First Presidency Requiring RE-CONFESSION of sins

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
underdog
captain of 100
Posts: 495

First Presidency Requiring RE-CONFESSION of sins

Post by underdog »

Many of you probably got an email yesterday from the Church.

It announced updated questions that stake presidents and bishops are instructed to ask prospective missionaries, and it encouraged families to review the questions too. The new questions, I believe, were medical related.

Here's the link we are directed to: https://www.lds.org/church/news/church- ... s?lang=eng

I wanted to ask you all about this question, which I don't believe is new, but pre-existing, and which I believe clearly constitutes requiring a DOUBLE and TRIPLE re-confession of previously confessed and repented-of sins:
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?
b.
c....
Does anybody here view this question as very disturbing and inappropriate, even abusive and denying the Atonement?

This line of questioning is absent in the temple recommend interview. The relevant question in a TR interview is:
Do you live the law of chastity?
So imagine if you are a member who has had a law chastity issue in the past (maybe very distant past) and you've repented of it, and even confessed it. Now imagine being asked:
"Have you always lived in accordance with the law of chastity?"
Instead of:
"Do you live the law of chastity?"
These are entirely different questions.

Why the double standard? Why require young adults (prospective missionaries) to RE-CONFESS past, repented-of transgressions, and to require such a re-confession not once, but TWICE,...but not require non prospective missionaries to make similar RE-CONFESSIONS?
DC 58:42: "Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more."

Isaiah 1:18: "...though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."
How do you feel about these interview questions? Nothing wrong here? Totally okay with no hint whatsoever of abuse? Or has somebody in SLC forgotten DC 58:42 and Isaiah 1:18 (just to name two) and the very essence of the Atonement of Jesus Christ? Why are teenage adults asked these abusive and intrusive questions, but adults (getting a Temple Recommend and not prospective missionaries) on the other hand are let off the hook with regards to past sins repented of? The Atonement works for older adults and not 18 and 19 year-olds?

I'd really love for somebody to make the case that this is not institutional abuse, and that the questions do not deny the Atonement and the two verses I quoted. The floor is yours.

This should infuriate anybody (and there will be hundreds or thousands) who has to re-confess sins in the humiliating detail, when the Lord says He "remembers them no more." These abusive questions should infuriate parents who would see their children put through this abuse.

These questions have been carefully crafted, and perfected over the years. This is not a mistake. What is the reasoning and scriptural basis for asking a young adult to TWICE re-confess previously confessed and repented of sins?

Please do not naively claim the questions don't require re-confession. Please do not say the questions are a mistake. Please defend the questions, or acknowledge they are not only bad and inappropriate questions, but actually abusive in very nature, setting the Atonement at naught.
Last edited by underdog on October 23rd, 2017, 12:16 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
mirkwood
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1740
Location: Utah

Re: Updated questions for missionaries

Post by mirkwood »

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

underdog
captain of 100
Posts: 495

Re: Updated questions for missionaries

Post by underdog »

mirkwood wrote: October 21st, 2017, 12:01 pm 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?
Last edited by underdog on October 21st, 2017, 12:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Arandur
captain of 100
Posts: 129

Re: Updated questions for missionaries

Post by Arandur »

I think this is a very fair concern. Thank you for pointing this out. I'll make the best case for it that I can while attempting to remain honest. Someone please correct me if I miss something obvious or say something that's not fair or accurate.

In defense of the intent:

I'd imagine the idea here is to prevent prospective missionaries from doing things like routinely violating the law of chastity up until two months before their interview, stopping the behavior, imagining to themselves that this alone counts as repentance, answering "yes" to the present-tense-phrased question, and moving on as if nothing had happened. This issue is very real and unfortunately fairly common, and it makes all the sense in the world to do something about it. While everyone will be asked the questions, they are not being pointed at those who have confessed and forsaken their sins. That's simply not the easiest or simplest explanation of their purpose here. They're not denying the atonement or implying that it hasn't worked - on the contrary, they're doing all they can to ensure that everyone who serves a mission is actually turning to Christ and applying the atonement, because it's that critical. Sure, if we assume bad intent in SLC from the beginning, it's easy to point to something like this. But just because we find a way that this could be abusive doesn't mean they actually are (but it does mean there's likely a problem. I'm getting to that). Assuming the worst can lead people to condemn absolutely anyone, including the Savior himself, and in my view we've got a very clear and justifiable purpose to this line of thinking. I don't think there's room for much debate on the point of intent if we're giving them any degree of benefit of the doubt. So I'll move on to the rockier subject of collateral damage.

In defense of the actual effects of the questions:

It seems like it'll at least accomplish it's objective (as I understand it - see above) for anyone who's not willing to lie to their bishop/stake president outright, so that much seems good. On the other hand, when interviewing those who have already appropriately resolved and repented of past sin, there's plenty of room for error. Ideally, discussing an old sin that's been washed clean wouldn't cause them any discomfort - this is the case for many. But depending on circumstances, it could be deeply painful for some. It might be seen as having their repentance called into question. They might even be the type who frequently question it themselves (with a little encouragement from the father of lies) and could find these doubts reinforced when being asked this kind of question. Worst of all, as you've pointed out, if the bishop/stake president isn't careful, it could be seen as implying that the atonement hasn't applied fully and they're still stuck with their old sins' residue.

