Sam Young, the prototypical model, the enemy of the church?


Rob Osborn
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, wenglund said:

To me, it is analogous to whipping up public drama over a slow leaking facet  when the flood tide is pouring over the banks and a tsunami is about to crash over head, if it hasn't already. ;)

Thanks.

Is everyone certain that this is such a small issue?  Because, at least in the small circle of contacts that i maintain, there are a lot of people who are subjected to explicit and unwanted probing by their ecclesiastical leaders.  

And as far as the tsunami of evil sex education in public schools - i'm curious - people who have kids in the public school systems - what is the curriculum that is being taught?  i have looked at a few school district websites and it seems to be mostly abstinence, recommending birth control if you aren't going to be abstinent, and reporting abuse.  That was all it was when i was in the public schools - not that long ago - and i'm curious if it has changed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Is everyone certain that this is such a small issue?  Because, at least in the small circle of contacts that i maintain, there are a lot of people who are subjected to explicit and unwanted probing by their ecclesiastical leaders.

Pretty sure no one is ever required to undergo any such probing. If they find themselves subjected to such probing, it's because they freely agreed to it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks.

Is everyone certain that this is such a small issue?  Because, at least in the small circle of contacts that i maintain, there are a lot of people who are subjected to explicit and unwanted probing by their ecclesiastical leaders.  

And as far as the tsunami of evil sex education in public schools - i'm curious - people who have kids in the public school systems - what is the curriculum that is being taught?  i have looked at a few school district websites and it seems to be mostly abstinence, recommending birth control if you aren't going to be abstinent, and reporting abuse.  That was all it was when i was in the public schools - not that long ago - and i'm curious if it has changed.

Depends on your state or nation.

Rules in place now (and I think it's not just my area, but church wide) normally dissuade LDS leaders from going into explicit discussions and/or asking questions beyond what the church has stated.  Further questions are allowed, but only as pertains to the situation and as the spirit dictates, not as per what an individual may decide at their leisure or pleasure.  Furthermore, one is not supposed to delve into educating one on these subjects or dwell into these things, that is supposed to be the arena of the parents.  You need to discuss to hear their answers, and if needed in regards to chastity, to determine how to pursue repentance.  That does not require explicit detail as far as I'm concerned, and those who pursue it to explicit detail to a degree where it is more than what is necessary to determine a route of repentance are not acting in accordance with what has been expressed about interviews recently (directly from the church's new directives no less).

I have heard that a few areas (in Utah) are NOT following this and have been directed to be more explicit, but that is rumor and gossip (which, technically means I have sinned since I think we are supposed to avoid rumor and gossip).  That's what I've heard though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

On this specifically, judge not that ye be not judged.  We can only know for ourselves on where we may stand.  In regards to others, let he who atoned for us do the judging.  It is my PERSONAL belief that he is FAR more forgiving than many give him credit for. 

In that light, going to a Bishop is NOT to forgive one of their sins.  They CAN be forgiven of their sins without a Bishop.  This is a common misunderstanding.  The Bishop is a temporal judge.  It is his job to judge one's standing in Israel, or within the church.  There are some sins that need to have help to overcome, and this is where the Bishop stands.  However, the Bishop has NO ability to help forgive or to forgive any sins at all.  We are NOT the Catholic Church and do not believe that the Lord invests this power in Bishops, Priests or others.  The Bishop is there to facilitate repentance and to help someone overcome their sins.  No Bishop has any ability to waive or forgive a sin.  They CAN help people KNOW that they are forgiven of their sins, and to help those that are not repentant to try to obtain that humility to repent.  However, the ONLY one that forgives a sin is he who paid the price of those sins, namely our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. 

I feel that he is normally going to forgive us just about as quickly as we repent of most sins.  The problem remains that we do not forgive ourselves, or we cannot accept that forgiveness from him.  If one had to confess to a Bishop to be forgiven, then you'd have to confess every little sin that you ever committed to a Bishop.  Instead, we have the miracle of the atonement which allows it to be more personal and between an individual and the Lord.

This is NOT to negate the need of someone to go to their Bishop, and I am not saying that.  However, I am not going to state that someone who does not turn to their Bishop cannot ever be forgiven of serious sin if they follow the steps of repentance as given by the Lord in the Scriptures (which actually does NOT define that you have to confess to a Bishop, that's more of our current policies in the church) and the Lord forgives them.  I do not dictate to the Lord what he can or cannot do.

