First Presidency Requiring RE-CONFESSION of sins

[cyclOps]

Underdog,

Speaking for myself, I don’t agree with you. Nothing you say will change my mind because you continue to say the same thing, only adding more exaggeration and extremism each time. I’ve stated my perspective and that’s that. Just because someone doesn’t accept your premise and continue in the rebuttal process as you desire, doesn’t mean you’re right. Sorry most here don’t agree with you, but what did you really expect?

Pretend nothing exists all you want. With your attitude, no power on earth or in heaven can change your mind. So you're ADMITTING that the Lord Jesus Christ could give me every word of truth to say to you, and back it up by the power of the Holy Ghost, but you will not hearken.

That's a stunning confession on a public board. But it's par for the course.

My "desire" is to be persuasive. I'm not wanting anybody to think like me. This is not about me. It's about truth. My purpose is to state truth and persuade people to accept and follow truth and reject falsehoods and tyranny.

Not for your benefit (since you say you're closed minded), but for others reading here, I will quote you from above:

There is no re-confession required within those questions. When asked if you have always lived the law of chasitity you say no if you have not. When asked what you’ve done to repent you answer that question however it applies to you. If you have not repented then you have not confessed previously. If you have repented then explain how. That is not a re-confession. Even if it was it wouldn’t deny the atonement of Jesus Christ nor is it abusive.

If the sin has been properly repented of then there is no old wound to reopen. There is no harassment. No abuse. No unrighteous dominion. None.

Asking an honest person who has previously repented, confessed to their bishop and been forgiven by the Lord, if they have ALWAYS lived the law of chastity is asking for a re-confession. If you honestly say "no", you are confessing to violating the law of chastity, which opens the door to men knowing about your personal life which they have no business knowing anything about. They have no business knowing anything about it because the LORD knows nothing about (as He has forgotten the sin). It's clearly an egregious abuse of authority. See how Yahtzee (above) explained the effects of her abuse by being asked this simple "have you always lived the law of chastity" question.

You say "if the sin has been properly repented of then there's no old would to reopen."

See Yahtzee's account. Her testimony, "I left feeling dirty and deflated. That awesome clean feeling was gone. Scarlet letter. I left with a tainted view of myself and of the atonement. It was years later after countless other temple recommend interviews that I realized that stake President was out of line."

Somehow you fail to understand. I guess in your blind eagerness to defend the First Presidency and local leaders who foolishly and perversely ask these questions you just can't empathize. I can't explain why you can't see. But you can. You said, "Nothing you say will change my mind" that the Brethren could be incorrect and leading local leaders astray. You start with that false premise and reverse engineer everything to fit that unbelief. You are correct, nothing can help you. As Nephi says. "the power of the Holy Ghost carries truth unto the hearts of the children of men" but not "into". You have to be contrite and humble and not hardhearted. DC 58:42 is truth. I hope you open up to it and reject teachings of leaders who say that man is entitled to know sins that the Lord has forgotten.

But you’re not persuasive, that’s the thing. I would listen if you spoke truth, but you don’t.

You keep throwing out these extreme words like tyranny. You’re trying so hard. I’ll give you that much.

[inho]

Quick question of those that may know. If you have comitted a sin and confessed to your Bishop/Stake President, is this put in church records? Is there file on us?, so if sin A, B or C is comitted, you can’t serve in X, Y or Z capacity?

If a person is under formal church discipline, then a note is put in the member record. This means that there has been a disciplinary council and the person is under formal probation or disfellowshipped. However, the note in the member record says only that the person is disfellowshipped (or under formal probation), the reason is not stated. When the person returns to full fellowship, the mark is removed from the records. In some cases, there might be annotation in the record which stays. This happens only in the most serious cases. For example, if you have sexually abused children, then there is an annotation so that your bishop knows so that he will not give you a calling in primary. That kind of annotation cannot be placed by the bishop, but must be done by someone in the Salt Lake.

In general, the church is very careful for not having any extra information in the records, because that would cause legal problems in most countries. For example, people have several times suggested, that home teacher should be able to report their visits online and that there should be a text box for extra information. Those developing church software has responded that this will not happen, since any free text reporting would likely lead into legal problems.

[JohnnyL]

There is no re-confession required within those questions. When asked if you have always lived the law of chasitity you say no if you have not. When asked what you’ve done to repent you answer that question however it applies to you. If you have not repented then you have not confessed previously. If you have repented then explain how. That is not a re-confession. Even if it was it wouldn’t deny the atonement of Jesus Christ nor is it abusive.

5. Full-time missionary service requires living gospel standards. What do you understand about the following standards?
a.The law of chastity
In reference to the law of chastity, have you always lived in accordance with what has been discussed? If not, how long ago did the transgression(s) occur? What have you done to repent?
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/multimedi ... letter.pdf

Those follow up questions are re-confession of prior sins, not a yes or no question. It requires bringing up pass transgressions or sins that have been resolved. This question should not even be asked. It means that it has not been forgotten or blotted out. This is especially of concern if the Bishop or Stake President that is doing this Mission interview was not the original priesthood holder that dealt with the situation in the past. It is none of their business to know about prior sins that have been repented of, especially if it's a youth.

I'm not politically correct in the least but I see these follow up questions as harassment and discrimination against the youth/prospective missionaries by church officials because church members do not have the same questions for a temple recommend interview. This is not a vetting issue especially when those sin are forgiven through the atonement. Bringing it up and having to explain your previous repentance process after completing the required repentance is opening up old wounds. The missionary questions are basically the same as the temple recommend questions for the other ones though.

The Law of Chastity follow up question should be almost the same as the temple recommend question: If not, "have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?"

Only unrepented of sins/transgressions should be addressed in any interview of this nature.

The church in the last month had to backtrack on denying unmarried males over 30 not being allowed to be temple workers because it was seen as discrimination. Looks like they are continuing that discrimination trend once again which is unfortunate for the youth.

Yes, I am aware of what you highlighted in red under 5(a). I already addressed that except for the “how long ago” part. I do not agree with you that it is a re-confession. You are asked how long ago the sin was and what you have done to repent. You are not asked what the sin was.

If the sin has been properly repented of then there is no old wound to reopen. There is no harassment. No abuse. No unrighteous dominion. None.

Anyone having properly repented of the sin wouldn’t display the attitude you present.

The church didn’t have to backtrack because anything was seen as discrimination. You see fire where there is no smoke.

Let's see how long before we start getting reports of these questions being expanded upon by priesthood leaders. The questions themselves might be just on the right side of the line, but I'm very confident they will be carried right over it in real practice.

I suggest the youth respond by the time, and then for the second question, "I repented by doing what my bishop asked me to do," and no more.

There IS a difference between sharing your past sins when VERY appropriate, and being forced to share your past sins.

And it's a pretty bad start/ example, as missionaries are taught to NOT share past sins with investigators, etc.

[Arenera]

There is no re-confession required within those questions. When asked if you have always lived the law of chasitity you say no if you have not. When asked what you’ve done to repent you answer that question however it applies to you. If you have not repented then you have not confessed previously. If you have repented then explain how. That is not a re-confession. Even if it was it wouldn’t deny the atonement of Jesus Christ nor is it abusive.

5. Full-time missionary service requires living gospel standards. What do you understand about the following standards?
a.The law of chastity
In reference to the law of chastity, have you always lived in accordance with what has been discussed? If not, how long ago did the transgression(s) occur? What have you done to repent?
http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/multimedi ... letter.pdf

Those follow up questions are re-confession of prior sins, not a yes or no question. It requires bringing up pass transgressions or sins that have been resolved. This question should not even be asked. It means that it has not been forgotten or blotted out. This is especially of concern if the Bishop or Stake President that is doing this Mission interview was not the original priesthood holder that dealt with the situation in the past. It is none of their business to know about prior sins that have been repented of, especially if it's a youth.

I'm not politically correct in the least but I see these follow up questions as harassment and discrimination against the youth/prospective missionaries by church officials because church members do not have the same questions for a temple recommend interview. This is not a vetting issue especially when those sin are forgiven through the atonement. Bringing it up and having to explain your previous repentance process after completing the required repentance is opening up old wounds. The missionary questions are basically the same as the temple recommend questions for the other ones though.

The Law of Chastity follow up question should be almost the same as the temple recommend question: If not, "have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?"

Only unrepented of sins/transgressions should be addressed in any interview of this nature.

The church in the last month had to backtrack on denying unmarried males over 30 not being allowed to be temple workers because it was seen as discrimination. Looks like they are continuing that discrimination trend once again which is unfortunate for the youth.

Yes, I am aware of what you highlighted in red under 5(a). I already addressed that except for the “how long ago” part. I do not agree with you that it is a re-confession. You are asked how long ago the sin was and what you have done to repent. You are not asked what the sin was.

If the sin has been properly repented of then there is no old wound to reopen. There is no harassment. No abuse. No unrighteous dominion. None.

Anyone having properly repented of the sin wouldn’t display the attitude you present.

