment so important it is listed right after honoring God is to honor thy parents.  It is so important that even your bishop tried to get you to do the right thing!

Edited August 9, 2017 by anatess2

[NeuroTypical]

So, clbent04, does this apply?

Bishop: Go tell your father.
You: I'm afraid he'll hurt me.  He [put out his cigar on me/beat me until I passed out/withheld food and humiliated me in public] me last time I did something wrong.

Because if that doesn't apply, you should follow your bishop's advice.  And if it does apply, you should tell your bishop.

Edited August 9, 2017 by NeuroTypical

[zil]

35 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

This has nothing to do with upbringing and everything to do with the GREAT RESPONSIBILITY that God heaped on the heads of parents so much so that failure to raise their children righteously can have the sins of their children heaped on their heads.  You, as a child, should respect that.  It is cowardice to think you have the courage to tell your Bishop but not your own Father who is responsible for your upbringing.  And it is the height of disrespect to say you don't even want to.  A commandment so important it is listed right after honoring God is to honor thy parents.  It is so important that even your bishop tried to get you to do the right thing!

Do you hold this position even when the father is abusive (e.g. see @NeuroTypical's post)?

[Vort]

Here is my understanding:

The parents have primary responsibility for the physical, mental, emotional,  AND SPIRITUAL well-being of their children. The father as Priesthood holder is specifically responsible for spiritual matters; see The Family : A Proclamation to the World. Thus, when a child experiences spiritual damage, such as by sinning, s/he should ideally counsel with his/her parents, especially father.

The bishop, acting in his role as the common judge in Israel, has SOLE responsibility* for determining worthiness for participation and membership in the kingdomof God. The father has no direct responsibility in this at all (unless he happens to be the bishop). Thus, when a young person does something that could potentially affect his/her membership, s/he must counsel with the bishop. No exceptions that I know of. Talking to your father is not sufficient.

*Except for holders of the Melchizedek Priesthood, who are subject to their quorum leader, the stake president. The stake presidency also signs off on temple recommends, so that is arguably not the sole responsibility of the bishop.

But the bishop has more than one role. He also must counsel and otherwise help his flock. So what happens when the bishop, acting as an advisor, instructs a young man to talk with his father about a personal matter? I see that as a serious matter. Perhaps in saying that, the bishop is not acting as a common judge, but as an advisor. Nevertheless, as we were told as recentlyas the last General Conference, we should NEVER ignore the counsel of our bishop.

[JohnsonJones]

Some thoughts on the matter.

A Father holds jurisdiction above a Bishop in some matters. 

There are thoughts that when you are in the final judgment, the one to judge you will the be the Lord.  This is true.

There are some thoughts that the Lord can delegate, and hence though he oversees it, in many instances these will be the twelve apostles judging those who were under their apostleship.  This may also be true.

The church is set in a form that is similar to that of heaven.

In this, the higher functions can be delegated to the lower leaders.  In heaven, it is NOT a stake or a ward that is the primary unit, it is the family.  Hence, the lines of delegation go either through the priesthood lines, or via the genealogical lines.  If genealogical, then it is IMPERATIVE that the temple work that connects you back in the genologies of time is completed.

If, it is delegated, it means that judgment can be delegated to someone who knew you best in this life, or at least was closest to you in this life in your local heavenly unit...which is your family.

What this means.

Your Bishop is a judge in Israel for a set time (normally around 5 years).  He is accountable for what he does during that time.  For serious sins, confessions SHOULD be given to him to determine worthiness and membership in the church.

However, when in heaven, the power of judgment is the Lord's to delegate as he wills.

Some feel, that for LDS families, that judgment will fall upon righteous fathers of family units (if those fathers were righteous...of course) to judge their families.

Hence, for that eternal judgment, in some ways, it is very much on one to HONOR YOUR FATHER AND MOTHER...in a far stronger sense than one can emphasize.

That said, if I were your Bishop at that time (and I wasn't, at least as far as I know), I wouldn't have not done what your Bishop did.  However, I would have probably had restrictions on you in regards to what you may or may not do at church which would remain until you had humbled yourself sufficiently for repentance, which would include informing your parents.