That said, if one has committed serious sin they SHOULD and NEED to confess to their Bishop.  Invariably they will find that path far easier and kinder than suffering through it on their own, and paying the price with their own way then if they had gone to their Bishop instead...IN MY OPINION.  If one thinks that they will escape a harsh path by keeping it to themselves, they are only kidding themselves most likely.  I would imagine that those who choose that path instead of going to their Bishop for serious sin, are instead choosing a path to repentance that will be far harder on them and tougher to overcome in the long run (and in some instances, when left to one's own devices...nigh impossible).

 

Addendum:  It should also be noted that there are SOME SINS that will most likely NOT be forgiven of in this life, and some that will NOT be forgiven in this life.  Normally sins of that caliber require excommunication and go directly to an authority FAR higher than a Bishop.  Such sins as these go to the First Presidency.  They make the final decisions on whether these sins were acceptable or what level they are taken or if that individual remains excommunicated.

In addition, serious sins that are beyond the Bishops scope to help normally go up to the Stake Level and are handled by those who have the greater keys and judgment than a Bishop has.

Once again I am partially in agreement with you. At the end of the day, of course it is Jesus Christ who forgives us of sin. It is only by and through His Atonement that sin is wiped from our souls. But He has told us how to be forgiven of our worst sins, and it involves talking to our Bishop. We are forgiven, not because the Bishop has some power to forgive sin, but because Christ has told us to speak to our Bishop, and by talking to the Bishop we are following His commandment. As I've mentioned several times, I support the church's policies, and I am not judging those who won't speak to the Bishop now. Far from it, I'm worried about them because I have been there. Concern for my brothers and sisters spiritual pain is not judgement. I have been spared pain, suffering, and spiritual darkness by being open and honest with my priesthood leaders. I think, personally, that now many will choose to suffer out of embarrassment, rather then laying their burdens at the feet of the Lord. Plus, I have recieved spirtual power and strength from speaking to my Bishop, because the Lord expected me too and was blessing me for following His commandments. I know Bishops have no power on their own, but they do act with the power and authority of Jesus Christ when they use His priesthood and they do have power through Him.

Edited by Midwest LDS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Is everyone certain that this is such a small issue?  Because, at least in the small circle of contacts that i maintain, there are a lot of people who are subjected to explicit and unwanted probing by their ecclesiastical leaders.  

Personally, I suspect it's like when you buy a particular car and suddenly every third car you see on the road is the same model.  I'm guessing because of your own situation, you seek out those who have left the Church, or are unhappy with the Church, or something along those lines - of course you're going to find a higher percentage of such people there than exists in the Church as a whole.  People with similar complaints (or interests or hobbies or careers or reading habits) are going to seek each other out and congregate.

Meanwhile, I'm just dying to know the definition of "explicit" by those with these negative experiences.  I understand that you probably don't want to post an example or definition publicly (or doing so might even be breaking the rules), but if you're willing to IM one or a link to one, I promise not to get the vapors and to give a report back here on just how explicit the example is and my opinion of whether it's inappropriate or not.  I suspect I'm not the only one here curious about just what these complaints are.  (As I'm having a hard time believing anyone except an immoral, perverse bishop would ask anything I personally consider explicit.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Vort said:

Pretty sure no one is ever required to undergo any such probing. If they find themselves subjected to such probing, it's because they freely agreed to it.

Thanks @Vort

That's true.  Though just speaking from those i know, most actually believe the bishop who crosses the line (a minority) speaks for God and so doing anything other than answering the questions asked (appropriate or not) doesn't even register as a viable option.  And it's that "i know something is wrong" in the context of "i know this man speaks for God" that creates a "i am a bad person" conclusion.  It's just a super sensitive topic that is getting probed into by a person who is often much closer to a stranger than a friend.

Anyways, this isn't complaining - i'm just trying to explain where a part of the 22,000+ people who've signed Sam's petition might be coming from. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

i'm just trying to explain where a part of the 22,000+ people who've signed Sam's petition might be coming from. 

Does his petition say how many are LDS, Christian, atheist, or hate the church. Anyone in that last group will sign any petition to shake the church.

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Fether said:

Does his petition say how many are LDS, Christian, atheist, or hate the church. Anyone in that last group will sign any petition to shake the church.

Thanks @Fether

No, it doesn't. 

Maybe i'm thinking wrong, but i guess if one assumes the people are being honest, whether they are members of TCOJCOLDS shouldn't matter.  i don't imagine many of people who were abused by Catholic priests are particularly huge fans of the Catholic church - but i hope that doesn't mean the Pope discounts them as lying sour-grapes degenerates. 