The church didn’t have to backtrack because anything was seen as discrimination. You see fire where there is no smoke.

Let's see how long before we start getting reports of these questions being expanded upon by priesthood leaders. The questions themselves might be just on the right side of the line, but I'm very confident they will be carried right over it in real practice.

I suggest the youth respond by the time, and then for the second question, "I repented by doing what my bishop asked me to do," and no more.

There IS a difference between sharing your past sins when VERY appropriate, and being forced to share your past sins.

And it's a pretty bad start/ example, as missionaries are taught to NOT share past sins with investigators, etc.

Maybe parents and prospective missionaries should understand this:

3 And this is not all, my son. Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel.

4 Yea, she did steal away the hearts of many; but this was no excuse for thee, my son. Thou shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted.

5 Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?

Have you heard of any missionaries being sent home because they had not confessed to such serious sin? Being sent home is far worse than being truthful to the bishop.

[underdog]

Does it ever get draining for you to relentlessly attack a church you don't believe in?

Do you have something to contribute or are you honestly content to look the other way as abuse happens?

You honestly have no opinion on the questions I have raised?

You are okay with two priesthood leaders in two separate interviews asking you to reconfess something that you've already confessed and repented of?

Do you see anything analogous to your behavior and the behavior of faithful Catholics who turn a blind eye when abuse is reported of pedophile priests?

Being sent home is a very traumatizing experience for many who find they cannot lie to themselves once they are in the spirit of missionary work and are driven to do what should have been done in the first place - confess. So do you think it better to take a little extra effort and make as sure as possible that they will not be sent home or is it better to traumatize, stigmatize the ones that get sent home, their parents, and everyone else that has to observe a very public spectacle which does far more harm than good.

To come out in the Bishop interviews and then coordinate for when or if it might be appropriate to plan for a 6 month later exit is so much easier to orchestrate without embarrassment than to go and be sent home.

BrLenox,

Here's what I'm coming to realize . I've been under the assumption that the Church does things or makes policies that are in the best interest of the missionary or prospective missionary (or the member), because that's the official party line, and after all, that's what I would think too. The Lord does nothing but it's for the welfare of the people, or an individual, so of course, I've believed, the same must be true of the Church. I've projected my Christian values onto the Church. That's not a sound assumption anymore.

What I'm discovering, in my naivety, is that a lot of policies are driven by the question, "What is best for the Church" from a business perspective, and including from a legal perspective? I think the lawyers and accountants are driving many of the policies.

That's what's dawned on me here. With that perspective in mind, strange decisions often make complete sense. The impediment to realizing that is the official party line, "We're doing ______ because it's in the missionary's best interest." Which often leaves people scratching their heads.

For example, maybe letting lying missionaries out in the mission field doesn't produce the tithe-paying converts the Church covets? Maybe the lying missionaries have a negative impact on other missionaries and lower the overall morale of the missionary force in a given mission?

So a lawyer/ accountant may think like this:

"What if we "raise the bar" with the intent to catch as many liars as possible (even if we have to ask painfully invasive questions to honest missionaries and have them re-confess previously resolved sins and slap the Atonement in the face...and mind you, the lawyers and accountants don't even think that far ahead I'm quite sure). This will shrink the overall missionary force and lower our expenses tremendously. Let's try this and see how it impacts ROI. Perhaps the ratio of tithe-paying converts to the number of missionaries will increase and our ROI will improve.

If true, this WOULD explain what's happening in the COB board rooms where such policies are hammered out.

Your question:

So do you think it better to take a little extra effort and make as sure as possible that they will not be sent home or is it better to traumatize, stigmatize the ones that get sent home, their parents, and everyone else that has to observe a very public spectacle which does far more harm than good.

I honestly think that is the wrong question, even a bad question. The Lord desires to save us. In other for that to happen, the gospel must be taught in its purity. Isn't a better question: What can we do to help the individual be saved by the Atoning blood of Jesus Christ?

Asking that question would generate results like these:

1) Under no circumstances can we trample the Atonement by asking the innocent and honest to re-confess their sins and open the door to potential voyeuristic abuse of authority by bad leaders.
2) For the liars or prospective members who are reluctant to confess and repent for whatever reason, what can we do to show them love and encourage them to repent? How can we inspire them to come unto Christ? How can we persuade them to not procrastinate the day of their repentance? Under no circumstances should we force a confession or guilt trip them into a confession.
3) Acknowledging that some missionaries will enter the field carrying the burden of serious sin, and yet they will be unknown, how can we get through to them?
4) What is the real qualification(s) for missionary service? That's a great question. DC 4:3 comes to mind. "If ye have desires to serve God..."

Let me ask you a question, Br Lenox: what do the stories of Alma the Younger and his friends, the sons of Mosiah (Ammon and Aaron to name the prominent two), Alma's son, Corianton, and their pre-mission and mission life teach us about how the Lord can work with the even "the very vilest of sinners"?

Answer honestly please...do you think any of these men would have been cleared for missionary service by today's qualifications? Alma and his 4 buddies were totally apostate, and the vilest of the vilest. Perhaps their unusual testimony of having been forgiven would have got them excommunicated for sure? After all, Alma said he saw Jesus. That probably wouldn't fly with today's church leadership, would it?

What about Corianton? ON HIS MISSION to the Zoramites, he openly had relations with the town whore! Everybody knew it! Talk about bringing shame to the name tag! And yet the Lord turned around and used him for future missions! See Alma 43:1-2:

1 And now it came to pass that the sons of Alma did go forth among the people, to declare the word unto them. And Alma, also, himself, could not rest, and he also went forth.

2 Now we shall say no more concerning their preaching, except that they preached the word, and the truth, according to the spirit of prophecy and revelation; and they preached after the holy order of God by which they were called.

Remember Alma 39-42 was Alma's teachings to his wayward son, Corianton. Then in the very next chapter (chapter 43) and in the same year Corianton is sent on a mission.

Alma 49:30 should call the Brethren to repentance for how they are very likely mistreating and miscategorizing valiant men and women of God:

Yea, and there was continual peace among them, and exceedingly great prosperity in the church because of their heed and diligence which they gave unto the word of God, which was declared unto them by Helaman, and Shiblon, and Corianton, and Ammon and his brethren, yea, and by all those who had been ordained by the holy order of God, being baptized unto repentance, and sent forth to preach among the people.

If there's any doubt whatsoever about Corianton's worthiness to serve a mission IN CLOSE PROXIMITY to his public fornication, Mormon vindicates Corianton in Alma 48:18, speaking of General Moroni and comparing the valiant nature of that man to Corianton:

Behold, he was a man like unto Ammon, the son of Mosiah, yea, and even the other sons of Mosiah, yea, and also Alma and his sons, for they were all men of God.

Now I'm not remotely suggesting that former fornicators or the very vilest of apostate sinners who say they've repented easily or quickly be given a name tag. What these scriptures prove though is that the Lord DOES call such people to declare His word. And more than likely ALL of these men would have been turned down by their bishop or stake president, and even the First Presidency who are training the local leaders to cull those types out.

[Durzan]

okay i must admit that your last post has caught my attention.

[JohnnyL]

Those follow up questions are re-confession of prior sins, not a yes or no question. It requires bringing up pass transgressions or sins that have been resolved. This question should not even be asked. It means that it has not been forgotten or blotted out. This is especially of concern if the Bishop or Stake President that is doing this Mission interview was not the original priesthood holder that dealt with the situation in the past. It is none of their business to know about prior sins that have been repented of, especially if it's a youth.

I'm not politically correct in the least but I see these follow up questions as harassment and discrimination against the youth/prospective missionaries by church officials because church members do not have the same questions for a temple recommend interview. This is not a vetting issue especially when those sin are forgiven through the atonement. Bringing it up and having to explain your previous repentance process after completing the required repentance is opening up old wounds. The missionary questions are basically the same as the temple recommend questions for the other ones though.

The Law of Chastity follow up question should be almost the same as the temple recommend question: If not, "have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?"

Only unrepented of sins/transgressions should be addressed in any interview of this nature.

The church in the last month had to backtrack on denying unmarried males over 30 not being allowed to be temple workers because it was seen as discrimination. Looks like they are continuing that discrimination trend once again which is unfortunate for the youth.

Yes, I am aware of what you highlighted in red under 5(a). I already addressed that except for the “how long ago” part. I do not agree with you that it is a re-confession. You are asked how long ago the sin was and what you have done to repent. You are not asked what the sin was.

If the sin has been properly repented of then there is no old wound to reopen. There is no harassment. No abuse. No unrighteous dominion. None.

Anyone having properly repented of the sin wouldn’t display the attitude you present.

The church didn’t have to backtrack because anything was seen as discrimination. You see fire where there is no smoke.

Let's see how long before we start getting reports of these questions being expanded upon by priesthood leaders. The questions themselves might be just on the right side of the line, but I'm very confident they will be carried right over it in real practice.

I suggest the youth respond by the time, and then for the second question, "I repented by doing what my bishop asked me to do," and no more.