Now, the good news is that these problems are surmountable. A wise bishop or stake president can use this as a profound teaching moment to convey exactly what is taught in those verses. "What have you done to repent?" is the key question I think. If asked quickly and connected to the atonement of Christ, the experience should be quite positive. For instance, if they're aware of past transgression, they might simply ensure that no other transgression has been committed, and then invite an interviewee to share their personal experience with repentance and their testimony of the Savior's power to forgive and heal and uplift and save. If they discern high sensitivity on the subject through their past interactions with someone, they might say something like "aside from what you've already told me about and repented of, do you now and have you always lived in accordance with the law of Chastity?" This seems appropriate. To answer your question about how I would feel, I wouldn't mind at all being asked "Have you always lived in accordance with ____? (No) How have you repented?", followed by a discussion of the atonement. Frankly, this approach could help prospective missionaries more fully understand the atonement and recognize the Savior's love and forgiveness. I can think of one or two companions in particular from my mission who really needed to have had that talk, but didn't. So I think it has the potential to be a really great thing, but it's in the bishop's hands...

...which leads to the bad news, which is, of course, that bishops and stake presidents are very imperfect people, as we all are. Inevitably, someone out there will lack understanding and feel the need to re-hash every detail of every past transgression with every prospective missionary before any mention of repentance because the questions are ordered that way, which feels pretty bad. I'm confident that most won't do this, but a few might. And of course, people move, new bishops are called, and so on, so not everyone will have all the facts beforehand. This further complicates things. Those who rely on the Spirit will be guided and use these questions to good effect, but it doesn't look pretty. So if I'm honest, I could really, really do without the question about how long ago the transgression(s) occurred. Removing it solves most of the problems because the discussion would naturally turn to and focus on the healing power of Christ and his atonement, and any bishop will ask the time question anyway if it becomes clear that there's an unrepented transgression or that something's being hidden.

Maybe someone else will notice something I didn't, but I'll admit I've seen better-thought-out questions.

So, denying the atonement? No. Abusive? Not really, but they could become so in the wrong hands. Disturbing and inappropriate? Not inherently, but they're on very thin ice, and I can understand the concerns.

User avatar
David13
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 7072
Location: Utah

Re: Updated questions for missionaries

Post by David13 »

I think it's most appropriate. They want to avoid future problems.
dc

JohnnyL
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 9832

Re: Updated questions for missionaries

Post by JohnnyL »

Your bishop interviews you, your stake president interviews you, your MTC branch president interviews you and then reminds you every single week to talk to him if you haven't repented. And some mission presidents in the first interview. Still, missionaries get sent home from their missions because they didn't confess. Heck, my MTC friend had to leave because his girlfriend was pregnant. Immaculate conception?? Or just lied like three or four times?

drtanner
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1850

Re: Updated questions for missionaries

Post by drtanner »

underdog wrote: October 21st, 2017, 12:06 pm
mirkwood wrote: October 21st, 2017, 12:01 pm 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?
Having spent time with lots of youth in these interviews I can yell you these questions are absolutely appropriate. This is simply underdogs attempt to get members riled up at something that is not there.

The questions lead to one thing. An opportunity to become dependent on Jesus Christ through his doctrine. The spirit that it in these interviews is nothing short of a miracle and a testimony that Christ is at the head of this church, continues to lead it, and is concerned about the next generation and loves the youth and has a perfect understanding of the challenges they face one of them being individuals like you who will attempt to lead them from a sure foundation.

User avatar
mirkwood
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1740
Location: Utah

Re: Updated questions for missionaries

Post by mirkwood »

underdog wrote: October 21st, 2017, 12:06 pm 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?
Apparently you don't find it draining.

As far as unproductive posts, try reading yours. You do nothing but spew hatred. Give it rest, maybe watch a football game this afternoon.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: Updated questions for missionaries

Post by brianj »

A lot of youth have been persuaded, thanks to the example initially set by Bill Clinton, that a beej isn't a violation of the law of chastity. Therefore I don't have an issue with these probing questions.

Although underdog obviously has a big problem with the concept of confession, he shouldn't have that problem if he really understood repentance. Why should we have a problem with confessing yet again? “By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them.” D&C 58:43.

I was once very pleased with an elders quorum lesson, taught by the first counselor in the presidency. He discussed his addiction to pornography, the impact on his wife and his relationship with her, and what he needed to do to repent and turn away from those sins. His willingness to not hide an embarrassing sin was evidence that he had repented. That willingness shows something very different than what is shown by someone who thinks it's a bad thing to have to confess yet again.

underdog
captain of 100
Posts: 495

Re: Updated questions for missionaries

Post by underdog »

brianj wrote: October 21st, 2017, 3:15 pm A lot of youth have been persuaded, thanks to the example initially set by Bill Clinton, that a beej isn't a violation of the law of chastity. Therefore I don't have an issue with these probing questions.

Although underdog obviously has a big problem with the concept of confession, he shouldn't have that problem if he really understood repentance. Why should we have a problem with confessing yet again? “By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them.” D&C 58:43.

I was once very pleased with an elders quorum lesson, taught by the first counselor in the presidency. He discussed his addiction to pornography, the impact on his wife and his relationship with her, and what he needed to do to repent and turn away from those sins. His willingness to not hide an embarrassing sin was evidence that he had repented. That willingness shows something very different than what is shown by someone who thinks it's a bad thing to have to confess yet again.
I assume "beej" means blow job. However, the issue is not the definition of the law of chastity.