Edited August 10, 2017 by JohnsonJones

[Anddenex]

@clbent04 -- I will begin my thoughts with the first question, "Are Confessions Kept Confidential by Bishops?" A truthful answer they should be; however, bishops are human and sadly there are plenty of examples where a bishop has not kept confidentiality, casually or strictly. This reminds me of a funny story in my teen years. I was busy talking to other teens and the bishop pointed us out (note, I didn't hear what he was saying before his question to us), and said, 'Raise your hand if I have." Well, as an obedient teenager, I raised my hand. The previous statement was, "Have I ever not been confidential"? By which his response to my affirmative raise of hand, "Anddenex, NO I HAVE NOT." Everyone laughed because they knew I was only being obedient to "raise your hand." Doh!

In the scenario provided, "Yes, confidentiality was kept between you and the bishop." The bishop was honoring your father's stewardship, and as steward (sealing & covenant) your actions reflect upon your father/mother. As others have mentioned, the father is supposed to be the spiritual leader in your home. In a perfect world, sons should first come to their father (as the sons of Adam would have come to him), confess and then together the father and son (an eternal bond) then go to the bishop.

As we are not in a perfect world, there are other avenues. One is the avenue you took, confession to your bishop, by which the bishop honors stewardship inviting you to speak with your father. There are other avenues, what if your bishop is your father, and you are not ready to confess to your father/bishop? Well, this scenario has already been given a avenue as well, confess to your stake president. The stake president will work with you, and eventually you (general) will speak with your father/bishop. There are proper avenues, and their are acceptable avenues.

We all hope, as fathers, that we have a relationship with our sons and daughters that they will come to us first, and then together we take them through the proper channels of confession. In every confession I have known of, involving youth, the youth is invited to talk with their parents. If they don't, then the bishop, possibly through council with stake president, will encourage parents to have a one-on-one with their child. In some cases, this is an opportunity for the parents to review their relationship with their own offspring, their heirs.

[Sunday21]

Hmmm. Both parents and bishops are flawed. Sometimes very flawed.

 I have had a bishop tell me confidential info about a ward member. Financial details.Most of my bishops have had some fairly serious problems interacting with reality. 

Most people that I grew up with would never tell their parents about a sexual transgression. Why? Parents try but they often behave like jerks. Not that they are bad people but that being a parent is tough. 24/7. Balancing a relationship with your spouse, earning a living, managing a calling, so your relationship with your kids reflects your state of exhaustion. In addition, some parents behave like children in their relationships with their children.

An an example, I have a family member who in many ways I really respect. She is frequently intelligent and kind but she and her husband compete for the love of their daughter. They relay messages to each other through the daughter and try to win the daughter's affection by denigrating the other parent. Most parents are pretty screwed up in some aspects of their relationship with their children.

If we have a rule that minors have to confess sexual sins to their parents, then this is a rule that will reduce the rate of confessions to bishops. 

Edited August 10, 2017 by Sunday21

[estradling75]

3 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

Hmmm. Both parents and bishops are flawed. Sometimes very flawed.

 

Of course they are flawed... everyone is flawed, and some of those flaws can be dangerous and hurtful to others...

But that doesn't change the fact that we can't hide behind the flaws of others as an excuse not to do the will of the Lord.

The young man went to the Bishop to confess sins (as is the will of the Lord).  The Bishop in is role as Judge in Israel took into account the situation (a minor in a sexual transgression) and made the judgement that as part of the repentance process this Minor needed to inform his parents.  The minor protested (Which if abuse was feared would be the perfect time to share those fears).  The bishop hearing the Minor's protests evaluated them and then chose to stand firm.

If the OP wants to come back and say he told the bishop that he feared abuse then we can assume the bishop made a mistake and was flawed in this place..  But otherwise we should assume that the Bishop knows what his is doing and is following the spirit.  And it is the task of the Minor to follow the council given no matter how hard or embarrassing he found it.

[clbent04]

Considering everything said in this thread, I see my situation with my former bishop as a clear breach of confidentiality even just hinting and not blatantly stating the information that is to be kept confidential.