There IS a difference between sharing your past sins when VERY appropriate, and being forced to share your past sins.

And it's a pretty bad start/ example, as missionaries are taught to NOT share past sins with investigators, etc.

Maybe parents and prospective missionaries should understand this:

3 And this is not all, my son. Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel.

4 Yea, she did steal away the hearts of many; but this was no excuse for thee, my son. Thou shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted.

5 Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?

Have you heard of any missionaries being sent home because they had not confessed to such serious sin? Being sent home is far worse than being truthful to the bishop.

And? I'm missing your connection.

[Arenera]

Yes, I am aware of what you highlighted in red under 5(a). I already addressed that except for the “how long ago” part. I do not agree with you that it is a re-confession. You are asked how long ago the sin was and what you have done to repent. You are not asked what the sin was.

If the sin has been properly repented of then there is no old wound to reopen. There is no harassment. No abuse. No unrighteous dominion. None.

Anyone having properly repented of the sin wouldn’t display the attitude you present.

The church didn’t have to backtrack because anything was seen as discrimination. You see fire where there is no smoke.

Let's see how long before we start getting reports of these questions being expanded upon by priesthood leaders. The questions themselves might be just on the right side of the line, but I'm very confident they will be carried right over it in real practice.

I suggest the youth respond by the time, and then for the second question, "I repented by doing what my bishop asked me to do," and no more.

There IS a difference between sharing your past sins when VERY appropriate, and being forced to share your past sins.

And it's a pretty bad start/ example, as missionaries are taught to NOT share past sins with investigators, etc.

Maybe parents and prospective missionaries should understand this:

3 And this is not all, my son. Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel.

4 Yea, she did steal away the hearts of many; but this was no excuse for thee, my son. Thou shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted.

5 Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?

Have you heard of any missionaries being sent home because they had not confessed to such serious sin? Being sent home is far worse than being truthful to the bishop.

And? I'm missing your connection.

If your kids fornicate, they need to repent. They need to understand it is at least a year from the time they fornicate to when they can go on a mission. If they fornicate several times, they have to wait 3 years. As a parent, you should teach your children not to fornicate.

If they did fornicate, repented, and there is a change in their bishop, they will need to tell the new bishop that they fornicated, they repented, and they are living worthy to go on a mission.

Or would you rather have them lie because you lie on your temple recommend interview?

[shadow]

What about Corianton? ON HIS MISSION to the Zoramites, he openly had relations with the town whore! Everybody knew it! Talk about bringing shame to the name tag!

Well now wait just a minute. That's an interesting thing to say, isn't it? Do you believe Corianton repented? If so, why bring up his sins?? Why would the Lord have his sins written about in the Book of Mormon which is to go to all the world for all to see? Why would Corianton's Dad write it on the plates? Maybe you're ignorant enough to believe Corianton has no idea it's in the BoM?? Same with all the other sinners who's stories are in the scriptures?
Doesn't God forget about those sins? Why then would He have them written for generations upon generations of people to see? Oh, maybe God no longer see's what's in the scriptures?? You crack me up. I don't think you even know what repentance is.

"Repentance is a divine gift, and there should be a smile on our faces when we speak of it. It points us to freedom, confidence, and peace. Rather than interrupting the celebration, the gift of repentance is the cause for true celebration.” -Elder Christofferson

If a Priesthood leader asks in a quiet interview if you've done something in the past and how you've repented of it then it should bring a feeling of happiness and humility to testify that the atonement has worked in your life. And if it hasn't, then it's an opportunity for the Priesthood leader to help you on the way to repentance.

[Michelle]

4) The First Presidency-endorsed questions (which probe if the candidate has ALWAYS LIVED the Law of Chastity) actually UNDERMINE trust in bishop #1's judgment and decisions. It undermines the authority of the original key-holder (bishop #1). What makes the current bishop's judgment better than the original bishop's? This opens up a very big can of worms.

This also bring up another issue that a previous bishop thinks repentance is complete but now another bishop may not?! Which is right? Unnecessary conflict. This also reduces a persons right to privacy to sins that have been forgiven. There is absolutely no reason to re-open discussions on those that have properly gone through the repentance process, especially the youth. This one question is going to cause more problems than it's trying to solve from the look of this thread.

My father was baptized and re-baptized 3 times. Each time he demonstrated sincere repentance and made and attempt at living the gospel fully. It was only after a time that he "recommitted" to his sins and re-embraced them.

Can a person need to re-repent? Sure.

Let's say someone has an affair, then works with the bishop and their spouse and repents completely. They go on to serves in church, attend the temple regularly, meet family obligations, we would all agree at that moment that person has repented.

But then 20-30 years later, they are tempted again. During that time, after many years of sincerely living the gospel, they grow slothful in reading their scriptures and praying. They get busy with life and although they go to church, they don't attend the temple very often. And then they fall again.

Is their repentance incomplete? Yeah, but that doesn't negate the good they did during those years. Nor does the good excuse their present behavior or sins.

Let's not oversimplify the problem.

There are some problems that weaken us and make us more susceptible to repeating the sins. Sins that are carnal and addicting in nature fall into this category as are sins against sacred covenants. These are sins that leave us, as Doctrine and Covenants state "to the buffeting of Satan" until the end of our mortal probation when, if we stay faithful, we are healed by the Atonement.

Doctrine and Covenants 78:12 12 And he who breaketh it shall lose his office and standing in the church, and shall be delivered over to the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption.

Doctrine and Covenants 82:21 21 And the soul that sins against this covenant, and hardeneth his heart against it, shall be dealt with according to the laws of my church, and shall be delivered over to the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption.

Doctrine and Covenants 104:9-10 9 Inasmuch as ye are cut off for transgression, ye cannot escape the buffetings of Satan until the day of redemption.

10 And I now give unto you power from this very hour, that if any man among you, of the order, is found a transgressor and repenteth not of the evil, that ye shall deliver him over unto the buffetings of Satan; and he shall not have power to bring evil upon you.

Doctrine and Covenants 132:26 26 Verily, verily, I say unto you, if a man marry a wife according to my word, and they are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, according to mine appointment, and he or she shall commit any sin or transgression of the new and everlasting covenant whatever, and all manner of blasphemies, and if they commit no murder wherein they shed innocent blood, yet they shall come forth in the first resurrection, and enter into their exaltation; but they shall be destroyed in the flesh, and shall be delivered unto the buffetings of Satan unto the day of redemption, saith the Lord God.

Nothing wrong with tending the flock, even making sure that the weak are strengthened and truly repentant. A mission is NOT just about the missionary, it is about those they serve and serve with.
We must take into account those they will influence as well. There are options for local service missions for those who are not in a position to serve a full time proselyting mission.

Let me give one other example. I someone sins by molesting a child, no matter how sincere their repentance, they would not be welcome to tend my children. Even if I believe their repentance to be sincere, even if I think it might hurt their feelings to refuse the offer of help because of that past sin, I am not going to risk the children. It just is what it is.

Again, I have lived in an area that was closed. It is a BIG deal. It is a big deal for those that will not be taught the gospel because missionaries are not in the area. It is a big deal for the church's enemies to use a fodder for persecuting the church and members. It is a bid deal for members who don't have the missionaries (not just for proselyting, but missionaries also work with less active and non-member family members.) It is a big deal for any missionaries who may have known what was happening and they get sent home, even though they didn't participate in the sin or activity, but didn't report it. It is an even bigger deal if the missionary happened to father a child that stays in the community. I am serious when I say this can affect an area for generations.

Serving a mission is a duty, but a duty that is a privilege. We must be careful that those who serve in Christ's name are worthy to serve in his name and represent him. Yes, even if some people's feelings are hurt.

1 Nephi 4:13 13 Behold the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.

[jwbohrer]

I don’t believe that this is about catching the liars—I think its more about two things…gauging their understanding of the repentance process…many youth have probably read on “the Internet” or maybe even learned from their parents false doctrines about repentance…such as that they never need to confess to a priesthood holder. So part of this process is to correct those false doctrines. The second is checking an administrative requirement.

But before we get there, I have to chuckle at Underdog’s conversation with his son, “Without any coaching or prep” (except the setup which includes a faulty, leading premise which CLEARLY telegraphs the answer his son is expected to give).

Moving on. The other part is just a reflection of something that Underdog seems to understand but is slightly—either purposefully or intentionally—misreading. He even talks about the “organization’s legal right” vs. “What The Lord Says”. He understands that yes, organizations can set their own requirements. This is what is happening here. But then he assumes conflates “qualifying for a mission” as being the same as “being temple worthy”. They aren’t the same and do not have equal requirements. And he is right—they SHOULD NOT BE COMBINED. But he is missing the fact that they are NOT being combined with these new questions.

