Bishop Bill back with more. We’ve had situations with a YW and a YM and their dress, with lots of lively comments. Now lets have some with some adults.
A middle age single man moves into your ward. He has been divorced for 10 years. He was married in the temple. He has been inactive for many years and is just starting to come back. He would like to go back to the temple. During your Temple Recommend interview, he confesses to having had sex with a woman about a year after he was divorced. This relationship went on for several months, and then he broke it off. He has not had any other law of chastity problems since (over eight years). What do you do?
- Have a Bishop’s Disciplinary Council or refer him to the Stake Pres for disciplinary action?
- Work with him informally towards repentance?
- Give him a Recommend immediately after a short talk?
Would your answer change if he had not been endowed?
Would your answer change if it had only been 4 years since the infraction? 2 years?
Wheat & Tares 
I would tell him that God forgave him immediately. That is what the atonement was all about. The bigger question is: Has he forgiven himself? Does he feel personally worthy to attend the temple? If yes, give him a recommend. If not, I would want to know what I as a bishop or the ward as a community could do to assist him in his spiritual healing.
The passing of years tells me he has gotten out of that so I wouldn’t worry about it, he left his burden and he should walk out guilt free. I recall Elder Featherstone of the Seventy sharing a similar story about a young couple being intimate before the Temple wedding and they carried that guilt for years and years and they confesses to him and he said, it’s over, it’s done.
I think I would go over the possible options of what could happen and then ask him which path would help him best with his repentance and acceptance of the atonement.
Because he holds the Melchizedek Priesthood, it is my understanding that the decision is not the bishop’s to make. I would refer to the Stake President, to whom the decision belongs. The amount of time that has passed would not make a difference, but his having been endowed does make a difference, since he has now broken temple covenants.
#3, no commentary needed.
What Damascene said. Give him whatever help he needs in his spiritual journey.
You don’t know enough information about this guy after one interview. I would advise a cautious, middle of the road approach, (option 2 above). This will allow you time to get to know him and observe how he treats people. You must balance two potentially competing demands. His need for forgiveness and acceptance into the community (with increased access to the available women) versus your responsibility to protect the community from predators (wolves in scripture).
Characteristically predators may remain silent or they may confess to some partial version of their wickedness. The real story might range anywhere from a harmless affair that was mostly in his imagination all the way to starting to abuse 13 year old girls 8 years previous that has continued since then, staying one step ahead of the police. The less serious possibilities are much more common while the more dangerous possibilities are rare and more difficult to detect.
I have observed bishops being naive or not well informed so many times to the point of botching people’s lives up that I don’t think it really matters. We all get what we deserve with the current lack of training and rosy distorted perspectives of some of our leaders whom we blindly trust..
I am with Mike in the idea that you do not know this guy. He just moved into the ward. He has been inactive. Did he break off the affair because he repented or because she had ad breath? If he broke it off because he repented, why didn’t he go to his bishop then? Has he been inactive because of other sins that he has not mentioned? Why decide to go back to church now and why jump into activity by asking for a TR, before he knows if he is even going to stay active.
Time going past does not equal repentance.
No, too many unknowns. I would tell him to hold off on the temple recommend and that I would like to continue this discussion. Then consult with the SP, because I think this guy falls under his jurisdiction. So, maybe a variation of #2 and 3. Then, if the SP does not want to have a church court, then work with him but not “toward repentance” because he may or may not be there already. But work with him to find out where his testimony is, where he is in the repentance process, why he spent so long inactive.
What the man said in private with the bishop must remain with the bishop. The bishop cannot tell the story to the stake president.
It appears the community of saints was not harmed. There seems to be no reason to hold a disciplinary council. But if he is just returned to activity, it seems too soon to issue a temple recommend. Give him a calling that he can magnify. After a year of faithful activity, then a temple recommend would seem appropriate.