And if one assumes they are being dishonest, then could you trust how they identify themselves?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, lostinwater sent me a few examples, apparently nowhere near the worst which are too awful to repeat. Here's my reaction, with one sentence redacted:

Quote

Sorry, but most of these are not what I would call explicit - perhaps we're using the word differently.  I'm thinking "sexually explicit" and perhaps you're thinking "specific". Insensitive would be a better descriptor. Several seem irrelevant, others may or may not be relevant, depending on the rest of the discussion.  Which is the difficulty with judging out of context - I don't know what led up to the questions.

I would hope the new guidelines and training would help at least some, if not most bishops do better.

I don't feel like there was enough context to judge more than 2 of the questions - those, IMO were sexually explicit and unquestionably irrelevant. The rest varies from entirely inappropriate (even cruel) from a sensitivity standpoint to needing context to judge.

Some could have been misinterpreted - so they could have been bad or not bad but misunderstood as bad.

Simply, I'm unwilling to judge either side except in the case of 2 of the questions.

Moving on, I think a lot of these problems stem from generations of people not talking plainly with proper (not slang or childish) terms about sex, not with their children and not with each other, thus leading to inexperience and awkwardness all around. Possibly also generation gaps.  IMO, solving this would lead both to better interviewers and fewer traumatized interviewees. Of course, it's up to every parent and individual to solve this, so don't hold your breath.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, zil said:

So, lostinwater sent me a few examples, apparently nowhere near the worst which are too awful to repeat. Here's my reaction, with one sentence redacted:

I don't feel like there was enough context to judge more than 2 of the questions - those, IMO were sexually explicit and unquestionably irrelevant. The rest varies from entirely inappropriate (even cruel) from a sensitivity standpoint to needing context to judge.

Some could have been misinterpreted - so they could have been bad or not bad but misunderstood as bad.

Simply, I'm unwilling to judge either side except in the case of 2 of the questions.

Moving on, I think a lot of these problems stem from generations of people not talking plainly with proper (not slang or childish) terms about sex, not with their children and not with each other, thus leading to inexperience and awkwardness all around. Possibly also generation gaps.  IMO, solving this would lead both to better interviewers and fewer traumatized interviewees. Of course, it's up to every parent and individual to solve this, so don't hold your breath.

Thanks @zil

Well, i must admit, i am baffled.  The idea of a child (or young adult) being probed with questions like that, usually alone, with a man they very often barely know, but are told speaks for God seems to sprint past anything that resembles acceptable (in any situation).  But that's just me, and i respect that others may see it differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

with a man they very often barely know

I see the phrase "barely know" coming up a lot around this issue, often with the word "often", and it feels strange because except for when I first moved into a ward and for a while after a new bishop was called in a singles ward, I never would have said I barely knew my bishops. One or two I might say I don't/didn't know very well, but there is a significant difference there to me - the difference between near stranger and friendly acquaintance. The bishops from my youth are probably the ones I knew best and was closest to.

That said, I realize that my experience may be unusual, so I'm starting a poll.

https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/65717-bishops-from-your-youth/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks.

Is everyone certain that this is such a small issue?  Because, at least in the small circle of contacts that i maintain, there are a lot of people who are subjected to explicit and unwanted probing by their ecclesiastical leaders.  

Yes, this is a small issue that is and has been handled by local authorities. I know our stake presidents are counseling and instructing bishops to stay within proper guidelines. As with any organization there are those who are doing their best, and there are those who are inappropriate. 

The phrase "a lot" is subjective. It would be better said there "are people" who are subjected...

It would be similar to me stating just from my experience on Mormunhub.com and then saying, "There are 'a lot' of people who are tired of people like Sam Young who assume a position of authority they don't have before the Lord, and thus they use social media to make known their cause.

2 hours ago, lostinwater said:

And as far as the tsunami of evil sex education in public schools - i'm curious - people who have kids in the public school systems - what is the curriculum that is being taught?  i have looked at a few school district websites and it seems to be mostly abstinence, recommending birth control if you aren't going to be abstinent, and reporting abuse.  That was all it was when i was in the public schools - not that long ago - and i'm curious if it has changed.

I, personally, do not think sex education should be beyond biology. When you say public school systems and health education you must be referring solely to Utah, and states with similar conservative values. My comment would get banned (especially from @pam and @Just_A_Guy  :)) if I were to go into full detail of my health classes and sex education courses. None of which was based in abstinence. It was definitely exploration.