His example is flawed. He is assuming, incorrectly, that the 16 year old who repented of his sin to Bishop A was also concurrently “cleared” by that bishop to go on a mission. In fact, that Bishop should probably have discussed that with that young man at the time—a reminder of the fact that sins may carry consequences that can not be escaped, regardless of the repentance process. “By the way, Young Man Jones, some sins carry long ranging consequences regarding the “privilege” to serve a mission…”

Later Bishops/Stake Presidents are NOT saying “you still need to repent further”. They are verifying an administrative qualification which is NOT required for salvation, and which is unrelated to your repentance/forgiveness process. It has as much to do with getting into the Celestial Kingdom as a Bishop checking to see if you got your wisdom teeth out. Both required for missionary work (rightly or wrongly); neither required for eternal salvation. When properly explained by leaders and parents, it is clear that the authority of the original keyholder was never undermined. A bishop “ending the disciplinary process” (or whatever) for a 16 year old youth is NOT authorizing them to serve a mission. The only undermining of keyholders would be when these questions are misrepresented.

It doesn’t deny the atonement. There are administrative requirements that sometimes seem arbitrary. These questions, and the entire missionary preparation process, are most successful when guided by a great, inspired bishop. I will admit that these questions may be misunderstood, misapplied and result in hard, unnecessary feelings when asked by some bishops—who I do worry will treat these as a “Second confession” as did one earlier mentioned Singles Ward Bishop.

I am worried about that. I’m worried that Bishops themselves won’t understand that this question—although appropriate for missionary vetting—is not appropriate in circumstance such as Yahtzee references. It increases the duty of leaders and parents to properly explain how the missionary qualification process is different from being temple worthy.

Similarly, I do worry about what Underdog rightly points out (although I would disagree with his word choice) that this opens up a door for some “potentially voyeuristic” person to re litigate the details…but that’s not what these questions ask. A bishop asking for those details A) is not following the new guidance but also, B) probably misunderstanding current practices as well. That’s a bishop training problem, not a doctrine or even administrative problem.

[brlenox]

Do you have something to contribute or are you honestly content to look the other way as abuse happens?
You honestly have no opinion on the questions I have raised?
You are okay with two priesthood leaders in two separate interviews asking you to reconfess something that you've already confessed and repented of?

Do you see anything analogous to your behavior and the behavior of faithful Catholics who turn a blind eye when abuse is reported of pedophile priests?

Being sent home is a very traumatizing experience for many who find they cannot lie to themselves once they are in the spirit of missionary work and are driven to do what should have been done in the first place - confess. So do you think it better to take a little extra effort and make as sure as possible that they will not be sent home or is it better to traumatize, stigmatize the ones that get sent home, their parents, and everyone else that has to observe a very public spectacle which does far more harm than good.

To come out in the Bishop interviews and then coordinate for when or if it might be appropriate to plan for a 6 month later exit is so much easier to orchestrate without embarrassment than to go and be sent home.

BrLenox,

Here's what I'm coming to realize . I've been under the assumption that the Church does things or makes policies that are in the best interest of the missionary or prospective missionary (or the member), because that's the official party line, and after all, that's what I would think too. The Lord does nothing but it's for the welfare of the people, or an individual, so of course, I've believed, the same must be true of the Church. I've projected my Christian values onto the Church. That's not a sound assumption anymore.

What I'm discovering, in my naivety, is that a lot of policies are driven by the question, "What is best for the Church" from a business perspective, and including from a legal perspective? I think the lawyers and accountants are driving many of the policies.

That's what's dawned on me here. With that perspective in mind, strange decisions often make complete sense. The impediment to realizing that is the official party line, "We're doing ______ because it's in the missionary's best interest." Which often leaves people scratching their heads.

For example, maybe letting lying missionaries out in the mission field doesn't produce the tithe-paying converts the Church covets? Maybe the lying missionaries have a negative impact on other missionaries and lower the overall morale of the missionary force in a given mission?

So a lawyer/ accountant may think like this:

"What if we "raise the bar" with the intent to catch as many liars as possible (even if we have to ask painfully invasive questions to honest missionaries and have them re-confess previously resolved sins and slap the Atonement in the face...and mind you, the lawyers and accountants don't even think that far ahead I'm quite sure). This will shrink the overall missionary force and lower our expenses tremendously. Let's try this and see how it impacts ROI. Perhaps the ratio of tithe-paying converts to the number of missionaries will increase and our ROI will improve.

If true, this WOULD explain what's happening in the COB board rooms where such policies are hammered out.

Underdog

Just as a case study I have taken this first section of your response back to me and have highlighted certain words in red. Please review your above response and the notations in red.

My reason for doing this was because the very first thought that you introduce is "I've been under the assumption ". From there you seem to acknowledge that this assumption was in error. I am not voting yea or nay on that but what I am trying to illustrate is that from that point forward as you seek to correct your "mistaken" assumption you use terms words and ideas that indicate that you are going to battle your assumption with more assumptions. The highlights in red are there to indicate the assumptive nature of the assumptions that you are now assuming are better assumptions to correct the poor assumptions you made to begin with.

My thoughts are that as long as you are dealing with just your assumptions they are all as equally likely to be wrong assumptions.

That said, I will agree that there are many occasions in which the church does make decisions which address the legal requirements of the laws under which it operates. However, to switch from your initial assumption that the Church does things or makes policies that are in the best interest of the missionary or prospective missionary which you imply was an assumption that you applied in totality concerning how you evaluated the church, to a new assumption that you wish to apply in totality that the church that "What if we "raise the bar" with the intent to catch as many liars as possible" is equally as probable to produce poor results.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints operates under a multitude of requisites that require conforming our process to operate within the established expectations of multiple entities. The U.S. Government is one and it does not behoove us as an organization to ignore changes in how we execute our duties that will keep us from running afoul of their demands. This is more or less covered in the "We believe in being subject to..." article of faith as well as the Doctrine and Covenants.

As well the Church has obligations to, as you first assumed, make decisions in behalf of the membership, primarily those that sustain the directive of God to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

There are a multitude of requirements that the church faces and must make intelligent decisions in myriad ways. However, as you provide no reason to sustain the assumption "What if we "raise the bar" with the intent to catch as many liars as possible" then there really is no further cause to see this assumption as having any merit. It is simply one more assumption that you are making without basing it on a reasonable set of facts or information that might guide the assumption.

The church does not have an established pattern of trying to catch liars if so they might try to validate your tithing claims against your paystubs. It appears that you might be trying to elevate the concept of allowing a person to fully repent with concepts such as entrapment which are clearly in opposition to God's laws.

Jeremiah 5:26

26 For among my people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men.

In the scriptures those that seek to entrap others are found classed as wicked men. Just for effect here is one from ALMA:

Alma 11:23-25

23 Now Amulek said: O thou child of hell, why tempt ye me? Knowest thou that the righteous yieldeth to no such temptations?

24 Believest thou that there is no God? I say unto you, Nay, thou knowest that there is a God, but thou lovest that lucre more than him.

25 And now thou hast lied before God unto me. Thou saidst unto me—Behold these six onties, which are of great worth, I will give unto thee—when thou hadst it in thy heart to retain them from me; and it was only thy desire that I should deny the true and living God, that thou mightest have cause to destroy me. And now behold, for this great evil thou shalt have thy reward.

If you felt that this was the cause of the changes then that might provide justification for your concerns. However there is a world of difference with intent and process between these comparisons.

Your question:

So do you think it better to take a little extra effort and make as sure as possible that they will not be sent home or is it better to traumatize, stigmatize the ones that get sent home, their parents, and everyone else that has to observe a very public spectacle which does far more harm than good.

I honestly think that is the wrong question, even a bad question. The Lord desires to save us. In other for that to happen, the gospel must be taught in its purity. Isn't a better question: What can we do to help the individual be saved by the Atoning blood of Jesus Christ?

There are a dozen ways to look at this and as long as charitably founded I have no occasion to defend my observations, though based on an experiential analysis of factual observation, from other similarly based thoughts.

Since the rest of your post is built upon sustaining the new self - derived assumptions, I honestly can't see much reason to engage the remaining elements. You are now preparing to generate all sorts of sophistry to sustain your newest assumptions. Nonetheless regardless of the gyrations, meanderings and twists and turns you lead us down everything you are building is to support your assumptions.

[underdog]

Do you have something to contribute or are you honestly content to look the other way as abuse happens?
You honestly have no opinion on the questions I have raised?
You are okay with two priesthood leaders in two separate interviews asking you to reconfess something that you've already confessed and repented of?

Do you see anything analogous to your behavior and the behavior of faithful Catholics who turn a blind eye when abuse is reported of pedophile priests?

Being sent home is a very traumatizing experience for many who find they cannot lie to themselves once they are in the spirit of missionary work and are driven to do what should have been done in the first place - confess. So do you think it better to take a little extra effort and make as sure as possible that they will not be sent home or is it better to traumatize, stigmatize the ones that get sent home, their parents, and everyone else that has to observe a very public spectacle which does far more harm than good.

To come out in the Bishop interviews and then coordinate for when or if it might be appropriate to plan for a 6 month later exit is so much easier to orchestrate without embarrassment than to go and be sent home.