Where did I indicate lack of clarity on the concept of confessing sins? Confession TO GOD is part of the repentance process. No question about it.

Please focus on the main point. The main point is that the training on questioning requires a RE-CONFESSION of already-repented-of sins.

The Lord testifies He remembers the sin no more. How can any Christian man (esp a Mormon leader who believes he represents Christ), in good conscience, ask a fellow brother/ sister to regurgitate a sin that the Lord says He doesn't remember?

This boggles the mind.

No doubt a good leader, like Dr. Tanner personally testifies, could skillfully cover up the damage of these apostate instructions, and even redirect to have a meaningful discussion that may spiritually benefit the young adult.

My point is that the instruction is of the devil. It totally denies the power of the Atonement. We should all rebuke such evil. We should be unified on the Atonement.

Only a leader who fails to understand the effects of the Atonement will ask these questions. It is like baptizing a pure baby. Such a practice is pure wickedness. The inescapable conclusion is that such a man hasn't experienced the Atonement for himself. For if he had, he would know it is nonsensical to go fishing for past transgressions which the Lord has forgotten, due to past confession and repentance.

Parents should be outraged that their teenage children could be subjected to this anti Christ teaching.

I'm not even debating the necessity of confessing any sin to any man. I know of no scriptural requirement for confessing to a man (priesthood leader who is a man). For the sake of discussion, I'll concede the point.

The assumption here is the teenage adult prospective missionary has confessed to proper priesthood authority and repented of their sin already in the past.

I ask for somebody to defend this horrific, institutional instruction which trains leaders to deny the effects of the Atonement.

I really appreciated Arandur's honest attempt to explain these instructions to local leaders. He seemed to comment objectively. But I didn't see a defense nevertheless.

The two verses I quoted are clear. The sin is forgotten by the Lord. For SLC bureaucrats to ask local leaders to double check people's past sins is highly insulting to the Lord. I believe the Lord is offended. He might truly say something to them like, "What gives you the right or even the idea to ask somebody about a past sin they have repented of and which I have forgiven and forgotten? Because you are not letting them forget their sins and drudging them up, I won't forget yours!"

That's the law of restoration as explained by Alma!

How arrogant and presumptuous to inquire about somebody's past sins that have been repented of, how evil!

Mind you, the regular temple recommend interview does NOT do this.
Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?
You see, respect for the Atonement is given in this question.

But the question to young, impressionable adults is different. Thus the double standard. There's no two ways about it. The question probes the past and asks unnecessarily about sins that TRUTHFULLY have been forgotten by the Lord.

For any of you here who want to argue the point truly shows your own confusion about the effects of the Atonement.

If it is true the Lord has forgotten (and it is true), how dare a leader attempt to get you to remember forgotten sins!

How is this not abuse? You're messing with someone's mind and even their testimony of Christ. A person "in authority" is asking a fellow equal who has been made whole by the precious grace and blood of Christ to talk about a sin the Lord teaches no longer exists!

This is sick and wrong.
Last edited by underdog on October 21st, 2017, 7:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sunain
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2711
Location: Canada

Re: Updated questions for missionaries

Post by Sunain »

underdog wrote: October 21st, 2017, 10:41 am Why the double standard? Why require young adults (prospective missionaries) to RE-CONFESS past, repented-of transgressions, and to require such a re-confession not once, but TWICE,...but not require non prospective missionaries to make similar RE-CONFESSIONS?
DC 58:42: "Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more."

Isaiah 1:18: "...though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."
How do you feel about these interview questions? Nothing wrong here?
I completely agree with your here. Re-confession is really wrong. Those two scriptures are the ones I think nail it as well. The church is really in the wrong here. This completely changes the repentance process and the atonement.

Bad form.

underdog
captain of 100
Posts: 495

Re: Updated questions for missionaries

Post by underdog »

Sunain wrote: October 21st, 2017, 7:10 pm
underdog wrote: October 21st, 2017, 10:41 am Why the double standard? Why require young adults (prospective missionaries) to RE-CONFESS past, repented-of transgressions, and to require such a re-confession not once, but TWICE,...but not require non prospective missionaries to make similar RE-CONFESSIONS?
DC 58:42: "Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more."

Isaiah 1:18: "...though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."
How do you feel about these interview questions? Nothing wrong here?
I completely agree with your here. Re-confession is really wrong. Those two scriptures are the ones I think nail it as well. The church is really in the wrong here. This completely changes the repentance process and the atonement.

Bad form.
Amen. Hallelujah!

How beautiful is the Atonement!

User avatar
cyclOps
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1354

Re: Updated questions for missionaries

Post by cyclOps »

underdog wrote: October 21st, 2017, 10:41 am Many of you probably got an email yesterday from the Church.

It announced updated questions that stake presidents and bishops are instructed to ask prospective missionaries, and it encouraged families to review the questions too. The new questions, I believe, were medical related.

Here's the link we are directed to: https://www.lds.org/church/news/church- ... s?lang=eng

I wanted to ask you all about this question, which I don't believe is new, but pre-existing:
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?
b.
c....
Does anybody here view this question as very disturbing and inappropriate, even abusive and denying the Atonement?

