Confessing to the Bishop

[creekster]

Originally Posted by jay santos

Of course I do. What are you getting at? Just cut to the chase, you won't hurt my feelings.

I was being sarcastic, or 'tart' as UtahDan says.

I find it remarkable that you recognize that one effect of confession is deterrence and yet you find this saddening. I think deterrence is good. Deter away.

I also think you are wildly overstating the potential problems in the process while minimizing or ignoring the benefits. Surfah has stated these better than I could, and he is spot on.

A parent should be involved as much as reasonably possible but, absent some specific reason to be concerned about the bishop, your comments smack of an inability to cede control over your children's lives.

I don't know you and I have no idea how you implement your ideas or if you even really believe them, and so I hesitate to cut to the chase, as you say, because this is perhaps an inappropriate place to really do so. Nonetheless, as stated here, it seems to me your views ignore the role of divine guidance and revelation to the bishop. He is not some schmuck from the neighborhood that wandered in to hear your little girl's dirty deeds, and I find your characterization offensive. He is someone called of God and, if prepared, entitled to the guidance of God to assist God's children in increasing their obedience and spiritual power and control. I have seen the process of confession work miracles. It did in my life. It has in many others. You seem to be a loving parent, which is good, but you also seem to be willing to ignore the role of priesthood authority, which is not good, within my experience.

Btw, you and I apparently have very different interpretations of what Uteforever was saying.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by creekster

Nonetheless, as stated here, it seems to me your views ignore the role of divine guidance and revelation to the bishop. He is not some schmuck from the neighborhood that wandered in to hear your little girl's dirty deeds, and I find your characterization offensive. He is someone called of God and, if prepared, entitled to the guidance of God to assist God's children in increasing their obedience and spiritual power and control.

But what if you're wrong? What if that bishop isn't called by God? What if he doesn't have any special insight? What if God doesn't even care if your kid masturbates? What if the whole exercise in guilt and shame is completely unnecessary? If the above were true, wouldn't you find the whole process akin to emotional child abuse?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by creekster

I was being sarcastic, or 'tart' as UtahDan says.

I find it remarkable that you recognize that one effect of confession is deterrence and yet you find this saddening. I think deterrence is good. Deter away.

I also think you are wildly overstating the potential problems in the process while minimizing or ignoring the benefits. Surfah has stated these better than I could, and he is spot on.

A parent should be involved as much as reasonably possible but, absent some specific reason to be concerned about the bishop, your comments smack of an inability to cede control over your children's lives.

I don't know you and I have no idea how you implement your ideas or if you even really believe them, and so I hesitate to cut to the chase, as you say, because this is perhaps an inappropriate place to really do so. Nonetheless, as stated here, it seems to me your views ignore the role of divine guidance and revelation to the bishop. He is not some schmuck from the neighborhood that wandered in to hear your little girl's dirty deeds, and I find your characterization offensive. He is someone called of God and, if prepared, entitled to the guidance of God to assist God's children in increasing their obedience and spiritual power and control. I have seen the process of confession work miracles. It did in my life. It has in many others. You seem to be a loving parent, which is good, but you also seem to be willing to ignore the role of priesthood authority, which is not good, within my experience.

Btw, you and I apparently have very different interpretations of what Uteforever was saying.

We'll basically just have to agree to disagree. It's not an issue that causes me much grief. There's much about the bishop confession process I don't like. But I'll live with it. As to how I'll manage it as a father, probably not too much I can do. I have a personal relationship with the bishop and can communicate him to him how I would like my children to be taught and not taught and to be tipped off if he feels it is important to breach that. I can gently teach my kids that people in the church have varying doctrinal views, including bishops, and that they should be aware of that when being taught in church and in private by a bishop. I can communicate with my kids enough to hopefully know when they have problems that would warrant a bishop confession, and help prep them on what to expect. etc. I'm not going to hole myself up with guns waiting for the bishop to just try to step on my front lawn.

Couple other responses.

1. Is deterence good? And what kind of shame and fear tactics are allowable or desirable in the name of deterence? Really deep questions. Certainly there is a place for it, i.e. keeping a toddler from burning his hand on the stove. And certainly you can take it to an extreme on the other side that is damaging. I probably differ in what I think is an acceptable level of shame and fear to use.