BrLenox,

Here's what I'm coming to realize . I've been under the assumption that the Church does things or makes policies that are in the best interest of the missionary or prospective missionary (or the member), because that's the official party line, and after all, that's what I would think too. The Lord does nothing but it's for the welfare of the people, or an individual, so of course, I've believed, the same must be true of the Church. I've projected my Christian values onto the Church. That's not a sound assumption anymore.

What I'm discovering, in my naivety, is that a lot of policies are driven by the question, "What is best for the Church" from a business perspective, and including from a legal perspective? I think the lawyers and accountants are driving many of the policies.

That's what's dawned on me here. With that perspective in mind, strange decisions often make complete sense. The impediment to realizing that is the official party line, "We're doing ______ because it's in the missionary's best interest." Which often leaves people scratching their heads.

For example, maybe letting lying missionaries out in the mission field doesn't produce the tithe-paying converts the Church covets? Maybe the lying missionaries have a negative impact on other missionaries and lower the overall morale of the missionary force in a given mission?

So a lawyer/ accountant may think like this:

"What if we "raise the bar" with the intent to catch as many liars as possible (even if we have to ask painfully invasive questions to honest missionaries and have them re-confess previously resolved sins and slap the Atonement in the face...and mind you, the lawyers and accountants don't even think that far ahead I'm quite sure). This will shrink the overall missionary force and lower our expenses tremendously. Let's try this and see how it impacts ROI. Perhaps the ratio of tithe-paying converts to the number of missionaries will increase and our ROI will improve.

If true, this WOULD explain what's happening in the COB board rooms where such policies are hammered out.

Underdog

Just as a case study I have taken this first section of your response back to me and have highlighted certain words in red. Please review your above response and the notations in red.

My reason for doing this was because the very first thought that you introduce is "I've been under the assumption ". From there you seem to acknowledge that this assumption was in error. I am not voting yea or nay on that but what I am trying to illustrate is that from that point forward as you seek to correct your "mistaken" assumption you use terms words and ideas that indicate that you are going to battle your assumption with more assumptions. The highlights in red are there to indicate the assumptive nature of the assumptions that you are now assuming are better assumptions to correct the poor assumptions you made to begin with.

My thoughts are that as long as you are dealing with just your assumptions they are all as equally likely to be wrong assumptions.

That said, I will agree that there are many occasions in which the church does make decisions which address the legal requirements of the laws under which it operates. However, to switch from your initial assumption that the Church does things or makes policies that are in the best interest of the missionary or prospective missionary which you imply was an assumption that you applied in totality concerning how you evaluated the church, to a new assumption that you wish to apply in totality that the church that "What if we "raise the bar" with the intent to catch as many liars as possible" is equally as probable to produce poor results.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day saints operates under a multitude of requisites that require conforming our process to operate within the established expectations of multiple entities. The U.S. Government is one and it does not behoove us as an organization to ignore changes in how we execute our duties that will keep us from running afoul of their demands. This is more or less covered in the "We believe in being subject to..." article of faith as well as the Doctrine and Covenants.

As well the Church has obligations to, as you first assumed, make decisions in behalf of the membership, primarily those that sustain the directive of God to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.

There are a multitude of requirements that the church faces and must make intelligent decisions in myriad ways. However, as you provide no reason to sustain the assumption "What if we "raise the bar" with the intent to catch as many liars as possible" then there really is no further cause to see this assumption as having any merit. It is simply one more assumption that you are making without basing it on a reasonable set of facts or information that might guide the assumption.

The church does not have an established pattern of trying to catch liars if so they might try to validate your tithing claims against your paystubs. It appears that you might be trying to elevate the concept of allowing a person to fully repent with concepts such as entrapment which are clearly in opposition to God's laws.

Jeremiah 5:26

26 For among my people are found wicked men: they lay wait, as he that setteth snares; they set a trap, they catch men.

In the scriptures those that seek to entrap others are found classed as wicked men. Just for effect here is one from ALMA:

Alma 11:23-25

23 Now Amulek said: O thou child of hell, why tempt ye me? Knowest thou that the righteous yieldeth to no such temptations?

24 Believest thou that there is no God? I say unto you, Nay, thou knowest that there is a God, but thou lovest that lucre more than him.

25 And now thou hast lied before God unto me. Thou saidst unto me—Behold these six onties, which are of great worth, I will give unto thee—when thou hadst it in thy heart to retain them from me; and it was only thy desire that I should deny the true and living God, that thou mightest have cause to destroy me. And now behold, for this great evil thou shalt have thy reward.

If you felt that this was the cause of the changes then that might provide justification for your concerns. However there is a world of difference with intent and process between these comparisons.

Your question:

So do you think it better to take a little extra effort and make as sure as possible that they will not be sent home or is it better to traumatize, stigmatize the ones that get sent home, their parents, and everyone else that has to observe a very public spectacle which does far more harm than good.

I honestly think that is the wrong question, even a bad question. The Lord desires to save us. In other for that to happen, the gospel must be taught in its purity. Isn't a better question: What can we do to help the individual be saved by the Atoning blood of Jesus Christ?

There are a dozen ways to look at this and as long as charitably founded I have no occasion to defend my observations, though based on an experiential analysis of factual observation, from other similarly based thoughts.

Since the rest of your post is built upon sustaining the new self - derived assumptions, I honestly can't see much reason to engage the remaining elements. You are now preparing to generate all sorts of sophistry to sustain your newest assumptions. Nonetheless regardless of the gyrations, meanderings and twists and turns you lead us down everything you are building is to support your assumptions.

Thank you for your thoughtful, carefully-crafted response. I'm with you. Let's stick with facts and not assumptions. I'm fine with that. If you would follow you own voice ("you" referring to the TBM's who make baseless assumptions and then argue everything from those assumptions), we'd agree on a lot and probably most things gospel related). But you don't practice what you preach.

I agree with your argument about basing argument on assumptions. Often WHY things are done can't be truly determined, so there is some guesswork. Now if MormonLeaks were to provide us with leaked powerpoint presentations, etc. that proved the ROI assumption, for example, then we could deal in facts.

But I wholly agree with your statements.

That's why I take issue with many of the arguments people make here. The best example is the assumptive sacred cow of "the Brethren can't lead us astray." That is an assumption. That is a belief. And they believe it's true 100%. Even though it's 100% false. This thread brings forth an example of how certain questions can lead a prospective missionary AWAY from Christ's Atonement. "I have to re-confess? You mean the forgiveness I believe I received before didn't happen? I felt so clean and happy and cleansed for a long time, and my love for the Savior has grown and my desire to tell others the good news of the Gospel, but now you (the bishop and SP) are suggesting I've not been forgiven and the Lord still may be remembering my transgression from the past?"

This is an example of how men can lead us astray. Now whether it's the lawyers and accountants behind this, we may not ever know. But the fact is the First Presidency signed the letter and has mandated (unrighteous dominion) these questions be asked by local leaders to prospective young missionaries (not the senior couples -- which highlights a double standard).

How much easier is it to arrive at the truth of any question, when we shed false assumptions (our unbeliefs)! Instead of trying to reverse engineer things, the person who is unbound by unbeliefs, is free to look at a teaching independent of false assumptions.

Re: the question of this thread, the question is: why is the FP requiring honest, sincere people to re-confess previously repented-of and confessed and forgiven sins, which denies the Atonement? The "reverse engineers" basically all say (I can't think of another "defense" of the questions):

To get the liars to confess now rather than later or not at all. Or, in your own words, it's "better to take a little extra effort and make as sure as possible that they will not be sent home" rather than "to traumatize, stigmatize the ones that get sent home, their parents, and everyone else that has to observe a very public spectacle which does far more harm than good." A good friend of mine said this in response to my concerns:

• He acknowledged that men in authority COULD engage in voyeuristic abuse. That's certainly an honest and true statement.

• He said the questions "do not ask for details, only when it occurred and more importantly if it was properly repented of." He's trying to pretend that a simple admission of committing the past sin isn't a confession. It is. He's making excuses.

• He said it may bring up bring up unfortunate memories if the law was broken in the past, but we were never promised that we would forget (nor do I think should we as it should be a powerful deterrent to repeating the sin). He's trying to make sense of it, but can't. His attempt to reverse engineer fails on this point. The question is potentially very painfully invasive. He's off topic too.

• I feel the missionary program as a whole and population of pending missionaries will be better served if there is an absolute confirmation that their vessels are clean and ready to receive the spirit of missionary work. He's a smart guy, and I'm sure will concede that the invasive questions will NOT ever by absolute confirmation they're getting all the liars. In fact, it truly may not catch much more. Liars are good at lying, and with the questions being given in advance, they can prepare their lies.

• He said, "I feel that this heightened level of questioning will actually help ensure the spiritual cleanliness of the missionaries entering the MTC, and avoid the faith-shattering torture of coming home early, which can be accompanied by a life-long stigma of being viewed a failure and can potentially lead to church inactivity." Of course, I agree with you and him that it's better to confess BEFORE the mission so as to avoid being sent home dishonorably. But there is zero guarantee or, to be honest, any reasonable hope that the questions will "ensure spiritual cleanliness". I told him "you can't legislate morality. Liars will still get through.