This line of questioning is absent in the temple recommend interview. The relevant question in a TR interview is:
Do you live the law of chastity?
So imagine if you are a member who has had a law chastity issue in the past (maybe very distant past) and you've repented of it, and even confessed it. Now imagine being asked:
"Have you always lived in accordance with the law of chastity?"
Instead of:
"Do you live the law of chastity?"
These are entirely different questions.

Why the double standard? Why require young adults (prospective missionaries) to RE-CONFESS past, repented-of transgressions, and to require such a re-confession not once, but TWICE,...but not require non prospective missionaries to make similar RE-CONFESSIONS?
DC 58:42: "Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more."

Isaiah 1:18: "...though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."
How do you feel about these interview questions? Nothing wrong here? Totally okay with no hint whatsoever of abuse? Or has somebody in SLC forgotten DC 58:42 and Isaiah 1:18 (just to name two) and the very essence of the Atonement of Jesus Christ? Why are teenage adults asked these abusive and intrusive questions, but adults (getting a Temple Recommend and not prospective missionaries) on the other hand are let off the hook with regards to past sins repented of? The Atonement works for older adults and not 18 and 19 year-olds?

I'd really love for somebody to make the case that this is not institutional abuse, and that the questions do not deny the Atonement and the two verses I quoted. The floor is yours.

This should infuriate anybody (and there will be hundreds or thousands) who has to re-confess sins in the humiliating detail, when the Lord says He "remembers them no more." These abusive questions should infuriate parents who would see their children put through this abuse.

These questions have been carefully crafted, and perfected over the years. This is not a mistake. What is the reasoning and scriptural basis for asking a young adult to TWICE re-confess previously confessed and repented of sins?

Please do not naively claim the questions don't require re-confession. Please do not say the questions are a mistake. Please defend the questions, or acknowledge they are not only bad and inappropriate questions, but actually abusive in very nature, setting the Atonement at naught.
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.

Sunain
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2711
Location: Canada

Re: Updated questions for missionaries

Post by Sunain »

cyclOps wrote: October 21st, 2017, 8:01 pm 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 an acknowledgement and re-confession of prior sins, not a yes or no question. It is a re-confession because it requires an explanation of the repentance process the person went through. The follow-up questions conflict with D&C 58:42 and Isaiah 1:18 as was discussed earlier in this thread. It requires bringing up pass transgressions or sins that have been resolved. These follow-up questions should not even be asked. It means that sins/transgressions have 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 not prior repented of sins.

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.

User avatar
cyclOps
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1354

Re: Updated questions for missionaries

Post by cyclOps »

Sunain wrote: October 21st, 2017, 8:49 pm
cyclOps wrote: October 21st, 2017, 8:01 pm 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.

Sunain
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2711
Location: Canada

Re: Updated questions for missionaries

Post by Sunain »

cyclOps wrote: October 21st, 2017, 9:13 pm The church didn’t have to backtrack because anything was seen as discrimination. You see fire where there is no smoke.
As a never-married, single temple worthy male over 30, this was discrimination. The church was arbitrarily denying me an opportunity to serve in the temple purely based on a gender based discriminatory policy. Single women older than 30 were permitted to serve in that capacity, so how was that not discrimination :?:

"No official reason was ever given for the now-lifted prohibitions."

http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/20 ... rve-there/

The change stems from it being brought up from some of the recent leaks and discussions on Reddit. It was clear that the church realized this policy was discrimination as it was discussed on other forums/site but they didn't want to acknowledge they were wrong. It's clear that someone informed the 12/First Presidency of those discrimination discussions where taking place online, hence the change in policy in August 2017.

brianj
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4066
Location: Vineyard, Utah

Re: Updated questions for missionaries

Post by brianj »

underdog wrote: October 21st, 2017, 7:10 pm I assume "beej" means blow job. However, the issue is not the definition of the law of chastity.
For many, there is an issue with the definition of chastity. And, although Clinton's behavior accelerated this, it's nothing new. Albert Carrington served in the Quorum of Twelve for 15 years before he was excommunicated for adultery in 1885. He argued that using the withdrawal method of birth control meant it wasn't adultery.

Where did I indicate lack of clarity on the concept of confessing sins? Confession TO GOD is part of the repentance process. No question about it.
Does your wording indicate that you refuse to accept the church teachings that require confession of certain sins to priesthood leaders?

Please focus on the main point. The main point is that the training on questioning requires a RE-CONFESSION of already-repented-of sins.

The Lord testifies He remembers the sin no more. How can any Christian man (esp a Mormon leader who believes he represents Christ), in good conscience, ask a fellow brother/ sister to regurgitate a sin that the Lord says He doesn't remember?

This boggles the mind.
It boggles your mind, not mine.

No doubt a good leader, like Dr. Tanner personally testifies, could skillfully cover up the damage of these apostate instructions, and even redirect to have a meaningful discussion that may spiritually benefit the young adult.

My point is that the instruction is of the devil. It totally denies the power of the Atonement. We should all rebuke such evil. We should be unified on the Atonement.
You can believe the First Presidency and Twelve are evil or doing evil things, but I reject that belief.

Only a leader who fails to understand the effects of the Atonement will ask these questions. It is like baptizing a pure baby. Such a practice is pure wickedness. The inescapable conclusion is that such a man hasn't experienced the Atonement for himself. For if he had, he would know it is nonsensical to go fishing for past transgressions which the Lord has forgotten, due to past confession and repentance.
I reject this assertion. As someone who once needed to confess to a priesthood leader and go through a more complex repentance process, if any ordained and set apart leader asked about my past sins I would feel no reluctance, shame, or embarrassment over answering those questions. I have never been called as a Bishop, but if such a question was not part of the questionnaire I have heard of, I would be shocked.