Bishop Bill, some of your former ward members might read themselves or others into your postings here. Should a former bishop be telling his stories, even with the names removed?
ji, I have changed each example enough that not even my counselors would recognize who I’m talking about. I have run these by my wife, and she does not recognize the people involved. And to be honest, it has been so long for me, I don’t remember the names. I take very seriously the confidentiality placed in me by the people that came into my office. Once the SP was asking about a person in my ward, and I refused to answer the question, as that person had not given me permission to share it with anybody. I don’t think the SP was used to bishops not telling him what he wanted to know. No matter what a person confessed, I could not tell the SP without their permission. So like in the above example, I could not have told the SP about the brothers sins unless the person gave me permission.
Ji, I sure had confidential things shared with others, and it was not something that would have been under their jurisdiction. It was just that the bishop thought he had a reason to share, so, bah humbug on “bishop confidentiality.” I do not believe such an animal exists.
BUT, in an ideal world where bishops are not inconsiderate jerks, (not the Mormon world I am too familiar with) you are correct. The proper thing for the Bishop to do would be to tell brother X to talk to the SP. So, in your ideal world that does not exist, the bishop should defer and test Br. X by telling him that he should talk to the proper authority about his sin, which he has not done yet, so he cannot be worthy of a temple recommend because he cannot answer that one question about “Have you ever had any sin that has not been dealt with by the proper authority?” So he cannot be repentant and ready for TR.
Forgive the snark. One of my issues with the church is that something was passed on from bishop to bishop to bishop, and is not a discipline matter or something that should have been an annotation on my records. It should have been respected as a confidence and was treated as something my new bishop “should” know, but really was none of his damned business.
Someone here mentioned “predators.” I think being Mormon has stunted your ability to recognize those.
A guy who feels terrible for having consensual adult sex years and years ago, and has been carrying that burden of guilt with him this whole time, is not a predator. He’s prey. Your church has taught him that this normal thing most people do makes him a dangerous degenerate, someone who might abuse children or ravish women. And he’s held onto that long enough to get a degree, until his fear of himself and/or your god finally outweighed his fear of the consequences of confessing to it.
The man in the bishop’s chair, who has the power to provide absolution or to destroy what’s left of his self-image based solely on personal intuition. That’s the man that I’m worried about. Especially considering you guys feel comfortable letting him ask your 12-year-olds about sex without supervision. Power corrupts, especially unquestioned and unearned power. Your organization is sick, and is rotten on the inside.
— someone who hated herself for almost her whole life because she was honest enough to tell bishops she masturbated
Jewellfox:
You are absolutely right. The LDS church did stunt my ability to recognize predators. And so I let them continue to feed on their prey right under my nose as a ward leader, the first time (I know of encountering them). But then we moved and I had children and I became over zealous. And dammit if I didn’t run across more families who had children who had been victims. I was in a better position to direct them towards professional therapy even though I was not a ward leader.
I trained my children to be cautious and oh my gosh, my daughter had an encounter with a male high counselor at girls camp her first and only year, peeping on the beehives and taking pictures of them swimming at the lake. Without going into details, I will say she can be a little hellcat and he so wished he had never set foot in that camp and then he still had to deal with me and the police detective. If she had kept the camera instead of throwing it in the swamp it might have turned out worse for him. He moved.
But long before that I had realized I could not monitor and apprehend every possible perv in the entire church or even in one ward. However, I could do something. I volunteered to mind what was once called the homemaking nursery on Wednesday night for 11 years while my children were growing up.. I made sure I always had another adult there with me. I made it 100% impossible for anyone to physically or sexually molest any of those children during that time which I considered a prime target. When we had too many children attending and not enough room on some nights, it could get pretty wild. I won’t vouch that every child had a completely happy and pleasant experience every time. But I did my best. I’m too old now to be given any callings where I can detect this sort of wickedness.