Now, with that said, I'm actually a lot less disgruntled about the situation just from hearing from a lot of you that this is just how it works in the church. I thought I was dealing with a rogue bishop that was taking the law into his own hands outside church protocol.

So my takeaway is confessions to a bishop are not required to be held in strict confidence.  And that's fine with me. I get why it makes sense to involve parents in situations like these

Edited August 11, 2017 by clbent04

[Just_A_Guy]

I would agree with those who have cautioned against an overly mechanical view of repentance.  To "repent" simply means "to change".  Change involves surrender.  The fundamental question isn't whether I checked off every one of the "seven r's"; it's whether I comprehend the way I have damaged myself and whether I am diligently using every available resource to find my way back.  That process almost always benefits from--and sometimes requires--outside aid.  Hence, the involvement of presumably-righteous bishops and hopefully-righteous parents.  Trying to do repentance alone suggests a lack of surrender; and trying to out-lawyer the bishop hints at . . . something that comes uncomfortably close to open rebellion.  

It sounds like our views of parents (and bishops, for that matter) is largely influenced by our personal histories.  And I think time does a lot to mellow the angst of youth.  But my perspective now, in my mid-thirties, is this:  My dad is a good man who was anointed to become a king and a priest in the temple of our God.  What does Dad's kingdom consist of?  Brigham Young says it consists of me and my siblings.  It doesn't seem like a stretch to conclude that my dad is, in a very real sense, my priest.  When someone stands over my grave at a future date and performs the priesthood ordinance reuniting my spirit with an incorruptible body--it's probably going to be Dad.  (No, we don't openly talk about this much in Sunday school.  Maybe we should.)  So, why wouldn't I ask for his help in untangling a spiritual mess I've created for myself?

I sure wish I thought this way twenty years ago.  Woulda saved me a lot of trouble.  

Edited August 11, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

12 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I would agree with those who have cautioned against an overly mechanical view of repentance.  To "repent" simply means "to change".  Change involves surrender.  The fundamental question isn't whether I checked off every one of the "seven r's"; it's whether I comprehend the way I have damaged myself and whether I am diligently using every available resource to find my way back.  That process almost always benefits from--and sometimes requires--outside aid.  Hence, the involvement of presumably-righteous bishops and hopefully-righteous parents.  Trying to do repentance alone suggests a lack of surrender; and trying to out-lawyer the bishop hints at . . . something that comes uncomfortably close to open rebellion.  

It sounds like our views of parents (and bishops, for that matter) is largely influenced by our personal histories.  And I think time does a lot to mellow the angst of youth.  But my perspective now, in my mid-thirties, is this:  My dad is a good man who was anointed to become a king and a priest in the temple of our God.  What does Dad's kingdom consist of?  Brigham Young says it consists of me and my siblings.  It doesn't seem like a stretch to conclude that my dad is, in a very real sense, my priest.  When someone stands over my grave at a future date and performs the priesthood ordinance reuniting my spirit with an incorruptible body--it's probably going to be Dad.  (No, we don't openly talk about this much in Sunday school.  Maybe we should.)  So, why wouldn't I ask for his help in untangling a spiritual mess I've created for myself?

I sure wish I thought this way twenty years ago.  Woulda saved me a lot of trouble.  

One thing I am grateful for having grown up in the Philippines is that this relationship between parents and children - including grandparents, great grandparents, etc. etc. are still pretty much intact.

One thing I try my best to do now that I'm in the US is to try to build these relationships among the people under my sphere of influence starting with my own children.  I cannot imagine my kid doing something so impactful and not plead to his father for help.  He may not come to me (as there are some things that are talked about from boy to man) but he will go to his father.  And we've been through something similar.  I, as the mother, sensed something wrong for weeks.  I asked him what's up but he was not ready to talk.  So, I waited it out and just made sure he didn't do anything stupid.  He finally went into desperation (so much that he thought of ending his life) and went to his father.  After a long talk, we held a somber family council and he and his younger brother did some kind of purging ritual of their own making to mark the end of that chapter.  He came out of that day with what seems like years of maturity heaped on his shoulder.

Edited August 11, 2017 by anatess2