Parents should be outraged that their teenage children could be subjected to this anti Christ teaching.
As the parent of a teenager whom I hope will serve a mission, I have no problem with this.

I'm not even debating the necessity of confessing any sin to any man. I know of no scriptural requirement for confessing to a man (priesthood leader who is a man). For the sake of discussion, I'll concede the point.

The assumption here is the teenage adult prospective missionary has confessed to proper priesthood authority and repented of their sin already in the past.
This is your assumption. The frequency with which missionaries are sent home indicates that not everything that should be confessed is being confessed.

You seem think nothing could be more humiliating than being asked these questions. I disagree. Being sent home because of unresolved sins would be far more embarrassing, humiliating, and horrific.

I ask for somebody to defend this horrific, institutional instruction which trains leaders to deny the effects of the Atonement.

I really appreciated Arandur's honest attempt to explain these instructions to local leaders. He seemed to comment objectively. But I didn't see a defense nevertheless.

The two verses I quoted are clear. The sin is forgotten by the Lord. For SLC bureaucrats to ask local leaders to double check people's past sins is highly insulting to the Lord. I believe the Lord is offended. He might truly say something to them like, "What gives you the right or even the idea to ask somebody about a past sin they have repented of and which I have forgiven and forgotten? Because you are not letting them forget their sins and drudging them up, I won't forget yours!"

That's the law of restoration as explained by Alma!
Sins are forgotten if, and only if, the person doesn't fully repent or if they repeat the sin after repenting. It's important to ask these questions to make sure the person really did repent of their sins.

How arrogant and presumptuous to inquire about somebody's past sins that have been repented of, how evil!
I know someone who has a current temple recommend, and I know beyond any doubt that she fornicated at least twice without ever confessing to a Bishop. She even mocks the idea of doing so. If she was asked such pointed questions, and answered honestly, her Bishop or Stake President would be able to stop her from being sent home if her sins were discovered and would help her progress along the path of repentance.

Mind you, the regular temple recommend interview does NOT do this.
Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?
You see, respect for the Atonement is given in this question.

But the question to young, impressionable adults is different. Thus the double standard. There's no two ways about it. The question probes the past and asks unnecessarily about sins that TRUTHFULLY have been forgotten by the Lord.
I must have missed it. Where in the announcement did it say this was only for young missionaries?

For any of you here who want to argue the point truly shows your own confusion about the effects of the Atonement.

If it is true the Lord has forgotten (and it is true), how dare a leader attempt to get you to remember forgotten sins!
Have you forgotten your sins? I will never forget mine, at least not in mortality.

How is this not abuse? You're messing with someone's mind and even their testimony of Christ. A person "in authority" is asking a fellow equal who has been made whole by the precious grace and blood of Christ to talk about a sin the Lord teaches no longer exists!

This is sick and wrong.
So... it seems you believe the church leaders have gone completely of the reservation, enacting evil policies that are totally in opposition to the gospel of Jesus Christ. Is that correct? Does this mean that at the next ward, stake, or general conference you will raise your hand to oppose sustaining the First Presidency and Twelve?
We have been taught by a prophet that God will never allow a church president to lead the church astray. If you believe this policy is leading the church astray, do you no longer believe that the church is lead by prophecy and revelation?

butterfly
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1004

Re: Updated questions for missionaries

Post by butterfly »

Underdog, qualifying for missionary service is not based on solely having repented. Even if you are forgiven, the church can still deem you unqualified. It is based on what sins specifically you have committed, among other things, such as emotional health. Elder Ballard said this:

"Please understand this: the bar that is the standard for missionary service is being raised. The day of the “repent and go” missionary is over. You know what I’m talking about, don’t you, my young brothers? Some young men have the mistaken idea that they can be involved in sinful behavior and then repent when they’re 18 1/2 so they can go on their mission at 19. While it is true that you can repent of sins, you may or you may not qualify to serve.
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... s?lang=eng

Pres. Hinckley agreed when he said, “the time has come when we must raise the standards of those who are called … as ambassadors of the Lord Jesus Christ. … We simply cannot permit those who have not qualified themselves as to worthiness to go into the world to speak the glad tidings of the gospel.” (“Missionary Service,” Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting, Jan. 11, 2003, 17).
https://mormonmissionprep.com/preparing ... /chastity/


The missionary interview isn't just about being clean now. If you've committed certain sins, such as abortion, it does not matter if you've repented, they can deem you "not qualified" to serve. They don't say that you're "not forgiven" or "not clean", they say "not qualified."

In this regard, the church seems to try and make the issue not about the atonement. You may have totally repented from having an abortion, you may be completely forgiven. BUT the fact that you had one to begin with is why the church will disqualify you.

It's interesting to think about which people from the scriptures would not have been permitted to serve; probably people like Saul/Paul, Alma the Younger, King Lamoni, etc.

underdog
captain of 100
Posts: 495

Re: Updated questions for missionaries

Post by underdog »

cyclOps wrote: October 21st, 2017, 8:01 pm
underdog wrote: October 21st, 2017, 10:41 am Many of you probably got an email yesterday from the Church.