2 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks @Vort

That's true.  Though just speaking from those i know, most actually believe the bishop who crosses the line (a minority) speaks for God and so doing anything other than answering the questions asked (appropriate or not) doesn't even register as a viable option.  And it's that "i know something is wrong" in the context of "i know this man speaks for God" that creates a "i am a bad person" conclusion.  It's just a super sensitive topic that is getting probed into by a person who is often much closer to a stranger than a friend.

Anyways, this isn't complaining - i'm just trying to explain where a part of the 22,000+ people who've signed Sam's petition might be coming from. 

This is a parental issue and teaching if they think the bishop "speaks for God." The prophet speaks for God. The stake presidents and bishops are acting on behalf of given keys and instructions who are doing their best (and there are those who are over-zealous) to do what God has asked them to do.

The term "speaks for God" is a loaded statement. I don't believe the bishop speaks for God. I believe they have been given keys to act in his name according to their stewardship, and thus are doing their best to act according to his will and to discover his will in the responsibilities they have.

This is why bishops have a check and balance. If a person feels inappropriate questions are asked or probed, then they can speak with the stake president. What one person feels inappropriate might indeed be a viable question. I know stake presidents will instruct and correct bishops who are asking inappropriate questions.

1 hour ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks @Fether

No, it doesn't. 

Maybe i'm thinking wrong, but i guess if one assumes the people are being honest, whether they are members of TCOJCOLDS shouldn't matter.  i don't imagine many of people who were abused by Catholic priests are particularly huge fans of the Catholic church - but i hope that doesn't mean the Pope discounts them as lying sour-grapes degenerates. 

And if one assumes they are being dishonest, then could you trust how they identify themselves?

This is where I am not empathetic. I don't assume "being honest" in any of this, as I don't assume "Sherem" was being honest when he wanted to approach the prophet on things he felt were wrong.

We aren't speaking about abuse. The prophet, as has already been stated by many people, that he shuns abuse, and would not think a person less or lying sour-grape degenerates if this happened to them. We are speaking about appropriate and inappropriate questions that the Church is already taking steps to navigate and instruct on.

I am not sure what you mean by "trust how they identify themselves"? I definitely view Sam Young as misguided like Sherem. There is a reason why I don't sign petitions against the Catholic Church, Protestant Church, Jehovah Witness Church and how they run their organization. I am not a member, so their activities and decisions that happen in their places of worship or buildings is not a matter that concerns me. So why would I sign a petition against them? I wouldn't because I don't have that high of a self-esteem about myself (arrogance) to assume (as I am not a member and nothing they do affects me) I have an opinion where it doesn't belong. So, no, I don't trust nor think people are being honest, they are misguided.

Now if the Catholic Church was bringing in my daughter or son, who are not members of their Church, and then asking them questions of this nature. You bet I would have something to say, as they are now stepping on grounds that do not belong to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, SilentOne said:

I see the phrase "barely know" coming up a lot around this issue, often with the word "often", and it feels strange because except for when I first moved into a ward and for a while after a new bishop was called in a singles ward, I never would have said I barely knew my bishops. One or two I might say I don't/didn't know very well, but there is a significant difference there to me - the difference between near stranger and friendly acquaintance. The bishops from my youth are probably the ones I knew best and was closest to.

That said, I realize that my experience may be unusual, so I'm starting a poll.

https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/65717-bishops-from-your-youth/

You aren't alone in this thought either SilentOne. The moment I turned 12 I knew who my bishop was and he wasn't a stranger. Before the age of twelve I only knew the bishop as "here is my tithing" and that he would allow us to get candy after church was over.

It is these types of statements in these situations that cause some inner burnings I have to calm ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Midwest LDS said:

Once again I am partially in agreement with you. At the end of the day, of course it is Jesus Christ who forgives us of sin. It is only by and through His Atonement that sin is wiped from our souls. But He has told us how to be forgiven of our worst sins, and it involves talking to our Bishop. We are forgiven, not because the Bishop has some power to forgive sin, but because Christ has told us to speak to our Bishop, and by talking to the Bishop we are following His commandment. As I've mentioned several times, I support the church's policies, and I am not judging those who won't speak to the Bishop now. Far from it, I'm worried about them because I have been there. Concern for my brothers and sisters spiritual pain is not judgement. I have been spared pain, suffering, and spiritual darkness by being open and honest with my priesthood leaders. I think, personally, that now many will choose to suffer out of embarrassment, rather then laying their burdens at the feet of the Lord. Plus, I have recieved spirtual power and strength from speaking to my Bishop, because the Lord expected me too and was blessing me for following His commandments. I know Bishops have no power on their own, but they do act with the power and authority of Jesus Christ when they use His priesthood and they do have power through Him.