So he responded essentially the same way you did, didn't he?

I think this is reverse engineering things. This type of mental gymnastics is completely unnecessary if one doesn't unite the institution with the Lord. They are separate and distinct. It's okay that leaders can and do make mistakes, can and do boneheaded things, can and do in fact lead us astray, can and do in fact sin, can and do teach error. That is okay. Just say you're sorry and move on. Whoop de doo! It's actually very empowering for a leader to come out and humbly confess that he erred in something. He can say, "Trust the Lord, not me. I'm not the Lord. I'm just doing my best!" It really takes the stress off of him, as he doesn't have to carry the burden of performing perfectly, and doesn't have to take the name of the Lord in vain (i.e., he doesn't have to pretend to speak in the Lord's name).

Some others share your and my friend's views. Seems that more than half of the people here think the questions go to far, and are inappropriate, to say the least. I say it like it is, the questions deny the effects of the Atonement. They are anti Christ. They can have the effect of hurting one's faith in Christ. The effects of the questions could be catastrophic to one's faith. The questions can tear down, and cause doubt. Obviously, somebody STRONG in the faith and doctrine of Christ won't be affected. Well, they might be annoyed and rightfully offended at the improper questions, but their faith in Christ will remain.

Like I said, the questions deny the effects of the Atonement. The proof is given by the Lord: He remembers the sin no more. So any man/leader AFTER THE FACT of repentance and forgiveness, has no spiritual right to be invasively asking you to pull back the curtain to your private life, esp when you've been forgiven by the Lord and cleared by a former bishop. If the Lord doesn't remember or know of those past sins any more, due to repentance, then no man should know either. It's very straightforward.

[JohnnyL]

Let's see how long before we start getting reports of these questions being expanded upon by priesthood leaders. The questions themselves might be just on the right side of the line, but I'm very confident they will be carried right over it in real practice.

I suggest the youth respond by the time, and then for the second question, "I repented by doing what my bishop asked me to do," and no more.

There IS a difference between sharing your past sins when VERY appropriate, and being forced to share your past sins.

And it's a pretty bad start/ example, as missionaries are taught to NOT share past sins with investigators, etc.

Maybe parents and prospective missionaries should understand this:

3 And this is not all, my son. Thou didst do that which was grievous unto me; for thou didst forsake the ministry, and did go over into the land of Siron among the borders of the Lamanites, after the harlot Isabel.

4 Yea, she did steal away the hearts of many; but this was no excuse for thee, my son. Thou shouldst have tended to the ministry wherewith thou wast entrusted.

5 Know ye not, my son, that these things are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?

Have you heard of any missionaries being sent home because they had not confessed to such serious sin? Being sent home is far worse than being truthful to the bishop.

And? I'm missing your connection.

If your kids fornicate, they need to repent. They need to understand it is at least a year from the time they fornicate to when they can go on a mission. If they fornicate several times, they have to wait 3 years. As a parent, you should teach your children not to fornicate.

If they did fornicate, repented, and there is a change in their bishop, they will need to tell the new bishop that they fornicated, they repented, and they are living worthy to go on a mission.

Or would you rather have them lie because you lie on your temple recommend interview?

Oh my goodness, thank you for telling me that! They've been fornicating for years, and if you hadn't told me, they probably would have continued for much longer!

[underdog]

I don’t believe that this is about catching the liars—I think its more about two things…gauging their understanding of the repentance process…many youth have probably read on “the Internet” or maybe even learned from their parents false doctrines about repentance…such as that they never need to confess to a priesthood holder. So part of this process is to correct those false doctrines. The second is checking an administrative requirement.

But before we get there, I have to chuckle at Underdog’s conversation with his son, “Without any coaching or prep” (except the setup which includes a faulty, leading premise which CLEARLY telegraphs the answer his son is expected to give).

Moving on. The other part is just a reflection of something that Underdog seems to understand but is slightly—either purposefully or intentionally—misreading. He even talks about the “organization’s legal right” vs. “What The Lord Says”. He understands that yes, organizations can set their own requirements. This is what is happening here. But then he assumes conflates “qualifying for a mission” as being the same as “being temple worthy”. They aren’t the same and do not have equal requirements. And he is right—they SHOULD NOT BE COMBINED. But he is missing the fact that they are NOT being combined with these new questions.

His example is flawed. He is assuming, incorrectly, that the 16 year old who repented of his sin to Bishop A was also concurrently “cleared” by that bishop to go on a mission. In fact, that Bishop should probably have discussed that with that young man at the time—a reminder of the fact that sins may carry consequences that can not be escaped, regardless of the repentance process. “By the way, Young Man Jones, some sins carry long ranging consequences regarding the “privilege” to serve a mission…”

Later Bishops/Stake Presidents are NOT saying “you still need to repent further”. They are verifying an administrative qualification which is NOT required for salvation, and which is unrelated to your repentance/forgiveness process. It has as much to do with getting into the Celestial Kingdom as a Bishop checking to see if you got your wisdom teeth out. Both required for missionary work (rightly or wrongly); neither required for eternal salvation. When properly explained by leaders and parents, it is clear that the authority of the original keyholder was never undermined. A bishop “ending the disciplinary process” (or whatever) for a 16 year old youth is NOT authorizing them to serve a mission. The only undermining of keyholders would be when these questions are misrepresented.

It doesn’t deny the atonement. There are administrative requirements that sometimes seem arbitrary. These questions, and the entire missionary preparation process, are most successful when guided by a great, inspired bishop. I will admit that these questions may be misunderstood, misapplied and result in hard, unnecessary feelings when asked by some bishops—who I do worry will treat these as a “Second confession” as did one earlier mentioned Singles Ward Bishop.

I am worried about that. I’m worried that Bishops themselves won’t understand that this question—although appropriate for missionary vetting—is not appropriate in circumstance such as Yahtzee references. It increases the duty of leaders and parents to properly explain how the missionary qualification process is different from being temple worthy.

Similarly, I do worry about what Underdog rightly points out (although I would disagree with his word choice) that this opens up a door for some “potentially voyeuristic” person to re litigate the details…but that’s not what these questions ask. A bishop asking for those details A) is not following the new guidance but also, B) probably misunderstanding current practices as well. That’s a bishop training problem, not a doctrine or even administrative problem.

jwbohrer,

Because I broke it down into two perspectives of viewing this issue, it is clear we are talking the same language. You've stated the case very well. Church leaders have the "legal right" (I called it), or you call it "administrative right" to set up whatever qualifications they see fit.

Zero argument. Really, we are agreed. No need to further comment, but I will clarify on the example you quoted of mine. You said,

His example is flawed. He is assuming, incorrectly, that the 16 year old who repented of his sin to Bishop A was also concurrently “cleared” by that bishop to go on a mission. In fact, that Bishop should probably have discussed that with that young man at the time—a reminder of the fact that sins may carry consequences that can not be escaped, regardless of the repentance process. “By the way, Young Man Jones, some sins carry long ranging consequences regarding the “privilege” to serve a mission…”

You make a good point. I didn't assume that, or I don't think that. None of that was stated. I would assume that bishop #1 would and should educate the youth, ASSUMING the sins were egregious and warranted, that his mission could be in jeopardy. To NOT educate the youth would be dereliction of duty. But it's a good point you make, and I agree with you. For the sake of clarity, let's assume bishop #1 does perform his duty and state that egregious sins may jeopardize his mission. Such an honest person would voluntarily bring up his past sins, and let's be honest, in virtually every case imaginable, bishop #1 and bishop #2 would have have collaborated on that youth well in advance of the missionary interviews.

You also said,

The other part is just a reflection of something that Underdog seems to understand but is slightly—either purposefully or intentionally—misreading. He even talks about the “organization’s legal right” vs. “What The Lord Says”. He understands that yes, organizations can set their own requirements. This is what is happening here. But then he assumes conflates “qualifying for a mission” as being the same as “being temple worthy”. They aren’t the same and do not have equal requirements. And he is right—they SHOULD NOT BE COMBINED. But he is missing the fact that they are NOT being combined with these new questions.

To be clear, I was/ am saying that the conflation happens with the two perspectives: 1) legal/administrative rights of leaders and 2) right to speak for the Lord.

Here's the skinny. The Church has a real problem, a monumental problem of such gigantic proportions that it's causing many leaders to engage in unrighteous dominion and priestcraft. And it's coming from the top, very unfortunately. What I mean is this: the leaders (at the top and I'm guessing mostly at the local level too) DO NOT separate their "administrative duties" (as you call them) from their spiritual duties. They're all rolled up into one. That's the conflation I refer to.

