- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I have frequently heard pleadings over the pulpit for people to come in and counsel with their bishop, usually in the context of ‘serious sin’. There is almost a wonderment expressed that so many choose to not do so. It has slowly dawned on me that the reason for this is a lack of separation of powers.
A confidant and counselor can by definition not be a judge.
In our bishop’s situation, he is asked to do both roles, as well as arguably be the jury, along with his counselors.
The defendant is required to be his own lawyer.
And, the law is not strictly codified. It’s more like a guide line and is subject to the bishop’s background and personality, and to his feedback from ‘the Spirit’.
Aside from the serious sin aspect, I think this is why people who are having a crisis of faith, cannot confide in their bishop. Depending upon the specific bishop, a simple questioning of faith (without any other major behavioral issues) might cause a temple recommend to be revoked, or withheld. Those of us with extended LDS families, with a lot of family events occurring in the temple, cannot afford such a risk.
Also, overt repercussions, like withholding the sacrament or restricting priesthood privileges, have immediate and potentially damaging familial consequences.
Another example is a BYU student who has committed a ‘sin’ that also crosses the code of conduct lines. The bishop is required to be a snitch, and that student’s education status is at risk. How can we expect students to confide in their bishops under such constraints?
I think the definition of the bishop’s role, as judge and jury and confidant, is a fundamental weakness that the church would do well to address.
I’d like to hear more about this. I think you are on the right track. I agree with the central issue you address, here, ss. I’ve believed for a long time that there should be a stark line of demarcation between the confession of sin (with which I have no problem, in theory and in most cases in practice) and “counseling”. I’m going to have to think about this some more and see if there is a way I can bring it up in my Stake meetings – that we need to encourage our members to seek counseling from those who are best qualified to counsel and go to the Bishop more specifically for the confession of serious sin. That basic stance is practiced in many places in the Church already (like seeking professional marriage counseling or counseling for disorders or medical conditions), so it isn’t as much of a stretch as some members and leaders might think to extend it to “spiritual counseling”. I’ll have to figure out the best way and time to do so, but it is worth pursuing.
Maybe a good way for me, in my current situation, would be to talk with my own Bishop. I think he would understand the concept quite well, being fairly young, a new Bishop and a doctor – so if I talked about it with him in the context of not going to one doctor for all ills . . .
I’ll think about it. Thanks, ss, for the chance to think more deeply about this.
I’ve never thought of this before — does this come from your work or educational background SS? It makes a huge amount of sense to me, however. The lack of separation of duties/power actually hurts the Church’s ability to help the members when they run into problems that affect their spirituality. These members have several hurdles to overcome — stigmas associated with their problem, and threat of punishment. The only way to make people come forward is to throw the guilt trip on them about condemnation associated with partaking sacrament unworthily, entering the temple unworthily, or holding callings unworthily.
When I was a young adult at 20 years of age, I made a mistake. It turned out not to be confession-worthy or discipline-worthy after I confessed it, but given my tendency to beat myself up over mistakes, it really threw me into a state of unhappiness and self-loathing and guilt. My parents grew really concerned about the impact the mistake had on my inner peace, and approached me to know more. I told them, and when they heard how I was reacting to what I did, feeling condemnation and feeling I had to confess it, THAT was when they started checking with the anti-Mormons because they felt my association with the Church was not good for me, emotionally. They are still anti-Mormon. An anecdote, but a case in point about how making the Bishop Judge, Jury and Executioner (in AP cases) forces us to use the guilt-trip to make people confess. True, we also talk about how it can relieve burdens, but for many, it can be highly negative. So, they don’t confess.
And then, we wonder why, as leaders, people won’t do things — they don’t feel worhty, and have no safe outlet!!!
I wish as teachers we had a separation of duties. I’m constantly in a position where if I tell students what I think, then they just feed back what I tell them, and then I have to give myself an “A”. So, I can’t be totally open with them. I wish my role was as a coach, and someone else could be the judge — a different professor. I think we would see a huge increase in student ability and achievement if teaching was structured this way. I see some parallels with the separation of duties for Bishops.
And let’s not forget that most Bishop’s don’t have a clue how to counsel people in some aspects of their lives — they are not professional counsellors, yet we’re always driving people to see their Bishop!!!!!
I have to say, one reason I love this site is because it allows us to engage in SAFE divergent thinking.
The church teaches that to relieve our burdens we need to confess. But the only reason we feel burdened and unworthy is because the church has told us we should! I believe in confessing to the Lord, but not some random guy in my neighborhood that happens to have the Bishop calling this year. I’ve done a few confessions to bishops over the years and I don’t really think it helps and there is nothing to be gained. We all know when our heart is in the right place and whether we are making a solid effort to repent, so what is the role of the bishop?
Quote:“the only reason we feel burdened and unworthy is because the church has told us we should!”
I don’t agree.
I get it that many members “confess” things that don’t need to be confessed, and I get it that no all confessions end up helping the confessor – but I also believe strongly in the concept and principle of confession to someone other than God. It’s the heart of Alcoholics Anonymous, for example, and it is VERY important for those who really struggle to stop actions that truly are destructive.