He did?  When did he say that?  Do you have a verse for it?

Bishops have no power to forgive.  People who assume this are greatly mistaken.  In fact, the sins that are truly serious aren't handled by a Bishop in many cases.  Bishops only have the keys to the Aaronic Priesthood.  Anything more serious is normally passed up to those with higher authority.

Concern is good, but do NOT try to take the judgment from the Lord.  He never said...though shalt confess to a Bishop to be forgiven...he said to confess one's sins.  Normally it is to the one who has been wronged.   If we get technical, some scriptures say to confess BEFORE the church.  HOWEVER, We CANNOT rob God of his judgment.  A Bishop is a judge in the church and must judge as to what is appropriate in regards to the church.  He is also there as a Shepard (if one understand the parallel) and as such, for those who seek repentance and forgiveness is there to guide them.  However, a Bishop is actually NOT required in most cases. 

The list of sins one should confess to their Church Leaders is actually very small (Well, until one gets into grand theft and felony type cases, there are a LOT of ways to commit those, but normally once one has been caught doing those they are in jail and it's a pretty obvious they did such). 

I am glad that you found spiritual power and strength from speaking to your Bishop, and this is WHY it is highly suggested for people to talk to their Bishops about sins that they may not be able to handle on their own.  (I am assuming the best of you, yes, there are sins that one probably should confess to their church leaders so that appropriate action may be taken within the church, not just to help them, but because the church is ALSO one that they may have offended in their actions, things such as adultery, murder, and other things that are hopefully more serious than what the standard member would even dream of committing).  However, a Bishop ALSO normally is unpaid and a working individual.  They will try to help (well, many, some may just toss people out of their office, but most try not to get to that point) but they do not have ALL the time in the world.  If people have sins that are not serious, and bishops are like me, they probably hope that people are able to handle them on their own.

In light of what Sam Young is discussing and what we are doing, YES, violations of the Law of Chastity should be confessed to a Bishop.  However, there was a shared story in  past General Conference of a couple that did not.  They did not confess their sin and went on until old age holding onto this burden.  Only then did it finally come out.  They did not undergo anymore difficulties such as probation or worse.  Instead, they were informed they were already forgiven.  Why?

Because the General authority sharing this in General Conference understood the church's role in forgiveness and that this was an action between the individual and our LORD.  He didn't touch upon a lot more, but there are some things we CAN learn from this.

#1.  Because they did not go to their church leader they suffered an unnecessary burden for DECADES.  This is a LOT longer than most will need to suffer if they confess to a Bishop.  By talking to their Bishop (and in some cases it may need to be a Stake or Mission President) they can receive that reassurance that they have done all that is requisite and that as far as the CHURCH is concerned, their record is clean.  This can be a great reassurance to those who wonder if they can or are forgiven.

#2  If one is suffering, suffering for decades under the harsh feeling that one may be condemned or unforgiven is FAR more harsh a discipline than anything the church can ever do to someone.  Thus, the church is NOT there to punish, but to try to help someone repent and understand that they can or are forgiven as quickly as possible.  It can be far quicker doing as the church and leaders have told us than by trying to do it on our own.

#3  The church is NOT Catholic.  By this I mean, we LEAVE it to the Lord to grant forgiveness.  We cannot say who the Lord will or will not forgive, that is up to him (though as I said, I am of the opinion he is FAR more forgiving than any would grant.  He never told someone...I will forgive you but you must go to the Pharisees first to be forgiven, or anyone else...he straight up forgave them when he did so.  This is HIS power, not the church's, and NOT a church leader.  We can verify you are clear with the church, but it is the LORD who forgives.  It is HIS atonement.  There is a BIG difference between the LORD and the church.  The church is his vessel, but it is NOT his gospel or his power. 

Understand, I do not think we are at odds here, and in fact I think we may be saying the same thing.  We just are saying it in different ways.  I am NOT saying to someone do not confess if you need to, in fact, I am saying the exact opposite.  What I am saying is that you cannot expect a Bishop to forgive you of your sins like a Catholic Priest.  That is NOT what the Bishops purpose is.  They are to make judgments in accordance with the church, but forgiveness is something out of their reign.  There have not always been bishops, and in some areas there are STILL no Bishops that are easily reachable.  The church does NOT condemn these individuals simply because they cannot talk to a Bishop.  That is against the very tenet of what the Lord taught.  This is WHY it is church policy, not because they NEED to, but because without doing so could cause them a lifetime of despair, regret, and needless worry. 

