Your Bishop represents Christ

[Anonymous]

Quote:

“Your Bishop Represents Christ, if people understood that they would be excited to talk to him and willing to do what he asks.”

This gem came from our Stake President at Stake Conference last night. I would hope that if he really believes that, he would put a lot of effort into making sure the bishops in the stake acted in a Christ-like manner.

But what really bothers me is this is uncomfortably close to…I don’t even know how to express it, worship? Infallibility of the Bishop?

To imply that the bishop always does what Christ would do in a situation just is a terrible idea.

[Anonymous]

Every one of us who has been baptized represents Christ in the exact same way that the Bishop does.

If I was the Bishop, I would have been VERY uncomfortable with the Stake President’s statement – and all of the Bishops I’ve know personally would have been uncomfortable, as well – except one.

That one was the worst Bishop I’ve known.

[Anonymous]

Ah, the nonsense that is sometimes spouted over the pulpit. Uh, I don’t think so. And I don’t think most bishops would think so either. BIshops are human beings with their own sets of pressures and stresses. Creating that kind of association “dehumanizes” them a bit. After all, what does Christ need from us? (probably not much really) But our bishops (flawed but good men that most are) need support and kindness just like we need theirs.

[Anonymous]

Let me break down my response a little more:

Quote:

“Your Bishop Represents Christ, if people understood that they would be excited to talk to him and willing to do what he asks.”

1) I have no problem with the idea that the Bishop represents Christ – in some situations. Again, all of us represent Christ, and the Bishop has certain unique responsibilities in that.

2) “They would be excited to talk to him.” Generally, that’s a function of him, not his office or calling. People usually like to talk to nice, good people; they usually don’t like to talk to jerks or harsh people.

3) “They would be willing to do what he asks.” This is where my biggest concern lies. It’s dangerous to put someone in a position where they can expect obedience just because of their position. It’s too easy to fall for the allure of the power. I wouldn’t have a problem with, “They would be willing to consider seriously what he asks.”

[Anonymous]

It is wrong to teach that concept. It is much more cult-like than Christ-like.

I wish our church would focus a little more on MAN>GOD>church, and a little less on man>CHURCH>god.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

That statement is an extension of Ben Franklin’s idea that some individuals in some churches are more interested in making people good [insert name of church-goer here, like “Mormons” or “Presbyterians”] rather than simply good Christians.

[Anonymous]

SilentDawning wrote:

That statement is an extension of Ben Franklin’s idea that some individuals in some churches are more interested in making people good [insert name of church-goer here, like “Mormons” or “Presbyterians”] rather than simply good Christians.

Yep.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

[Anonymous]

I’ve always experienced confusion on the doctrinal basis for the interposition of bishop between a sinner in need of repentance and the Big JC. I do believe in right and wrong; I do believe in sin; I do believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior and has atoned for our sins; I do believe forgiveness is freely given after repentance. I think there are good doctrinal bases for each of those statements. What I am not sure is this: what is the doctrinal basis for another man to sit in between the repenter and the Lord? Every time I hear the role of the bishop described, it’s that “he can help in the repentance process,” “he can let you know what you need to do to repent,” “some sins are so serious they need confession to a bishop to work through the repentance process.” What is the doctrinal basis for any of that? I don’t recall Christ saying “Come unto your Bishop, ye that are heavy laden, and he will help you figure out how to come unto me so I can give you rest.”

I agree that most bishops are good men who are genuinely trying to help people. I’ve only had one bishop I didn’t care for as a person. But doesn’t our placing a bishop where we’ve placed him kind of resemble the place the saints occupy in the Catholic and Orthodox traditions? The saints act as intermediaries between man and God – isn’t that where we’ve placed bishops?

[Anonymous]

I don’t in any way look at the Bishop or any other member of the priesthood hierarchy as an ‘intermediary’, and I don’t think that is the intent of the office. Quite to the contrary, I think LDS doctrine, past and present, is very much one of personal relationship between God and each of his children.

The bishop, however, is a “Judge in Israel” (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/107.72,74?lang=eng). I see that in this way: The bishop has the responsibility to ensure that the members of his congregation are properly qualified to participate and officiate. For example, the bishop is the first line of defense regarding who can enter the temple; ensuring that the person has sincere intent to worship God and not to desecrate it. In that same way, if a person in the congregation had a problem with stealing, he or she should probably not work in the clerk’s office, until they can get that resolved. So, I look at it as honesty between the person and the church, not between the person and God. If a member of the congregation has a serious fidelity problem, he/she needs to work that out with their spouse. If they want forgiveness from God, they need to involve God. But in addition, propriety and sincerity would dictate that the penitent man/woman would go before the bishop to allow the church to determine if that changes the penitent’s standing in church. I think it rightly belongs to the church to decide whether such a person should continue to teach sunday school, or operate as the primary president or YM’s president. In other words, there are two aspects of repentance that we normally conflate: 1) personal righteousness before God and 2) worthiness/preparedness/commitment to receive the ordinances of the church and act as a principal in the church. IMO the bishop has everything to do with the latter and nothing to do with the former (except the opportunity to provide guidance and help if desired by the individual).

I’m OK with that because I view the Gospel and the Church as two separate and distinct entities. Jesus said, “Render under Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” At the risk of blasphemy, I’ll say that, to me, this passage fits perfectly here. The church gets to decide its own rules of decorum… so, think of the church as Caesar, but forgiveness is between God and us.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

I don’t in any way look at the Bishop or any other member of the priesthood hierarchy as an ‘intermediary’, and I don’t think that is the intent of the office. Quite to the contrary, I think LDS doctrine, past and present, is very much one of personal relationship between God and each of his children.

