Repentance and Priesthood Roulette – What to teach kids?

[Anonymous]

Why can’t they say what they’re concerned about? Instead of prying into the probably 90% of matters that are settling for kids trying to move past guilt and shame and commit to the church as adults?

My cynical answer is that they don’t want it to be widely known where the no-serve line is, because then they’d have more kids coming closer to the edge. But that’s a controlling, ultimately doomed approach, in my opinion.

But I can see that “it’s complicated.”

[Anonymous]

nibbler wrote:

4.5.2 Worthiness wrote:

…Mere confession and refraining from a sin for a period of time do not on their own constitute repentance. There must also be evidence of a broken heart, a contrite spirit, and a lasting change of behavior (see Mosiah 5:2). The bishop and stake president are to confirm that the member is free of transgression for a sufficient time to manifest genuine repentance and to prepare spiritually for the temple and for a sacred mission call.

nibbler, thanks for that post. Ann, it’s a tough situation, because generic policy has come home to you. So let me first say, I understand your frustration and the uncomfortable situation your daughter was in. I have no idea the nature of her situation. I hope she’s doing well, regardless of anything else. All my comments will be completely along the Church-view not taking into account the specifics of this situation.

I always try to look for ways to understand the Church’s position on these matters. It’s the only way I can stay associated with the Church and not lose my mind. They are in a bit of a tough spot. Missionaries literally wear the brand of the Church in the performance of their calling. They are called not to be emissaries of God, but to be a “Missionary of the CoJCoLDS”. Somehow, the Church needs to know that they can count on the missionary to represent the Church well. We all know that there are lots of people who fake their way into positions that they don’t strictly deserve, and this isn’t limited to Church; you can find these people in schools (both students and teachers), in the workplace, driving on roads when they either are impaired or simply don’t have a license, hopping into the express checkout at the grocery store with a cartload well above 10 items, jumping into a line ahead of other people who have obviously been there longer just because the opportunity presents itself, accepting charity when they don’t really need it, charging more than what is fair, or taking credit when they didn’t merit it. The Church is in the unenviable position of needing to determine ‘worthiness’ and whether proper repentance has been entered into by an individual, which itself is a hugely personal concern, but without which the Church can’t call a single missionary or local leader. Take a step back from the ‘worthiness’ concern and consider another question that the Church has asked in the past, if they don’t now: has the missionary candidate ever contemplated suicide. By itself, it’s shocking that the Church would use this as a measuring stick. I mean, that’s also pretty personal. Is it really the Church’s business? And yet, how can they not ask, when they are going to put the missionary into a position with such pressures?

FWIW, I have a job where I have had to be fingerprinted and investigated. The investigation included talking to my neighbors about my personal life. But, I voluntarily accepted that aspect of my job, because, well… I like having my job.

[Anonymous]

My one daughter is fine. Because being asked that question triggered some thinking. She answered truthfully. Then she thought, Wait a minute. This is no one else’s business. So regardless of what the church is trying to accomplish, the effect on her was to send her down a more self-sufficient path in which the church doesn’t gate-keep her relationship to God and Christ. I think casting these wide nets to pick through whatever is hauled up might backfire. She no longer feels that she must marry in the temple, for instance. (There are also other factors involved in this.)

I see that they’re in a tough situation, though.

I made the OP because, in addition to revisiting this situation with the young adult interviews, I was talking with a former bishop and SP counselor about a (recent, last ten years) situation where the new priesthood leader wasn’t satisfied with the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, opened new ones, and more or less reversed the first decision. I realize that that I’d be cheering for that if I felt “justice” hadn’t been done, but in this case it really was a more typical hard-liner disagreeing with more merciful judge. I’m coming around to the opinion that we submit to a lot of inappropriate church involvement in our lives.

[Anonymous]

Ann wrote:

I made the OP because, in addition to revisiting this situation with the young adult interviews, I was talking with a former bishop and SP counselor about a (recent, last ten years) situation where the new priesthood leader wasn’t satisfied with the outcome of disciplinary proceedings, opened new ones, and more or less reversed the first decision. I realize that that I’d be cheering for that if I felt “justice” hadn’t been done, but in this case it really was a more typical hard-liner disagreeing with more merciful judge. I’m coming around to the opinion that we submit to a lot of inappropriate church involvement in our lives.

I’ve read a talk by BKP several times recently called the Brilliant morning of forgiveness.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/the-brilliant-morning-of-forgiveness?lang=eng

It didn’t stick out to me the first couple times but the last time I read it, it did. In it he says:

BKP wrote:

There are some transgressions which require a discipline which will bring about the relief that comes with the morning of forgiveness. If your mistakes have been grievous ones, go to your bishop. Like the rescuers who brought John Breen down from the mountaintops, bishops can guide you through the steps required to obtain forgiveness insofar as the Church is concerned. Each one of us must work out individually forgiveness from the Lord.