In instances where it IS serious enough that it should have been confessed, in many cases (not all, as if they are so remote that the church never finds out, well...they may be in their own special case of suffering) there will be a church court convened and the situation discussed and appropriate action taken.  However, church discipline is normally not the norm and a great majority never have to face those types of sins or consequences (though in modern times that number has been increasing exponentially).

3 hours ago, zil said:

Personally, I suspect it's like when you buy a particular car and suddenly every third car you see on the road is the same model.  I'm guessing because of your own situation, you seek out those who have left the Church, or are unhappy with the Church, or something along those lines - of course you're going to find a higher percentage of such people there than exists in the Church as a whole.  People with similar complaints (or interests or hobbies or careers or reading habits) are going to seek each other out and congregate.

Meanwhile, I'm just dying to know the definition of "explicit" by those with these negative experiences.  I understand that you probably don't want to post an example or definition publicly (or doing so might even be breaking the rules), but if you're willing to IM one or a link to one, I promise not to get the vapors and to give a report back here on just how explicit the example is and my opinion of whether it's inappropriate or not.  I suspect I'm not the only one here curious about just what these complaints are.  (As I'm having a hard time believing anyone except an immoral, perverse bishop would ask anything I personally consider explicit.)

I can't go into that.  As I said, most Bishops hopefully do not do this, and if they follow the current rules for interviews, WILL NEVER even get close to this.

However, those that have that I know of, most of what they actually discussed in explicit terms would get one banned from the site and these forums. 

Forgive me for not going into it, but most of it is pretty disgusting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

He did?  When did he say that?  Do you have a verse for it?

Bishops have no power to forgive.  People who assume this are greatly mistaken.  In fact, the sins that are truly serious aren't handled by a Bishop in many cases.  Bishops only have the keys to the Aaronic Priesthood.  Anything more serious is normally passed up to those with higher authority.

Concern is good, but do NOT try to take the judgment from the Lord.  He never said...though shalt confess to a Bishop to be forgiven...he said to confess one's sins.  Normally it is to the one who has been wronged.   If we get technical, some scriptures say to confess BEFORE the church.  HOWEVER, We CANNOT rob God of his judgment.  A Bishop is a judge in the church and must judge as to what is appropriate in regards to the church.  He is also there as a Shepard (if one understand the parallel) and as such, for those who seek repentance and forgiveness is there to guide them.  However, a Bishop is actually NOT required in most cases. 

The list of sins one should confess to their Church Leaders is actually very small (Well, until one gets into grand theft and felony type cases, there are a LOT of ways to commit those, but normally once one has been caught doing those they are in jail and it's a pretty obvious they did such). 

I am glad that you found spiritual power and strength from speaking to your Bishop, and this is WHY it is highly suggested for people to talk to their Bishops about sins that they may not be able to handle on their own.  (I am assuming the best of you, yes, there are sins that one probably should confess to their church leaders so that appropriate action may be taken within the church, not just to help them, but because the church is ALSO one that they may have offended in their actions, things such as adultery, murder, and other things that are hopefully more serious than what the standard member would even dream of committing).  However, a Bishop ALSO normally is unpaid and a working individual.  They will try to help (well, many, some may just toss people out of their office, but most try not to get to that point) but they do not have ALL the time in the world.  If people have sins that are not serious, and bishops are like me, they probably hope that people are able to handle them on their own.

In light of what Sam Young is discussing and what we are doing, YES, violations of the Law of Chastity should be confessed to a Bishop.  However, there was a shared story in  past General Conference of a couple that did not.  They did not confess their sin and went on until old age holding onto this burden.  Only then did it finally come out.  They did not undergo anymore difficulties such as probation or worse.  Instead, they were informed they were already forgiven.  Why?

Because the General authority sharing this in General Conference understood the church's role in forgiveness and that this was an action between the individual and our LORD.  He didn't touch upon a lot more, but there are some things we CAN learn from this.

#1.  Because they did not go to their church leader they suffered an unnecessary burden for DECADES.  This is a LOT longer than most will need to suffer if they confess to a Bishop.  By talking to their Bishop (and in some cases it may need to be a Stake or Mission President) they can receive that reassurance that they have done all that is requisite and that as far as the CHURCH is concerned, their record is clean.  This can be a great reassurance to those who wonder if they can or are forgiven.