Leaders SHOULD NOT go around acting like (and they do this because they BELIEVE they do) they speak for Jesus Christ. Even on the occasion that they feel totally inspired by God, they should teach with love unfeigned and try to persuade rather than saying "thus saith the Lord" (unless of course, the Lord has appeared to them or an angel and given them a commandment to say "thus saith the Lord").

Leaders would find their burdens lightened, and their flocks much more likely to respect and give them heed if they acted like EQUALS to the other members. They are no better than others. God is no respecter of persons. Revelation is given to all who qualify, whether male or female, old or young, black or white. The Holy Ghost doesn't discriminate!

Leaders SHOULD go around suggesting, and teaching, and persuading to their way of thinking, and not authoritatively beating people over the heads with their keys. Leaders SHOULD say, I'm fallible, just like anybody else. I apologize when I err. Let's together look to Christ and follow Him. He's our Redeemer. Only through Him can we be saved. I can't save you. He can!"

The problem is that Church leaders UNITE the administrative Church with the Lord. But that is wrong. That creates priestcraft and idolatry.

[underdog]

What about Corianton? ON HIS MISSION to the Zoramites, he openly had relations with the town whore! Everybody knew it! Talk about bringing shame to the name tag!

Well now wait just a minute. That's an interesting thing to say, isn't it? Do you believe Corianton repented? If so, why bring up his sins?? Why would the Lord have his sins written about in the Book of Mormon which is to go to all the world for all to see? Why would Corianton's Dad write it on the plates? Maybe you're ignorant enough to believe Corianton has no idea it's in the BoM?? Same with all the other sinners who's stories are in the scriptures?
Doesn't God forget about those sins? Why then would He have them written for generations upon generations of people to see? Oh, maybe God no longer see's what's in the scriptures?? You crack me up. I don't think you even know what repentance is.

"Repentance is a divine gift, and there should be a smile on our faces when we speak of it. It points us to freedom, confidence, and peace. Rather than interrupting the celebration, the gift of repentance is the cause for true celebration.” -Elder Christofferson

If a Priesthood leader asks in a quiet interview if you've done something in the past and how you've repented of it then it should bring a feeling of happiness and humility to testify that the atonement has worked in your life. And if it hasn't, then it's an opportunity for the Priesthood leader to help you on the way to repentance.

Shadow,

I honestly don't understand what point you're trying to make. Please clarify, or perhaps somebody else can read your mind and interpret?

I've caught you so many times in the past when you've painted yourself in a corner. I point it out but you never concede anything. Then you resort to name calling. Very unpleasant. This appears to be another example of you painting yourself into a corner. But I'm not sure.

Will you go on record?

Direct question: do you believe the Lord when He says He remembers repented-of sins no more? DC 58:42

[Arenera]

What about Corianton? ON HIS MISSION to the Zoramites, he openly had relations with the town whore! Everybody knew it! Talk about bringing shame to the name tag!

Well now wait just a minute. That's an interesting thing to say, isn't it? Do you believe Corianton repented? If so, why bring up his sins?? Why would the Lord have his sins written about in the Book of Mormon which is to go to all the world for all to see? Why would Corianton's Dad write it on the plates? Maybe you're ignorant enough to believe Corianton has no idea it's in the BoM?? Same with all the other sinners who's stories are in the scriptures?
Doesn't God forget about those sins? Why then would He have them written for generations upon generations of people to see? Oh, maybe God no longer see's what's in the scriptures?? You crack me up. I don't think you even know what repentance is.

"Repentance is a divine gift, and there should be a smile on our faces when we speak of it. It points us to freedom, confidence, and peace. Rather than interrupting the celebration, the gift of repentance is the cause for true celebration.” -Elder Christofferson

If a Priesthood leader asks in a quiet interview if you've done something in the past and how you've repented of it then it should bring a feeling of happiness and humility to testify that the atonement has worked in your life. And if it hasn't, then it's an opportunity for the Priesthood leader to help you on the way to repentance.

Shadow,

I honestly don't understand what point you're trying to make. Please clarify, or perhaps somebody else can read your mind and interpret?

I've caught you so many times in the past when you've painted yourself in a corner. I point it out but you never concede anything. Then you resort to name calling. Very unpleasant. This appears to be another example of you painting yourself into a corner. But I'm not sure.

Will you go on record?

Direct question: do you believe the Lord when He says He remembers repented-of sins no more? DC 58:42

You are deflecting UD. If the person has repented, the Lord has forgiven. The person can tell the bishop or SP that they repented, this is what they did in the process, they have not done it again. They have been clean for 1 yr or 3, and they are ready to serve a mission.

That is an uplifting scenario.

[Thinker]

Missionary work involves working very closely with others - 24-7 with a companion, going into people’s homes around their kids etc. Law remebers sins - for the safety of others. People who have had criminal or sexual abuse histories have “records” which follow them.

Underdog, yes this interview process is similar to other social laws, which considers the safety of all, rather than trying to not hurt someone’s feelings. My niece served a mission after recently having lived with her lesbian girlfriend & been in and out of mental hospitals. She came home early, after probably causing problems that could have been prevented had the screening process been better.

Captain,
It’s not brainwashing - sometimes mind control, but not in this case.

I really hope & pray that young adults are called on humanitarian missions. It is what I believe God and Christ would want.

[JohnnyL]

What about Corianton? ON HIS MISSION to the Zoramites, he openly had relations with the town whore! Everybody knew it! Talk about bringing shame to the name tag!

If a Priesthood leader asks in a quiet interview if you've done something in the past and how you've repented of it then it should bring a feeling of happiness and humility to testify that the atonement has worked in your life. And if it hasn't, then it's an opportunity for the Priesthood leader to help you on the way to repentance.

shadow,

please recount us all your past sins, starting with the juicy big ones. Please don't add one hundred smilies afterwards, we will already know and understand that you are feeling happiness and humility.

[brlenox]

Thank you for your thoughtful, carefully-crafted response.

I agree with your argument about basing argument on assumptions. Often WHY things are done can't be truly determined, so there is some guesswork. Now if MormonLeaks were to provide us with leaked powerpoint presentations, etc. that proved the ROI assumption, for example, then we could deal in facts.

I've tried to give consideration to the idea of an ROI on keeping missionaries home for failing to be honest in their interviews and I can't quite get there. The whole concept of there being a nefarious ROI motivation does not match with my experience in dealing with missionaries that were sent home or should have not gone out for lack of moral preparation.

On one occasion, I was visiting some members that lived in the same apartment complex as the missionaries. When leaving, I just happened to exit as one of our missionaries was leaving an apartment after which a few seconds later came an attractive female obviously a bit too comfortable with this missionary. A bit of conversation and a couple of hours with his companion informed me that we had a grievous problem here that involved several apartment residents. Was I there because the church wasn't capitalizing on their ROI with this missionary and had sent me to investigate? Or did the Lord need something that was going on for far too long addressed. When I was done with the missionaries, I told him that I would say nothing for 30 days to give him time to meet with his mission president and come clean.

Thirty days later I called the mission office and directed their attention to the young man who had still never brought his indiscretions to the Mission President. Within a week of my call he was sent home. Sure this is a one time experience but it has all of the finger prints of God on it and none of deception from the church. In thinking of this experience from every angle it did hurt the church because of the bad example this young man set, however, it may also have negatively impacted those who should never have seen such seedy behavior and in the future might never investigate the church for their experience. From a spiritual perspective their are OBVIOUS concerns but beyond that I can see no questionable motivations on the part of the church.

But I wholly agree with your statements.

That's why I take issue with many of the arguments people make here. The best example is the assumptive sacred cow of "the Brethren can't lead us astray." That is an assumption. That is a belief. And they believe it's true 100%. Even though it's 100% false. This thread brings forth an example of how certain questions can lead a prospective missionary AWAY from Christ's Atonement. "I have to re-confess? You mean the forgiveness I believe I received before didn't happen? I felt so clean and happy and cleansed for a long time, and my love for the Savior has grown and my desire to tell others the good news of the Gospel, but now you (the bishop and SP) are suggesting I've not been forgiven and the Lord still may be remembering my transgression from the past?"

I think we are getting to the real bee in your bonnet - The Brethren. Still the ideology that the Brethren cannot lead us astray is a well documented and for those of us that believe this statement, a scripturally sustainable perspective.

This truth's not found under a hat, it not the words of some sneaky rat.
It does not come from here nor there. It does not come from just anywhere.
It's not high and it's not low but like all truth it has a glow.
You can read it in a book, if the spirits there you'll be shook
if it's not and you chance to sneer then it finds another with ears to hear.

...oh pardon me back to the subject at hand. In other words as part of the LDS recorded works this sentiment is expressed by many whom we extol as being led by the spirit and we in application to that same spirit have the obligation to seek for understanding. Many of us can readily attest to the truth of the spirits confirmation of the truth of the concept. Now, you call this an assumption, but under that measurement all things that require faith must in some way be assumptive to you. Sure a prophet first presented the concept but we the believers are not bereft of the right and privilege to inquire of the spirit. We can sense a deceptive spirit and would know it if it were not true.