The bishop, however, is a “Judge in Israel” (http://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/107.72,74?lang=eng). I see that in this way: The bishop has the responsibility to ensure that the members of his congregation are properly qualified to participate and officiate. For example, the bishop is the first line of defense regarding who can enter the temple; ensuring that the person has sincere intent to worship God and not to desecrate it. In that same way, if a person in the congregation had a problem with stealing, he or she should probably not work in the clerk’s office, until they can get that resolved. So, I look at it as honesty between the person and the church, not between the person and God. If a member of the congregation has a serious fidelity problem, he/she needs to work that out with their spouse. If they want forgiveness from God, they need to involve God. But in addition, propriety and sincerity would dictate that the penitent man/woman would go before the bishop to allow the church to determine if that changes the penitent’s standing in church. I think it rightly belongs to the church to decide whether such a person should continue to teach sunday school, or operate as the primary president or YM’s president. In other words, there are two aspects of repentance that we normally conflate: 1) personal righteousness before God and 2) worthiness/preparedness/commitment to receive the ordinances of the church and act as a principal in the church. IMO the bishop has everything to do with the latter and nothing to do with the former (except the opportunity to provide guidance and help if desired by the individual).

I’m OK with that because I view the Gospel and the Church as two separate and distinct entities. Jesus said, “Render under Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and unto God the things that are God’s.” At the risk of blasphemy, I’ll say that, to me, this passage fits perfectly here. The church gets to decide its own rules of decorum… so, think of the church as Caesar, but forgiveness is between God and us.

Agree 100%. Bishop cannot forgive sins, but he can declare an individuals standing within the church. It is an administrative function. I do not like the comparison between bishops and JC or fathers.

[Anonymous]

On any given Sunday the church is overflowing with statements that are basically ideas turned into doctrine. Mormons have this weird habit of making statements with no basis in fact. They just spout things off that sound good to them. Then the majority of members nod in agreement and the next thing you know it is doctrine.

[Anonymous]

Cadence wrote:

On any given Sunday the church is overflowing with statements that are basically ideas turned into doctrine. Mormons have this weird habit of making statements with no basis in fact. They just spout things off that sound good to them. Then the majority of members nod in agreement and the next thing you know it is doctrine.

Agreed. In fact the topic of this thread is very much like the 14Fs, in that it places a man between us and God, presumes that that man is Christlike, simply because of the position he holds, puts the responsibility and test of faith on US, to accept him as such, solely on the value of the office. To me, the 14Fs have arrived to us in the same way described by Cadence. It was first offered as a speech by a hardliner to a congregation of receptive BYU students. Later, apparently, the church tried to retract it in normal mormon ways of just not talking about it, and then years later, it was quoted in GC without response from the church. Since then, I have heard it referred to in SM. It’s now a de facto doctrine. If I bring it up in EQ, no one will bat an eye… but if I say that I believe in evolution, I’ll get some stern looks.

[Anonymous]

On Own Now wrote:

Cadence wrote:

On any given Sunday the church is overflowing with statements that are basically ideas turned into doctrine. Mormons have this weird habit of making statements with no basis in fact. They just spout things off that sound good to them. Then the majority of members nod in agreement and the next thing you know it is doctrine.

Agreed. In fact the topic of this thread is very much like the 14Fs, in that it places a man between us and God, presumes that that man is Christlike, simply because of the position he holds, puts the responsibility and test of faith on US, to accept him as such, solely on the value of the office. To me, the 14Fs have arrived to us in the same way described by Cadence. It was first offered as a speech by a hardliner to a congregation of receptive BYU students. Later, apparently, the church tried to retract it in normal mormon ways of just not talking about it, and then years later, it was quoted in GC without response from the church. Since then, I have heard it referred to in SM. It’s now a de facto doctrine. If I bring it up in EQ, no one will bat an eye… but if I say that I believe in evolution, I’ll get some stern looks.

You can not bring up evolution because it does not fit into the Mormon view. You could however say we are all gods with the power to move mountains, heal the leper, and leap tall buildings in a single bound. Then you would get some nods of agreement. The first entirely based in scientific fact is dismissed, the second based totally on opinion with no evidence is accepted solely on the premises it fits into the narrative.

So it makes you start to realize how much of our doctrine is just the musings of our leaders over time.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

Mormons have this weird habit of making statements with no basis in fact. They just spout things off that sound good to them.

Cadence, so do non-Mormons; so do you and I; so do politicians and scientists and business leaders and athletes and any other type of person on this earth.

In fact, the sentence quoted above is a great example of this. It is overly broad and stereotypical, but it feels and sounds good to you.

I’m smiling as I type this, but I think it’s important to realize that tendency in each and every one of us and avoid labeling “Mormons” or even “TBMs” with such a broad, dismissive statement.

[Anonymous]

Quote:

You can not bring up evolution because it does not fit into the Mormon view.

I’ve done it and been successful – as have many other members, including some leaders. It DOES fit the Mormon view, very well – but not the view of lots of members. It’s taught openly and strongly at BYU – really a great evolutionary biology program.

Absolutely, it’s important to frame things carefully when dealing with people who don’t see things the same way, but such absolute statements aren’t any truer than the ones from the other extreme.

[Author]

Posts