#2  If one is suffering, suffering for decades under the harsh feeling that one may be condemned or unforgiven is FAR more harsh a discipline than anything the church can ever do to someone.  Thus, the church is NOT there to punish, but to try to help someone repent and understand that they can or are forgiven as quickly as possible.  It can be far quicker doing as the church and leaders have told us than by trying to do it on our own.

#3  The church is NOT Catholic.  By this I mean, we LEAVE it to the Lord to grant forgiveness.  We cannot say who the Lord will or will not forgive, that is up to him (though as I said, I am of the opinion he is FAR more forgiving than any would grant.  He never told someone...I will forgive you but you must go to the Pharisees first to be forgiven, or anyone else...he straight up forgave them when he did so.  This is HIS power, not the church's, and NOT a church leader.  We can verify you are clear with the church, but it is the LORD who forgives.  It is HIS atonement.  There is a BIG difference between the LORD and the church.  The church is his vessel, but it is NOT his gospel or his power. 

Understand, I do not think we are at odds here, and in fact I think we may be saying the same thing.  We just are saying it in different ways.  I am NOT saying to someone do not confess if you need to, in fact, I am saying the exact opposite.  What I am saying is that you cannot expect a Bishop to forgive you of your sins like a Catholic Priest.  That is NOT what the Bishops purpose is.  They are to make judgments in accordance with the church, but forgiveness is something out of their reign.  There have not always been bishops, and in some areas there are STILL no Bishops that are easily reachable.  The church does NOT condemn these individuals simply because they cannot talk to a Bishop.  That is against the very tenet of what the Lord taught.  This is WHY it is church policy, not because they NEED to, but because without doing so could cause them a lifetime of despair, regret, and needless worry. 

In instances where it IS serious enough that it should have been confessed, in many cases (not all, as if they are so remote that the church never finds out, well...they may be in their own special case of suffering) there will be a church court convened and the situation discussed and appropriate action taken.  However, church discipline is normally not the norm and a great majority never have to face those types of sins or consequences (though in modern times that number has been increasing exponentially).

I can't go into that.  As I said, most Bishops hopefully do not do this, and if they follow the current rules for interviews, WILL NEVER even get close to this.

However, those that have that I know of, most of what they actually discussed in explicit terms would get one banned from the site and these forums. 

Forgive me for not going into it, but most of it is pretty disgusting.

I think we are closer to each other then we think, although I will reiterate what I said in my post that I know we are not forgiven by the Bishop. When serious sins are committed, we find forgiveness going to the Bishop because we are following God's commands, therefore forgiveness comes from God. Regardless I have work in the morning, so I need to head off. Have a good evening☺.

Edited by Midwest LDS
3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, lostinwater said:

TCOJCOLDS

We prefer to be called “Kodge Kolds”

3 hours ago, lostinwater said:

Thanks @Fether

No, it doesn't. 

Maybe i'm thinking wrong, but i guess if one assumes the people are being honest, whether they are members of TCOJCOLDS shouldn't matter.  i don't imagine many of people who were abused by Catholic priests are particularly huge fans of the Catholic church - but i hope that doesn't mean the Pope discounts them as lying sour-grapes degenerates. 

And if one assumes they are being dishonest, then could you trust how they identify themselves?

You do make valid points.

But this I do know. When Jeremy Runnels was excommunicated,  he made a public speech and received Cher’s if laughter. No one was sorry that this awful thing happened, they were only egging everything on.

The only people I have seen publicly supporting any movement like this have been ex mormons that hate the church and celebrate any negative publicity for the church.

I believe there are concerned active members names on that petition, but I imagine the majority are people that Just love to shake the “Latter-day saint boat

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SilentOne said:

I see the phrase "barely know" coming up a lot around this issue, often with the word "often", and it feels strange because except for when I first moved into a ward and for a while after a new bishop was called in a singles ward, I never would have said I barely knew my bishops. One or two I might say I don't/didn't know very well, but there is a significant difference there to me - the difference between near stranger and friendly acquaintance. The bishops from my youth are probably the ones I knew best and was closest to.

 That said, I realize that my experience may be unusual, so I'm starting a poll.

 https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/65717-bishops-from-your-youth/

Thanks @SilentOne

i am just speaking for myself and the experiences of many of the people i've known.  i've tried to say that many times, but will happily repeat it in this response again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mrmarklin said:

Apparently the guy has been excommunicated. 