It announced updated questions that stake presidents and bishops are instructed to ask prospective missionaries, and it encouraged families to review the questions too. The new questions, I believe, were medical related.

Here's the link we are directed to: https://www.lds.org/church/news/church- ... s?lang=eng

I wanted to ask you all about this question, which I don't believe is new, but pre-existing:
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?
b.
c....
Does anybody here view this question as very disturbing and inappropriate, even abusive and denying the Atonement?

This line of questioning is absent in the temple recommend interview. The relevant question in a TR interview is:
Do you live the law of chastity?
So imagine if you are a member who has had a law chastity issue in the past (maybe very distant past) and you've repented of it, and even confessed it. Now imagine being asked:
"Have you always lived in accordance with the law of chastity?"
Instead of:
"Do you live the law of chastity?"
These are entirely different questions.

Why the double standard? Why require young adults (prospective missionaries) to RE-CONFESS past, repented-of transgressions, and to require such a re-confession not once, but TWICE,...but not require non prospective missionaries to make similar RE-CONFESSIONS?
DC 58:42: "Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more."

Isaiah 1:18: "...though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool."
How do you feel about these interview questions? Nothing wrong here? Totally okay with no hint whatsoever of abuse? Or has somebody in SLC forgotten DC 58:42 and Isaiah 1:18 (just to name two) and the very essence of the Atonement of Jesus Christ? Why are teenage adults asked these abusive and intrusive questions, but adults (getting a Temple Recommend and not prospective missionaries) on the other hand are let off the hook with regards to past sins repented of? The Atonement works for older adults and not 18 and 19 year-olds?

I'd really love for somebody to make the case that this is not institutional abuse, and that the questions do not deny the Atonement and the two verses I quoted. The floor is yours.

This should infuriate anybody (and there will be hundreds or thousands) who has to re-confess sins in the humiliating detail, when the Lord says He "remembers them no more." These abusive questions should infuriate parents who would see their children put through this abuse.

These questions have been carefully crafted, and perfected over the years. This is not a mistake. What is the reasoning and scriptural basis for asking a young adult to TWICE re-confess previously confessed and repented of sins?

Please do not naively claim the questions don't require re-confession. Please do not say the questions are a mistake. Please defend the questions, or acknowledge they are not only bad and inappropriate questions, but actually abusive in very nature, setting the Atonement at naught.
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.
Are you a church lawyer? Do you work for the McConkie law firm? Nice try at the legalese "is" doesn't mean "is."

I realize that you are in denial, but I write this for others. I'll let me son do the speaking.

Without any preparation or prior discussion, I asked my prospective missionary, active, 18 year-old son who plans to be out on a mission within the next 5-6 months.

I told him about the email received yesterday and the questions, and told him that the Church suggested we discuss the questions to help him prepare for his mission. I then told him the premise, as follows: a LDS youth violates the law of chastity. He/she then repents, including confessing to the bishop and the Lord. He goes through the repentance process, and feels the Lord has forgiven him. Sins are now white as snow. The Lord has forgiven and remembers the sin no more. My son understands the premise and he understands the two quoted scriptures. I then tell him, with that premise in mind, that the following questions are asked to that Mormon youth by his bishop first, and then later his stake president:
#1: In reference to the law of chastity, have you always lived in accordance with what has been discussed?
I ask him, without coaching or any prep: "What do you think of this question?

With some perplexity in his voice, he says, "That's a bad question." I ask him, "Why?" He says. "Because it doesn't matter if you've ALWAYS live the law of chastity. The question is irrelevant. There's no point in questioning somebody about a past sin that has been forgiven and forgotten." I dig deeper, "Why do you say that?" He says, "Because the question should not go back into the past. It should be a present question and should deal with unrepented of sins." I said, "Like in the TR interview, where the question is, "Do you live the law of chastity"? He replies, "Yes, exactly." I remind him of the other TR question which is, "Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?" And he says, "THAT is the question that should be asked."

I then ask him, "Is the question (have you always lived in accordance with what has been discussed?) asking for a re-confession in your opinion?" He says, "Yes, it's definitely a confession." But I play devil's advocate and say, "How is it a confession if you don't specify the sin?" He says, "You don't have to specify the sin. If you're asked YES/No "have you always lived the law of chastity", and the answer is NO (but you've repented of, confessed, and been forgiven), then you are re-confessing. And that is wrong. It doesn't matter if you specify the sin or not. And it's wrong for the leader to be asking something the Lord has forgotten Himself."

I tell him the next question:

#2: If not, how long ago did the transgression(s) occur? What have you done to repent?

He says, "This again is totally irrelevant. And it's a poor question." Why? I ask. He says, "it doesn't matter if it was 5 years ago, or 3 months ago. What does how long ago have to do with anything. Theoretically the Lord could forgive you in a day or a week. That's up to the Lord. There's no rule of duration for forgiveness. The Lord forgives whom He will forgive. And if/ when He does, then it's done."

That sounded pretty convincing for an 18 year-old. That's my boy! He understands. But truthfully, I don't think this is complicated. It's like saying 2 + 2 equals 4.

I then share the last question:
What have you done to repent?
He says, "This question shouldn't even be asked because the first two shouldn't have been asked. The leader wants to determine worthiness. So if the person is worthy, and has no unrepented-of sins, then there's no need to ask those questions." He said, "The TR question is the question to ask to make sure of worthiness, the one asking, "do you have any unresolved sins that haven't been addressed?"