Just as well, we consider upon your words to the contrary. Your words which you agreed were built upon fabricated assumptions, do not have the voice of the scriptures behind them in a manner that seems consistent with the spirit of revelation to which we have become acquainted. Neither do the quotes of leaders of the church when the are wrested to support errant causes such as this. We can tune in and sense that there is a difference in your spirit, in your words, and in the intents of your heart from the words of apostles and prophets that speak to the weakness of men but in a way vastly different than you would acknowledge. Surely you can see that that is the heart of the Gospel - to receive revelation and to know where there is error and where there is truth. As you have the right to claim such, surely it is not beyond your reasonable acquiescence that we should have right to claim the same.

This is an example of how men can lead us astray. Now whether it's the lawyers and accountants behind this, we may not ever know. But the fact is the First Presidency signed the letter and has mandated (unrighteous dominion) these questions be asked by local leaders to prospective young missionaries (not the senior couples -- which highlights a double standard).

How much easier is it to arrive at the truth of any question, when we shed false assumptions (our unbeliefs)! Instead of trying to reverse engineer things, the person who is unbound by unbeliefs, is free to look at a teaching independent of false assumptions.

Re: the question of this thread, the question is: why is the FP requiring honest, sincere people to re-confess previously repented-of and confessed and forgiven sins, which denies the Atonement? The "reverse engineers" basically all say (I can't think of another "defense" of the questions):

To get the liars to confess now rather than later or not at all. Or, in your own words, it's "better to take a little extra effort and make as sure as possible that they will not be sent home" rather than "to traumatize, stigmatize the ones that get sent home, their parents, and everyone else that has to observe a very public spectacle which does far more harm than good." A good friend of mine said this in response to my concerns:

And now you are going to go back to arguing the assumptions which you have all ready acknowledged? It seem illogical to me to continue in a fashion that you have undermined by your own admissions. Feel free to do so but it simply makes our job all the easier. You are spinning in circles unable to exit your previous strategy even after admitting it is faulty.

• He acknowledged that men in authority COULD engage in voyeuristic abuse. That's certainly an honest and true statement.

• He said the questions "do not ask for details, only when it occurred and more importantly if it was properly repented of." He's trying to pretend that a simple admission of committing the past sin isn't a confession. It is. He's making excuses.

• He said it may bring up bring up unfortunate memories if the law was broken in the past, but we were never promised that we would forget (nor do I think should we as it should be a powerful deterrent to repeating the sin). He's trying to make sense of it, but can't. His attempt to reverse engineer fails on this point. The question is potentially very painfully invasive. He's off topic too.

• I feel the missionary program as a whole and population of pending missionaries will be better served if there is an absolute confirmation that their vessels are clean and ready to receive the spirit of missionary work. He's a smart guy, and I'm sure will concede that the invasive questions will NOT ever by absolute confirmation they're getting all the liars. In fact, it truly may not catch much more. Liars are good at lying, and with the questions being given in advance, they can prepare their lies.

• He said, "I feel that this heightened level of questioning will actually help ensure the spiritual cleanliness of the missionaries entering the MTC, and avoid the faith-shattering torture of coming home early, which can be accompanied by a life-long stigma of being viewed a failure and can potentially lead to church inactivity." Of course, I agree with you and him that it's better to confess BEFORE the mission so as to avoid being sent home dishonorably. But there is zero guarantee or, to be honest, any reasonable hope that the questions will "ensure spiritual cleanliness". I told him "you can't legislate morality. Liars will still get through.

So he responded essentially the same way you did, didn't he?

I think this is reverse engineering things. This type of mental gymnastics is completely unnecessary if one doesn't unite the institution with the Lord. They are separate and distinct. It's okay that leaders can and do make mistakes, can and do boneheaded things, can and do in fact lead us astray, can and do in fact sin, can and do teach error. That is okay. Just say you're sorry and move on. Whoop de doo! It's actually very empowering for a leader to come out and humbly confess that he erred in something. He can say, "Trust the Lord, not me. I'm not the Lord. I'm just doing my best!" It really takes the stress off of him, as he doesn't have to carry the burden of performing perfectly, and doesn't have to take the name of the Lord in vain (i.e., he doesn't have to pretend to speak in the Lord's name).

Some others share your and my friend's views. Seems that more than half of the people here think the questions go to far, and are inappropriate, to say the least. I say it like it is, the questions deny the effects of the Atonement. They are anti Christ. They can have the effect of hurting one's faith in Christ. The effects of the questions could be catastrophic to one's faith. The questions can tear down, and cause doubt. Obviously, somebody STRONG in the faith and doctrine of Christ won't be affected. Well, they might be annoyed and rightfully offended at the improper questions, but their faith in Christ will remain.

I do not know your friend and frankly I couldn't make heads or tails of what he was saying - could be if I had more context it might come together for me. Still I'm not asking for more context ...

Like I said, the questions deny the effects of the Atonement. The proof is given by the Lord: He remembers the sin no more. So any man/leader AFTER THE FACT of repentance and forgiveness, has no spiritual right to be invasively asking you to pull back the curtain to your private life, esp when you've been forgiven by the Lord and cleared by a former bishop. If the Lord doesn't remember or know of those past sins any more, due to repentance, then no man should know either. It's very straightforward.

Like I said my experience has been different than your assumptions. I think you might be reading an inflated expectation of malfeasance into this whole scenario. In the times when I allowed a missionary to leave for the MTC and they were sent back for their belated confession I was surprised, not so much that they got by me but even more impressive they got by the Stake President. That's some dang good lying going on there to get by him. However, I have seen the good in the process and when full opportunity is availed and the young men and young women of the church repent fully it truly makes them a 10 times better missionary. When they go out under a cloud of deception they never really shine.

They cannot shine they cannot glow they can't reach high when they stand so low.
they may try but they just can't do it with a sin blocked spiritual conduit
so hiding here and hiding there - trying to hide just anywhere
a Cat in a Hat with a wink and a nod reminds them that you can't hide from God
Oh how much better twould have been if only they had confessed their sin.

Well ... it's not Dr. Seuss but hey it works for me...

[JohnnyL]

Here's the skinny. The Church has a real problem, a monumental problem of such gigantic proportions that it's causing many leaders to engage in unrighteous dominion and priestcraft. And it's coming from the top, very unfortunately. What I mean is this: the leaders (at the top and I'm guessing mostly at the local level too) DO NOT separate their "administrative duties" (as you call them) from their spiritual duties. They're all rolled up into one. That's the conflation I refer to.

Leaders SHOULD NOT go around acting like (and they do this because they BELIEVE they do) they speak for Jesus Christ. Even on the occasion that they feel totally inspired by God, they should teach with love unfeigned and try to persuade rather than saying "thus saith the Lord" (unless of course, the Lord has appeared to them or an angel and given them a commandment to say "thus saith the Lord").

Leaders would find their burdens lightened, and their flocks much more likely to respect and give them heed if they acted like EQUALS to the other members. They are no better than others. God is no respecter of persons. Revelation is given to all who qualify, whether male or female, old or young, black or white. The Holy Ghost doesn't discriminate!

Leaders SHOULD go around suggesting, and teaching, and persuading to their way of thinking, and not authoritatively beating people over the heads with their keys. Leaders SHOULD say, I'm fallible, just like anybody else. I apologize when I err. Let's together look to Christ and follow Him. He's our Redeemer. Only through Him can we be saved. I can't save you. He can!"

The problem is that Church leaders UNITE the administrative Church with the Lord. But that is wrong. That creates priestcraft and idolatry.

For more on that, have a look at many comments on this thread, where church employees conflate spirituality and work: viewtopic.php?f=31&t=45938&hilit=corporation

[brlenox]

Shadow,

I honestly don't understand what point you're trying to make. Please clarify, or perhaps somebody else can read your mind and interpret?

I've caught you so many times in the past when you've painted yourself in a corner. I point it out but you never concede anything. Then you resort to name calling. Very unpleasant. This appears to be another example of you painting yourself into a corner. But I'm not sure.

Hah!! Pure deception. Everyone knows you can't catch a shadow...

[cyclOps]

Underdog, we have heard your opinions on so-called required re-confession. Let us now hear your opinions on re-baptism as practiced by snufferites.

[Arenera]

Underdog, we have heard your opinions on so-called required re-confession. Let us now hear your opinions on re-baptism as practiced by snufferites.

We already know. John Doe, a serial sex pervert, was rebaptized and it made everything fine.

[shadow]

Shadow,

I honestly don't understand I know! I've been trying to point that out to you for months

Direct question: do you believe the Lord when He says He remembers repented-of sins no more? DC 58:42

Yes.
Do you think the Lord knows everything that's in the Book of Mormon?
Do you think he's aware of the Corianton chapter?? What about David? What about Adam and Eve? Has the Lord forgotten what they did? Have THEY forgotten what they did? Is it OK for them to remember what they did and maybe even talk about it? Is it OK for someone to ask them about it?

I know it's a lot of questions but I'd like to see how you answer them.