***
I agree that we should not shame the repentant member. I left open the possibility that he might not have done something that bad. I would not accuse him of being a predator . Save that for the judge and the jury if there is any evidence. I would give him support in any righteous endeavor. But I can have my own private thoughts and I would keep a careful eye on him and give him room to prove himself in ways that did not endanger other people.
***
I agree with you about what is sick, rotten and corrupt. I think that bishop’s asking teenagers of either sex about solitary sexual practices is completely inappropriate. I endured a load of harassment for it but I never allowed my children to be interviewed alone without a chaperone, female in the case of girls. Those discussions rarely came up.
A few scout age boys sitting around a campfire asked me once how to answer the question: do you have a problem with masterbation? I suggested they say: no, it works every time. But then I advised it best to tell the interviewer only what he wants to hear about that and move on, keeping in mind he had the same issue when he was your age and he probably did the same thing.
Come to think of it, when the little hellcat mentioned above was asked about that practice with the YW president present, she replied, “bishie, how many times did you bang your wife last week? ” I didn’t specifically teach her to say things like that. But I did train her what were and were not proper boundaries and to not put up with any crap from other people and that was the 14 year old interpretation. I will refrain from describing in detail the prank she did with her cell phone a yer later that almost got our bishop falsely arrested and he never went into a room with a teenage girl alone again for his own protection. It can go both ways.
J Fox-you should love yourself because you had the sense to allow yourself to be normal and not do something worse in the opposite direction which might have caused even more severe problems. Doing that is normal and feeling a little guilty about it is also normal. Church inspired self-hate is what needs to go. Or hopefully already went away in your case.
Anna,
I’m troubled, too — that’s why I wrote what I did. Bishop confidentiality is supposed to exist — our own handbooks say so. But as you point out, it seems that not all bishops understand the principle. I’m even troubled by the original poster’s change-the-name approach here.
Jewelfox,
I regret your situation and wish you well. I told my bishop that I was my son’s father, and that I would function as such, and that he (the bishop) could not ask my minor son any questions relating to masturbation. I wish more fathers (or parents) would do the same thing.
I have to wonder what stake president would suggest. Or what the handbook, manual, or training for bishops says. I will never know because I won’t be a bishop, but I bet that precious little direction is given.
The suggestion that he could be a predator could be true for anyone. He hasn’t confessed to anything predatory, so if you’re going to hold back a recommend because he could be a predator then you need to do so for everyone.
The former TBM Rockwell would do whatever the manual / SP directed, and in the absence of other direction, would sign the recommend as long as the man seemed sincere.
The current Rockwell would not be bishop anyway, but if I were, I’d like to think I’d do as well as Damascene.
(I really like this series, and I’ve looked up some of the original posts for years back. It’s interesting to see how the general shape of the comments from the community have changed over time)
OK, here is what I did. I used training I got from Pres Monson, who was 1st Counselor in the FP at the time. In some leadership training, he said that once he was visiting an elderly couple that had been very faithful in their callings over the years. He implied they both had held high stake callings. While visiting, they said they had something to confess. They told him that just before they were sealed in the temple many years ago, they had sex. They lied to their bishops, and went ahead with the sealing, but vowed to never turn down a calling, and give 100% on everything they did to make up for the sin. I don’t remember the capacity Pres Monson was in, but he told them they were forgiven, and to not think of it anymore.
I pretty much did the same thing. I told him that after the passage of time, it was obvious that he had forsaken the sin. I told him that if he felt the Lord had forgiven him, that I could say that the Church had forgiven him. Should I have told the SP, probably, but I felt it was just better at the time to get this over with and move along. He was given a TR some months later after we visited a few more times. I also told him that from now on, he never had to bring this up, and when asked if there was any sin or misdeed that should have been resolved, with respect to this item, he could say no.
The guiding principle I used as bishop was to error on the side of compassion. I figured if I ever have to stand before God and answer for my actions as Bishop, I’d rather take the punishment for being too lenient, than too harsh.