I thought his uncoached responses were spot on. He's not arguing to defend the Church, and has no pride to get in the way of arriving at truth. He just answered truthfully when put on the spot, and he answered the way any normal purpose who is repulsed by absurd, even abusive questioning. I didn't get into, "do you think the questions are abusive", but I think I'll ask him tomorrow after Church is over. It would be interesting to hear his take.

My response to your comment (my response in blue),
There is no re-confession required within those questions. When asked if you have always lived the law of chastity you say no if you have not.

If you say NO, that is a confession right there. Why are you saying "is" doesn't mean "is". Stop "lawyering" it.

When asked what you’ve done to repent you answer that question however it applies to you.

That's none of their business. The question is intrusive and abusive.

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. You're entitled to your opinion. You can call evil good.
Sure, it's your right to freedom of thought. I've explained above why I think it's of the devil. Mormon said it like this, and I believe his rebuke is warranted in this case, as the similarity is that the teaching to baptize innocent children before the age of accountability is almost precisely the same as requiring another confession of a sin that has been repented of, confessed, and then forgiven:
(applications in red)
14 ...any man (Mormon apostle, stake president, bishop) that supposeth that confessed and forgiven sins need to be confessed again though the Lord has forgotten themis in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.

15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God approves of leaders who teach that you must confess again to be forgiven, and the other must perish because confesses not again and tells the bishop/stake president that the question is inappropriate and denies the mercies of Christ already extended.

16 Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear.

17 And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation.

18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.

19 There is no need to require previously repented of and forgiven and forgotten sins to be confessed or even talked about; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy.

20 And he that saith that repentant people made whole and washed clean by the blood of Christ need to confess again sins forgiven and forgotten by the Lord denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption.

21 Wo unto such, for they are in danger of death, hell, and an endless torment. I speak it boldly; God hath commanded me. Listen unto them and give heed, or they stand against you at the judgment-seat of Christ.

22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing—

23 But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.

Sunain
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2711
Location: Canada

Re: Updated questions for missionaries

Post by Sunain »

I think all of us here agree that the normal repentance process is fine and those that sin/transgress must confess them to a priesthood authority as part of the repentance process. I don't see anyone on this thread disagreeing with that procedure at all.

After a person has repented of their sins though is what seems to be the source of disagreement.

I certainly believe that once a person has completed the proper repentance process fully, that is the end of it, forever. It has been blotted out, the entry from the Book of Life has been expunged. It will not be held as evidence against you at Judgement Day.

If a person is going into an interview for a mission, one would expect to think they are fully worthy to perform that call (always isn't the case hence this change as it's clear we all know there are a lot of worthiness issues for missionaries hence these changes) but I take exception that past transgressions are held against a prospective missionary until they explain their previous repentance.

An explanation is not a Yes/No question.

Are you worthy to serve a mission? Yes/No?

Are there any sins that have not been fully repented of? Yes/No?
If Yes, then follow the handbook for the repentance process for that sin/transgression. Once the repentance process is completed, re-ask the same question, this time it's "No".

Anything beyond that is going too far and is why myself and others here believe it's gone into the re-confession stage, contrary to the atonement.
brianj wrote: October 21st, 2017, 3:15 pm I was once very pleased with an elders quorum lesson, taught by the first counselor in the presidency. He discussed his addiction to pornography, the impact on his wife and his relationship with her, and what he needed to do to repent and turn away from those sins. His willingness to not hide an embarrassing sin was evidence that he had repented. That willingness shows something very different than what is shown by someone who thinks it's a bad thing to have to confess yet again.
Flaunting that you've repented of a sin is not ideal behaviour for a humble member of the church either. Quiet dignity goes a long way especially with serious sins such as breaking the Law of Chastity.
Last edited by Sunain on October 21st, 2017, 10:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Sunain
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2711
Location: Canada

Re: Updated questions for missionaries

Post by Sunain »

underdog wrote: October 21st, 2017, 10:37 pm That's none of their business. The question is intrusive and abusive.

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. You're entitled to your opinion. You can call evil good.
Sure, it's your right to freedom of thought. I've explained above why I think it's of the devil. Mormon said it like this, and I believe his rebuke is warranted in this case, as the similarity is that the teaching to baptize innocent children before the age of accountability is almost precisely the same as requiring another confession of a sin that has been repented of, confessed, and then forgiven:
(applications in red)
There is no need to require previously repented of and forgiven and forgotten sins to be confessed or even talked about;
Bingo. You nailed my issue right there. Once the repentance process is complete, there is no need to bring it up ever again. A repented of sin is not a crime that makes a person ineligible to serve a mission and should not be discussed or held against them.

User avatar
mcusick
captain of 100
Posts: 391
Location: Texas

Re: Updated questions for missionaries

Post by mcusick »

JohnnyL wrote: October 21st, 2017, 1:43 pm Your bishop interviews you, your stake president interviews you, your MTC branch president interviews you and then reminds you every single week to talk to him if you haven't repented. And some mission presidents in the first interview. Still, missionaries get sent home from their missions because they didn't confess. Heck, my MTC friend had to leave because his girlfriend was pregnant. Immaculate conception?? Or just lied like three or four times?
Those who will lie can still lie. Those that are honest are (potentially) penalized.

