If you are explaining your beliefs to an atheist, would you refrain from quoting from the Bible just because he does not believe in them? Perhaps you would; but I wouldn’t; neither would I refrain from quoting from Mormon scripture to explain my beliefs just because somebody does not believe in them.
If I am explaining something to an athiest, I do not quote the Bible, I explain my experiences.
I quote from the Bible, as well as explain my experience, if need be.
Strange that someone would quote from sources that no one but you believes has any validity at all. The very source of which is constantly in question and seen as rather shady. What can it possibly accomplish? You have every right to believe as you please but quoting from the D&C, the Book of Mormon or the Pearl of Great Price with no proof that any of these are based on anything but the imaginative wanderings of a young man who was looking for a get rich quick scheme, was **always ** looking for a get rich quick scheme, is morally irresponsible. You are doing exactly what you quote say should not be done.
My purpose here is to explain my beliefs to people, which I presume is also why you are here. My beliefs are derived from the scriptural texts that I believe in, which includes the Book of Mormon and the other volumes you have mentioned; and the best way that I can explain my beliefs is often to quote directly from them—in much the same way that you would quote from the Bible to explain your beliefs. I make no apologies for quoting from my scriptural texts to explain my beliefs any more than, I hope, you would for quoting from the Bible.
I am showing the Catholic experiance of the Sacrament of confession. Bringing this joy to the forefront. I know lots of LDS, I give tours onece a month in Logan Utah. So I am familiar with them because I speak to them about our Sacrament and they speak to me. I have heard many experiances of the LDS goin to have a talk with their Bishop. But I know it is very different. It would be good to hear from you about it. Here are some questions I have, for all.
In Mormonism confession is not a “formalized” event. There is no “confessional”. The bishop does not sin in a “booth,” and does not hide himself from the confessor, and the confessor is not hidden from the bishop. It is done in a face-to-face meeting, usually in the bishop’s office, and of course in private; so what goes on there is usually something that no one else except the bishop, the sinner, and God knows anything about. The meeting would be conducted by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost, as the bishop feels inspired to conduct it. Do they start with a prayer? They probably would. Bishops start all private and public meetings with prayer, so I am sure they would conduct that with prayer as well. What course the meeting would take would vary from person to person, the nature the sin, and how the bishop feels inspired by the Spirit to conduct it.
Obviously. There is no confession without an examination of conscience.
As I said, confession is not a formalized event. You go to confess if your conscience tells you that you have done something that needs to be confessed. There is no such thing as “routine” or “mass confession”. Not all sins need to be confessed to the bishop. Minor sins can be confessed to the Lord, and when repented of will be forgiven. How do you decide what is a minor sin and what is not? Your conscience tells you. A good rule of thumb is, “if in doubt, you confess!”
That is a matter entirely between the bishop and the confessing sinner. The meetings are conducted by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. The bishop may probe the sinner to the extent that the Holy Spirit inspires him to do so.
See above.
Very probably yes.
Humbling to begin with, and when the sin is finally repented of and forgiven, it brings relief to the sinner and peace of conscience.
If the bishop commits a transgression that needs to be confessed, he will go to his stake president to confess.
“Penance” is not a terminology that Mormons use; but we have the equivalent to it. Depending on the seriousness of the sin, and the penitent condition of the sinner, various penalties might be imposed by the bishop designed to bring the sinner to contrition and repentance. They usually involve loss of privileges of various kinds in the Church, such as not being allowed to partake of the Sacrament (Eucharist), not being allowed to speak or say public prayer in Church, and perform priesthood duties, and so forth. The highest form of discipline that the Church can impose is excommunication.
Uhmn…waving hand…I believe it has validity. So do 13 million other people. True, that doesn’t prove it DOES have validity, but you can’t say that nobody but V thinks so.
Only to show what it did show; the reason we believe as we do. You may not agree with it because you doubt its validity, but that’s not the point. You don’t have to. All you have to do is accept that WE believe it.
That depends entirely on the reason something is being done. For instance, as a Catholic, in order to show why you believe in something…say…the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary…you may quote Popes, visions and the writings of extra scriptural early church founders. “Sacred Tradition.” It’s perfectly appropriate for you to do so, so that the rest of us know WHY you believe as you do, even though some of us do not accept those writings as doctrinal or definitive, YOU believe they are, and they certainly explain why you believe as you do, and that’s a perfectly appropriate use of that material.
Uhmn…waving hand…I believe it has validity. So do 13 million other people. True, that doesn’t prove it DOES have validity, but you can’t say that nobody but V thinks so.
Ok…nobody who does not follow false prophets
Only to show what it did show; the reason we believe as we do. You may not agree with it because you doubt its validity, but that’s not the point. You don’t have to. All you have to do is accept that WE believe it.
Fine…but quoting it to prove a point does not prove a point
That depends entirely on the reason something is being done. For instance, as a Catholic, in order to show why you believe in something…say…the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary…you may quote Popes, visions and the writings of extra scriptural early church founders. “Sacred Tradition.”
