Bishop shopping - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Hazzard · 12-17-2005, 06:49 AM

As a veteran single adult, I have seen my share of singles wards. As such, I have also seen my share of bishops (some more than others, of course :wink

.

On one end of the "Judge in Israel" spectrum, I have known bishops who believe that, short of fornication and/or oral sex, you should go your way and sin no more. In other words, short of those sins, you keep your temple recommend and get nothing more than a slap on the wrist.

On the other end of the spectrum, I have known bishops who believe that anything more than a short kiss is grounds for taking away temple privileges for a time. For example, one of my friends' Stake President's was about to initiate a church court for a one-time transgression for which most bishops would give nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Fortunately, some higher-ups got wind of it and reminded the SP that he was a judge first and prosecutor second.

In many of the areas where LDS singles congregate, there are several singles wards from which to choose. Why on earth, then, would any sane human confess a sin to a hard-liner bishop (Eyes of Texas, that's you I'm talking about!) when a more forgiving singles ward bishop is available? Am I off for suggesting that bishop shopping might be a good idea -- in fact, the only logical idea -- in such a case?

But that's not even the main issue. The larger issue, of course, is why there isn't a standard way of dealing with certain standard sins. I'm sure there are good reasons why it isn't spelled out for bishops, but I think it's kind of strange not that bishops can have such varying views on the proper consequences for certain sins, but that they are allowed to execute their views to such varying degrees.

12-17-2005, 06:49 AM	#1
Hazzard Junior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 158	Bishop shopping As a veteran single adult, I have seen my share of singles wards. As such, I have also seen my share of bishops (some more than others, of course :wink. On one end of the "Judge in Israel" spectrum, I have known bishops who believe that, short of fornication and/or oral sex, you should go your way and sin no more. In other words, short of those sins, you keep your temple recommend and get nothing more than a slap on the wrist. On the other end of the spectrum, I have known bishops who believe that anything more than a short kiss is grounds for taking away temple privileges for a time. For example, one of my friends' Stake President's was about to initiate a church court for a one-time transgression for which most bishops would give nothing more than a slap on the wrist. Fortunately, some higher-ups got wind of it and reminded the SP that he was a judge first and prosecutor second. In many of the areas where LDS singles congregate, there are several singles wards from which to choose. Why on earth, then, would any sane human confess a sin to a hard-liner bishop (Eyes of Texas, that's you I'm talking about!) when a more forgiving singles ward bishop is available? Am I off for suggesting that bishop shopping might be a good idea -- in fact, the only logical idea -- in such a case? But that's not even the main issue. The larger issue, of course, is why there isn't a standard way of dealing with certain standard sins. I'm sure there are good reasons why it isn't spelled out for bishops, but I think it's kind of strange not that bishops can have such varying views on the proper consequences for certain sins, but that they are allowed to execute their views to such varying degrees.