I had a bishop at BYU that took upon himself the role of savior of the ward; we all had to re-confess and re-repent. Everyone had forced worthiness interviews at the start of the semester. He would phrase questions in a "have you ever . . . ?" way. Most of the ward (I'd say 3/4) had to speak to him weekly for prior trangressions. He then took it upon himself to phone our future bishops and disclose past sins. He made my life hell. I wish I had lied.

I can understand the point of the changed questions, but based on my experiences with these types of questions, honest and repentant individuals are subjected to a second round of repentance (which is not actually repentance, just punishment).
underdog wrote: October 21st, 2017, 10:41 am Please do not naively claim the questions don't require re-confession. Please do not say the questions are a mistake. Please defend the questions, or acknowledge they are not only bad and inappropriate questions, but actually abusive in very nature, setting the Atonement at naught.
I certainly felt that this past bishop was an antichrist. It was an abusive experience to have repented, been forgiven, than have a man deny the forgiveness of Christ to me and force me to work out my salvation with him as my proxy. I am disappointed that this approach is being institutionalized.

Sunain
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2711
Location: Canada

Re: Updated questions for missionaries

Post by Sunain »

mcusick wrote: October 21st, 2017, 10:56 pm Those who will lie can still lie. Those that are honest are (potentially) penalized.

I had a bishop at BYU that took upon himself the role of savior of the ward; we all had to re-confess and re-repent. Everyone had forced worthiness interviews at the start of the semester. He would phrase questions in a "have you ever . . . ?" way. Most of the ward (I'd say 3/4) had to speak to him weekly for prior trangressions. He then took it upon himself to phone our future bishops and disclose past sins. He made my life hell. I wish I had lied.
I also agree with the lying. Isn't that really what this whole issue is about? Unworthy members lie about being worthy to serve a mission but now those that went through the proper repentance process are being taken through the ringer again because they didn't lie. The fact that any of us believe this is re-confessing is very disturbing. I wish I didn't honestly but that's how I see it.

underdog
captain of 100
Posts: 495

Re: Updated questions for missionaries

Post by underdog »

butterfly wrote: October 21st, 2017, 10:21 pm Underdog, qualifying for missionary service is not based on solely having repented. Even if you are forgiven, the church can still deem you unqualified. It is based on what sins specifically you have committed, among other things, such as emotional health. Elder Ballard said this:

"Please understand this: the bar that is the standard for missionary service is being raised. The day of the “repent and go” missionary is over. You know what I’m talking about, don’t you, my young brothers? Some young men have the mistaken idea that they can be involved in sinful behavior and then repent when they’re 18 1/2 so they can go on their mission at 19. While it is true that you can repent of sins, you may or you may not qualify to serve.
https://www.lds.org/general-conference/ ... s?lang=eng

Pres. Hinckley agreed when he said, “the time has come when we must raise the standards of those who are called … as ambassadors of the Lord Jesus Christ. … We simply cannot permit those who have not qualified themselves as to worthiness to go into the world to speak the glad tidings of the gospel.” (“Missionary Service,” Worldwide Leadership Training Meeting, Jan. 11, 2003, 17).
https://mormonmissionprep.com/preparing ... /chastity/


The missionary interview isn't just about being clean now. If you've committed certain sins, such as abortion, it does not matter if you've repented, they can deem you "not qualified" to serve. They don't say that you're "not forgiven" or "not clean", they say "not qualified."

In this regard, the church seems to try and make the issue not about the atonement. You may have totally repented from having an abortion, you may be completely forgiven. BUT the fact that you had one to begin with is why the church will disqualify you.

It's interesting to think about which people from the scriptures would not have been permitted to serve; probably people like Saul/Paul, Alma the Younger, King Lamoni, etc.
Butterfly,

I was going to say the same thing.

The Atonement is one thing, or "representing" the Lord is one thing, and representing an organization is another.

I completely recognize the right of an organization to decide what qualifications must be met in order to represent it. I acknowledge likewise they can excommunicate whom they want to excommunicate. They can cast out black people, or all females, or homosexuals, or people with red hair. It's the organization's right.

But the problem is when they say they speak for the Lord. I'm sure you see the difference.

Like you said, people like Ammon and his brothers would probably have been denied the call to serve! Point well made.

underdog
captain of 100
Posts: 495

Re: Updated questions for missionaries

Post by underdog »

Sunain wrote: October 21st, 2017, 11:04 pm
mcusick wrote: October 21st, 2017, 10:56 pm Those who will lie can still lie. Those that are honest are (potentially) penalized.

I had a bishop at BYU that took upon himself the role of savior of the ward; we all had to re-confess and re-repent. Everyone had forced worthiness interviews at the start of the semester. He would phrase questions in a "have you ever . . . ?" way. Most of the ward (I'd say 3/4) had to speak to him weekly for prior trangressions. He then took it upon himself to phone our future bishops and disclose past sins. He made my life hell. I wish I had lied.
I also agree with the lying. Isn't that really what this whole issue is about? Unworthy members lie about being worthy to serve a mission but now those that went through the proper repentance process are being taken through the ringer again because they didn't lie. The fact that any of us believe this is re-confessing is very disturbing. I wish I didn't honestly but that's how I see it.
Did you mean to say, " The fact that any of us believe this is NOT re-confessing is very disturbing"?

Locked