No, actually, we would use the Bible
It’s perfectly appropriate for you to do so, so that the rest of us know WHY you believe as you do, even though some of us do not accept those writings as doctrinal or definitive, YOU believe they are, and they certainly explain why you believe as you do, and that’s a perfectly appropriate use of that material.
Fine…but not to prove anything. The only thing the Book of Mormon proves is that Joe could copy well and a lot of people fell for it. Including me for a short time, until God led me out.
I will pray God does the same for you
Diana
I have some experience with this, both as one who was in a bishopric and officiated in “courts of love”, and as one who has confessed to the bishop.
Not in the formal sense that Catholics understand, but since confessing to the bishop is only for extremely serious sins, any LDS who confesses voluntarily has undoubtedly examined his conscience.
For the LDS, confession to the bishop is only done for extremely serious sins. There is no regular time set aside for confessions like in the Catholic faith. When you need to confess to the LDS bishop, you contact him and schedule an interview. Confession to the bishop is rare compared to Catholic confession to a priest.
The LDS are taught that the bishop has the “gift of discernment”. That is, he can sort of read your mind and know what your sins are before you tell him. Therefore, the LDS do not dare to hold anything back, because they assume that the bishop will know if they do. If the bishop suspects that the penitent is holding anything back, he will usually probe until it is all out. Also, it was my experience that Mormons will often report sinful conduct they have seen or heard about to a member of the bishopric or other leader, so that the bishop has a good deal of intel about what the members are up to.
Yes, graphic detail. Sometimes creepy detail.
Again, it is up to the bishop, but it is recommended that he pray with the penitent after the confession. In church courts, we always ended with a prayer, and sometimes with a blessing on the penitent using the laying on of hands. Much of this depends on whether the person came to the church court willingly and with a repentent attitude, or whether he was summoned and unrepentent.
It is up to the bishop.
It is my understanding that a bishop would confess to his stake president. Of course, if a bishop did something that would make it necessary for him to confess to his stake president, he may be released from his calling as bishop.
Again, because confession to the bishop nearly always involves extremely serious sin, the bishop (or the bishopric in the case of a church court) will often put the penitent on a “repentance program”, which may include disfellowship or excommunication, with certain tasks to be performed, and periodic reporting back to the bishop. The bishop will monitor the penitent for a length of time (again it is up to the bishop’s discretion) to make sure he has truly repented and does not re-offend.
Good question. I was never in a position to know that. My guess would be whomever is next higher up the food chain.
You have confused confession with a church court. They are not the same. Confession takes place before a court. If during the confession the sinner confesses to a sin that is serious enough to warrant a court action, the bishop may hold a bishop’s court. But if it is not serious enough, he may decide to deal with it himself without holding a court.
I am not sure what you mean by “extremely serious sins;” but I wouldn’t agree. Let’s suppose somebody broke the word of wisdom—after having said that he keeps it in a temple recommend interview, and thus obtained a temple recommend on that basis. Is that serous enough in your opinion? Should he go and confess it? I would say he probably should, because he has broken an important promise he has made. How the bishop decides to handle it will depend on him, and the circumstances of the case. He may let him off with a caution; or if he thinks that it may happen again, he may suspend his privileges for a time until he is satisfied that it is not going to happen again.
See above.
Not quite right. The gift of discernment does not mean that the bishop will know what sins you have committed before you tell him. But he may have inspiration to know that something may be wrong, and probe to find out more. During the course of confession for example the bishop may be inspired to probe further until the sinner has fully confessed.
Not true.
Again you have confused confession with a church court.
Not quite right; see above.
If the stake president sinned he might go to his own bishop to confess. But if it is something that might bring his calling into question, he would report it to his superior who will be a General Authority, and most likely a member of the Seventy.
Yes, Mormons do not have apostolic succession as a historical fact. They have to believe the story of a guy who lied about the Book of Mormon, and invented beliefs and practices never found in Christianity.
Sorry to have to say this to a fellow Catholic, but that comment really does not help in any way at all.
If you were sorry to, you wouldn’t have, but you did; which is interesting in a discussion about the sacrament of confession. I was just stating the facts. Please carry on with your appeal to emotion; I understand it is a powerful part of Mormonism.
I completely agree (you voiced what I wanted to say). Mormons will not find it anymore substantive than we find their appeals to emotion.
As I told you before (how many times I am supposed to say it I don’t know), in Mormonism there is no such thing as routine, ritualistic, or formalized confession. You confess if you feel that you have done something that needs to be confessed, otherwise there is no need to confess. That applies to anybody and everybody, high or low in the Church. Somebody may go through his entire life in the Church without ever going to his bishop to “confess,” because he may feel that he has not done anything that needs to be confessed. If you commit a minor sin (like shouting at your wife one day for example, and afterwards regretting and feeling sorry for it), you confess it to the Lord, repent of it, apologize to the person you have sinned against and ask their forgiveness, and that takes care of that. You don’t need to go to your bishop to confess. But if you committed adultery against you wife, that needs to be confessed. Your conscience tells you what needs to be confessed and what does not need to.
Irrelevant.