2. We've brought up a number of quotes and examples from BRM, Joseph his nephew, Boyd K Packer circa 1970, etc. You got some real hard asses that at times can teach a very harsh, non-forgiving view of the gospel. Many bishops have been trained in that environment. Many of the a-holes on CB are or will be bishops, for example. I feel very strongly about these kinds of men shaping the concept of God for thousands of LDS youth behind closed doors in interview settings where parents have no input. I don't know how to fix that problem, but it is a concern for me.

[ute4ever]

Originally Posted by surfah33

Does the ordinance of the sacrament then become a deterrent to sin and not part of the repentence process as well because you should feel ashamed if you pass the tray and don't participate?

Have you ever noticed the high percentage of members of a singles ward who are twenty minutes late for church every week, even though meetings do not begin until 11 or 1? It's one thing to be a few minutes late to work, or school, or whatnot; it happens to everyone from time to time. But I find it rather uncanny that in sacrament meeting, only two or three people will slip in during the first ten minutes of the service, while hymns are being sung and announcements are being read; but after the sacrament is completed roughly twenty minutes into the meeting, a good two dozen will come piling through the doors.

The argument of deterrence is a fair one to make. People don't want their peers to see them passing on the sacrament tray, and they don't want their bishop to know they've been sifting through Goatnapper's mattress.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by creekster

I was being sarcastic, or 'tart' as UtahDan says.

The most gratifying thing I have seen in weeks. I have taught creekster a new word and he is using it. Becareful of context creek, it has other meanings too. :-)

[Goatnapper'96]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

But what if you're wrong? What if that bishop isn't called by God? What if he doesn't have any special insight? What if God doesn't even care if your kid masturbates? What if the whole exercise in guilt and shame is completely unnecessary? If the above were true, wouldn't you find the whole process akin to emotional child abuse?

Wouldn't it depend more on what the child believes than what you believe?

[jay santos]

On the topic of shame, I'd love for one of those trained in psychology to weigh in on this idea:

A few here have weighed in on their experiences with bishops or courts as very positive and helpful. What I say next does not apply to you because I don't know any of your specific situations.

I've known many in my life who would say the same thing about bishop and court experience being a positive, however my perception after knowing more specifically about their issues, their experiences, their personalities, and how they interact in other areas of their lives is that this spiritual experience of their courts or bishop experience is wrapped up in the shame cycle. Someone weighed down by guilt and shame loves to be punished and shamed because they think they deserve it. But I think most specialists would say that kind of experience is not helpful in overcoming a behavior.

If a sinner can mistakenly feel forgiveness from a caffeine high, can't he equally as likely mistake forgiveness from a shaming experience from his priesthood leader?

[UtahDan]

I have said how I felt about this before so I won't bore anyone with a regurgitation. One observation though. My surmise is that where people stand on this in many cases will have to do with either having had a great experience with it or a negative experience with it (and when I say negative, I don't mean just that they didn't like it, but that it was one of those the emperor has no clothes moments). Having either kind of experience probably makes it tough to fully grasp what the other side is saying.

I'm on record here as disagreeing with it. That said, I am personally aware of people who have been saved in every sense by it and others who have lost their testimonies forever when it is bungled.

[mpfunk]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

Things like not partaking of the sacrament, not being able to pray publicly, not being able to have callings are all very public gestures that are geared to shaming the transgressor. Why not choose a private restriction, something like not allowing them to pay tithing for a year?

Not taking the sacrament is not meant to be a public gesture. It is done because the person has violated their covenants to the point where they are not worthy to take the sacrament. The sacrament is something that is very serious and very sacred, and removing it from someone is not meant to be a public gesture. That fact that it is done in public is just a coincidence.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by Goatnapper'96

Wouldn't it depend more on what the child believes than what you believe?

If the child is a minor, it really doesn't matter what they believe. If there were a religion out there that routinely abused it's children as part of its worship -- even if the children believed it was necessary -- people would be up in arms and demand the practice be stopped.

What if a school principal enacted a rule that said once a month each girl in the school had to come to his office to discuss any sexual activity with him? Nobody would stand for that, regardless of how sincere or how nice the principal was. So why are we so eager to have our children share their personal, sexual activities with a strange man just because he happens to be a bishop?