What Ray said. I think that the “willingness” to confess may be more important than the act. That…and the ability to forgive ourselves.
IMHO
Old-Timer wrote:“the only reason we feel burdened and unworthy is because the church has told us we should!”I get it that many members “confess” things that don’t need to be confessed, and I get it that no all confessions end up helping the confessor – but I also believe strongly in the concept and principle of confession to someone other than God. It’s the heart of Alcoholics Anonymous, for example, and it is VERY important for those who really struggle to stop actions that truly are destructive.
I thought about that as I was typing my last post, and I agree in some cases where the behavior has addictive potential. But then why the Bishop? He can’t really help someone struggling with sexual sins or drug abuse problems. If someone confesses their sins to a therapist, does that count?
Quote:SS wrote…
I think the definition of the bishop’s role, as judge and jury and confidant, is a fundamental weakness that the church would do well to address.
I agree with your point. In fact, after growing up in the church confessing, hearing confessions in disciplinary counsels and learning of the disastrous effects that other members have had after confessing to their Bishop, I would advise anyone against confessing anything to their Bishop. Unless you want that asterisk on your membership.
.
Just for clarity’s sake, very few things get annotated on a membership record – and, generally speaking, those things that stay with a record should stay with it. Seriously, if someone is excommunicated for the sexual abuse of a minor – or rape – or murder, for example, that should stay on a record.
Do we really want a situation like the Catholic Church is facing with their priests?
Old-Timer wrote:Just for clarity’s sake, very few things get annotated on a membership record – and, generally speaking, those things that stay with a record should stay with it.
Seriously, if someone is excommunicated for the sexual abuse of a minor – or rape – or murder, for example, that should stay on a record.
Do we really want a situation like the Catholic Church is facing with their priests?
No, but let’s also recognize situations like this. We have a VERY TALENTED man in our Ward — a ward which starves for decent leadership. He is mature, loves to serve, and is a mental and spiritual giant. Everyone thought he would be our next Bishop, and wanted his leadership. When I sort of broached the subject, that he would make a good Bishop, he confided in me that he made a mistake when he was in his early 20’s — you know the kinds of mistakes that people in their early 20’s make, which led to a disfellowshipment.
Now, decades later, he’s in the temple and has 6 kids, all of whom are strong members — either RM’s or fully active females. That mistake over 25 years go when he was younger and foolish has shut him out of being a Bishop for his whole life, although he’s been faithful since then, according to him. So, while I agree, Ray, that people who have shown the capacity to hurt the innocent in our Church DO need permanent annotations, I’m not convinced that is appropraite for all situations. It doesn’t actualize the atonement and our supposed faith in individual repentence. It’s disconnects like these that have hurt my faith and commitment over the years.
Now in the case of abuse or rape, I think we are in fast agreement.
That sort of mistake should not lead to a ban on being a Bishop – and it doesn’t do so automatically, unless there has been a change in policy of which I am not aware. I think it’s wrong that is has done so for the person you mention, SD, but I know of multiple Bishops and Stake Presidents for whom it did not have that effect. Shame on whoever has kept him from serving in that calling, if it really was just a dis-fellowshipment over a one-time mistake. (Having said that, I will try to remember to check the CHI and see what it says.)
Old-Timer wrote:That sort of mistake should not lead to a ban on being a Bishop – and it doesn’t do so automatically, unless there has been a change in policy of which I am not aware. I think it’s wrong that is has done so for the person you mention, SD, but I know of multiple Bishops and Stake Presidents for whom it did not have that effect.
Shame on whoever has kept him from serving in that calling, if it really was just a dis-fellowshipment over a one-time mistake. (Having said that, I will try to remember to check the CHI and see what it says.)
I would appreciate it if you would. I felt that was a huge shame for this man. And he wanted to do it — he did soft-pedal the whole thing, saying “Well, it’s only administrative, and doesn’t affect my salvation or anything”…but then his wife expressed extreme disapproval to my own wife about that his annotation as the probable reason he wasn’t called. Our Ward is really struggling now with a new Bishop who had a bad reputation to start with. I would love to have this formerly disfellowshipped brother at the helm. We could all learn so much from him!!!
SD, not sure where I came up with this. I do work for state government. My education is in computers. History and politics are two of my passions. I agree with Ray and more serious counseling needs are sent to LDS Social Services or other professionals.
It seems like there are some medium burn needs, such as discussing a crisis of faith that would not generally be referred, and, in my experience, many bishops would just give a canned answer for; Study/Pray.
I think very few bishops are prepared to discuss church historical issues, many are not prepared to discuss theological or doctrinal issues to any degree.
Also, another observation, one of the ‘tools’ that bishops have is denying the sacrament to someone. I am trying to imagine what would have happened in my home life as a youth with my mother if I had ever skipped the sacrament. I would have never heard the end of it. I am not sure this is an effective tool, and the threat of a restriction could be limiting the number of people who seek counsel.
SD, was he told the reason he wasn’t called – or is this just his and his wife’s belief about why? I don’t know the man, and I don’t know his wife, but red flags popped up when I read your last comment about their reaction. It might be a false alarm, but I just wondered.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.