The bolded part is what stuck out to me. That’s really all it is. We are ‘”forgiven” insofar as the church is concerned which in the long run I don’t think really means all that much. I know these men are called of God and they should be using the spirit to guide them but it’s still just a judgement handed down by men. I think it’s up to each person to decide what needs to go before the bishop or not. The Lord knows our hearts and what is in them. We need to take the matters to him and make sure that we feel ok with ourselves and feel forgiven. If we do then I think that is all that matters.

[Anonymous]

unsure wrote:

I’ve read a talk by BKP several times recently called the Brilliant morning of forgiveness.

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/1995/10/the-brilliant-morning-of-forgiveness?lang=eng

It didn’t stick out to me the first couple times but the last time I read it, it did. In it he says:

BKP wrote:

There are some transgressions which require a discipline which will bring about the relief that comes with the morning of forgiveness. If your mistakes have been grievous ones, go to your bishop. Like the rescuers who brought John Breen down from the mountaintops, bishops can guide you through the steps required to obtain forgiveness insofar as the Church is concerned. Each one of us must work out individually forgiveness from the Lord.

The bolded part is what stuck out to me. That’s really all it is. We are ‘”forgiven” insofar as the church is concerned which in the long run I don’t think really means all that much. I know these men are called of God and they should be using the spirit to guide them but it’s still just a judgement handed down by men. I think it’s up to each person to decide what needs to go before the bishop or not. The Lord knows our hearts and what is in them. We need to take the matters to him and make sure that we feel ok with ourselves and feel forgiven. If we do then I think that is all that matters.

So if, in the long run, it doesn’t mean all that much, how much should it mean to me in the short run, and what should we teach or model for our kids?

It’s just strange sometimes, and sad and disorienting, to realize how much I’ve changed. In addition to “render unto Caesar,” I’m developing a “render unto the church/the prophet/SLC” mentality. I like it; it’s freeing, more interesting, and rings truer than my old approach. But even good change is hard.

[Anonymous]

My short response to the title question:

Teach them the importance of the first (repentance – meaning simply “positive change”) and the reality of the second (an aspect of “opposition in all things”).

Teach them that the first is critical to happiness, but that it has to be self-defined to be empowering.

Teach them that the second cannot be allowed to define the first – or one’s happiness – or one’s self-worth – or one’s goodness.

Teach them to respect human leaders but not worship them – that the roulette exists because we all are human and infallible.

If it helps, I wrote the following about what it means to sustain someone in the fullest sense – NOT in the twisted, unrighteous dominion sense:

“What Does It Mean to Sustain Leaders?” (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2014/10/what-does-it-mean-to-sustain-church.html)

“Sustaining Leaders Includes Helping Then Understand When They Are Wrong” (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2015/04/sustaining-leaders-includes-helping.html)

“Sustain & Support vs. Obey” (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2011/10/sustain-and-support-vs-obey.html)

[Anonymous]

Old Timer wrote:

“What Does It Mean to Sustain Leaders?” (http://thingsofmysoul.blogspot.com/2014/10/what-does-it-mean-to-sustain-church.html)

In the actual moment, how does this idea get applied? I really like it, and am going to share it with family, but this translates into what? Should the person interviewed ask why the question is being asked? So that you do know why, and can judge for yourself whether to answer? In that scenario you would be sustaining, because you aren’t dismissing out of hand his right or responsibility to ask?

[Anonymous]

Generally, I would avoid asking why directly if it is an interview with a large gap of disproportionate power – authority. Unfortunately, Type A people tend to see that as challenging or confrontational. Rather, I might say something like, “I didn’t realize that was okay to ask in this setting,” or, “I’m confused. I’ve never heard of that question being asked in an interview like this,” (responses that ask why but not directly or in a challenging way – a bit passive-aggressive, but better in that setting than real or imagined aggression) or, “I’m fully in line with the teachings / standards of the Church,” or simply, “Yes / No.”

With questions about sexual matters, I am fine with, “My parent(s) said not to answer anything specific, except that I am following the Law of Chastity” – or, “My / My parents’ understanding of the handbook’s guidelines is that questions dealing with sexual details are not appropriate for this sort of interview.”

[Anonymous]

You could say, “I have been told by other bishopric members in the past that deviating from the set TR questions should only be done when the spirit is really telling you to probe. I am surprised that you are getting that feeling as I don’t think there is much more than my answer already.”

[Anonymous]

I have a hard time thinking my kids can say too much that is complex to an adult authority figure, especially about these kind of awkward topics.

Is it the worst thing in the world to tell them to just say whatever they want to move past it, and not get into it? In other words, just give them permission to not answer by saying whatever they want to say to get the bishop to move to the next question?

Could I tell them not to feel guilty answering it any way they want if the questions should not be asked? God will understand.

[Author]

Posts