It is only a matter of time as to when this will naturally occur due to their actions, and in light of the following statement he has made we shouldn't be surprised either:

Quote

“They have shown their true colors,” he said of Latter-day Saint leaders. “The verdict is all about them and their power structure. They sent down the edict to protect themselves rather than to protect our precious children. They continue to mandate one-on-one interviews where sexually explicit questions are approved and facilitated.”

Here is what the Church actually teaches, and steps done (although before this was released, to me this has always been implied):

Quote

If a youth desires, he or she may invite a parent or another adult to be present when meeting with the bishop or one of his counselors.

Interviews are mandated, whether or not they are "one-one-one" appears to be up to the youth. It is pretty clear who is showing their "true colors."

Edited by Anddenex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have not read this thread (other than the OP and first two reactions), but upon leaving the Fireside devotion at Safeco Field (Seattle), yesterday, I saw an obvious protestor with a sign that read "I stand with Sam." I read a bit more and figured it had something to do with interviews between older adolescents and bishops. As an outsider, I can confirm that allegations that this practice is unseemly, and that a few bishops might handle the conversations inappropriately would be easy fodder for church critics. This tactic is deeply suspicious. It reminds me of the documentary Jesus Camp, showing a Pentecostal Bible camp service for children 10-12 or so. The pastor was telling the children that they (like all humans) have sin and must repent. Children were coming up to the altar, some with tears, confessing their sins, and asking Jesus into their hearts. To me, this was a classic salvation service, and the children were receiving wonderful deliverance and conversion. To outsiders, it was brainwashing, and horrific psychological abuse. Some commenters wanted the preacher jailed (after being tortured), and they wanted the parents imprisoned, as well.

So, if Sam was on to something, he should have trusted God more, and kept his cause "in house." That he took it public, and that he seems to have easily embraced disfellowship, suggests to me that he had already given up on the church, and that opposing bishop interviews with youth was his parting shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What really bothers me about folks like Sam Young is they really hate the church and it's leadership but yet profess to want to remain members in the face of their excommunication. Sam new he would be exed but yet pleaded out publicly his desire to remain LDS. For what reason? They don't want to be LDS anymore- they hate the church, so why the self righteous pleading? Well, Lucifer himself did the same thing. A lesson to us all about pride and self aggrandisement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many time I have witnessed good righteous "members" fall away.  I have also witnessed many arch enemies have a a change of heart and be baptized.  In most all cases those that fall away have encountered what they thought was bitterness and rejection from one, some or more of the saints.  Interestingly in most all cases of those that turn their hearts from being bitter enemies to join with us have encountered compassionate caring kindness from one, some or more of the saints.

As a youth there were about 1 million members of the Church.  It seamed that everyone that was not a member in good standing was somehow our feared enemy.  Now, it seems that I can find support and kindness from those that in my youth were bitter enemies and sometimes those I thought were loving friends, to be, for lack of a better reference, wolves in sheep clothing.  In short I have learned that not everyone that praises me is my friend and not everyone that criticizes me is my enemy.  I am also convinced that if ever a hand of friendship should be extended first - it ought to be extended first (most certainly be) by a Saint of G-d.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/13/2018 at 8:26 PM, SilentOne said:

I see the phrase "barely know" coming up a lot around this issue, often with the word "often", and it feels strange because except for when I first moved into a ward and for a while after a new bishop was called in a singles ward, I never would have said I barely knew my bishops. One or two I might say I don't/didn't know very well, but there is a significant difference there to me - the difference between near stranger and friendly acquaintance. The bishops from my youth are probably the ones I knew best and was closest to.

That said, I realize that my experience may be unusual, so I'm starting a poll.

https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/65717-bishops-from-your-youth/

 

When I was growing up - my protectors were my father and my mother (also my siblings).  If I ever needed help or safety, I knew I could count on family.  I also experienced that my family were my greatest critic.  I never worried much about my bishop, interviews with my bishop were as it seems a formality.  Dealing with my father and mother was another matter - I was unable to hide anything from them.  My earthly parents are the best example of my heavenly parents - I was often reproved (as a youth it seemed daily).  I thought I never measured up to what was expected but I never doubted the love of my parents - ever.  

I had a bishop that had a careless son that damaged our family car.  My father paid for all the damage - to both cars.  At the time I did not understand and resented my bishop for not being responsible.  I was reproved severely by my father for comments I made about this issue.  Now I wish I was more like my father.

I realize that not every family has parents like mine - for some the best examples they have are their bishops.  I wish that was not the case.  But when it is the case - I pray earnestly for such bishops - and thank G-d I am not one of them.  There is not a bishop or leader in the church that is doing a poor enough job that I want dearly to replace them.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share