Repentance and confession - What would you do?

[Surfah]

It seems that the preferred policy here is

A. keep lying to your spouse and kids because the truth may result in divorce, which may result in something worse....the woman re-marries a faithful spouse who is also honest
B. Don't worry about seeking out a priesthood leader (despite violating major covenants)
C. If you do seek out a Priesthood leader, bounce around until you find one that will allow you to navigate on your own terms
D. Continue to allow time to pass

This new repentance process is sweet. Much more user friendly than the tired old one we have employed for so many years.

Maybe some of us are able to mete out the terms of our salvation on our own. I simply haven't reached that point in my life. I guess that means I am an orthodox Mormon.

[tooblue]

I'm not really dying to participate in this thread, because reading it honestly nauseates me.

Your post (and others on here) perfectly illustrates the problem with the confession process in my view--we start to confuse God's consequences with human ones. I don't have a problem with you advocating honesty between spouses--if that's your reason for him talking, fine. But this crap about a "friendly forum" and the right Bishop and how disgusted you are that once enough time passes, he gets off scot free--all this makes me think that we've somehow ingrained in our collective consciousness that the real penalty for adultery isn't the deep spiritual wound it cuts but disfellowshipping/excommunication. This guy has hardly gotten off scot free, whether or not he tells his wife.

The problem is the process as you call it is given to us by God (at least that's what we believe) and therefore is a part of God's consequences!

Maybe it is the best process, especially if we are willing humble ourselves and submit to it.

[ERCougar]

The problem is the process as you call it is given to us by God (at least that's what we believe) and therefore is a part of God's consequences!

Maybe it is the best process, especially if we are willing humble ourselves and submit to it.

Obviously, I don't consider that an inspired part of our current church. It's not scriptural, unless you're relying on some later interpretations of scripture (interpretations that could just as easily be seen the other way). I've already made my opinions known on this, so I'm not really dying to get into another discussion. I feel pretty strongly about, you likely do too, so we're not going to convince each other of much.

[TripletDaddy]

I'm not really dying to participate in this thread, because reading it honestly nauseates me.

Your post (and others on here) perfectly illustrates the problem with the confession process in my view--we start to confuse God's consequences with human ones. I don't have a problem with you advocating honesty between spouses--if that's your reason for him talking, fine. But this crap about a "friendly forum" and the right Bishop and how disgusted you are that once enough time passes, he gets off scot free--all this makes me think that we've somehow ingrained in our collective consciousness that the real penalty for adultery isn't the deep spiritual wound it cuts but disfellowshipping/excommunication. This guy has hardly gotten off scot free, whether or not he tells his wife.

I agree with what you posted. Why the stupid attempt to be clever in the initial post? Like I said, skip the exUte crap next time. Or at least be accurate. You know full well that confession to local leaders is part of the repentance process in our culture, so I have no idea where you were going with that post.

Actually, come to think of it, I don't agree with everything. You exaggerated at the end and attributed a bunch of stuff to me that I didn't say (disgusted, getting off scot free, etc). I have also said numerous times that this is a horrible situation, etc, so I am not oblivious to that.

Once again, we are discussing your reading comprehension skills.

[RockyBalboa]

Another interesting thing I've pulled out of this thread is this: That if enough time passes and he/she progresses and becomes a good person, but yet has tortured himself internally with the knowledge and bad feelings of his adulterous indiscretion and that he'll have to live with that for the rest of his life keeping it inside, combined with the fact that if God knows he's become a better person for it and knowing that it has eaten him inside.....that well.....that's the only Music he should really have to face.

That those are "consequences" enough. To me, this is a cowardly act.

I guess I'm not that famaliar with the concept of making such a serious indiscretion, but yet insisting on controlling the consequences to fit their conveinence of conscience.

You (that person) committed that act, so then clearly they should be able to control what happens afterwards? It takes a special kind of hubris to pull that off.

[ERCougar]

I agree with what you posted. Why the stupid attempt to be clever in the initial post? Like I said, skip the exUte crap next time. Or at least be accurate. You know full well that confession to local leaders is part of the repentance process in our culture, so I have no idea where you were going with that post.

Actually, come to think of it, I don't agree with everything. You exaggerated at the end and attributed a bunch of stuff to me that I didn't say (disgusted, getting off scot free, etc). I have also said numerous times that this is a horrible situation, etc, so I am not oblivious to that.

Once again, we are discussing your reading comprehension skills.

I said your post "and others", right?

[ERCougar]

Another interesting thing I've pulled out of this thread is this: That if enough time passes and he/she progresses and becomes a good person, but yet has tortured himself internally with the knowledge and bad feelings of his adulterous indiscretion and that he'll have to live with that for the rest of his life keeping it inside, combined with the fact that if God knows he's become a better person for it and knowing that it has eaten him inside.....that well.....that's the only Music he should really have to face.

That those are "consequences" enough.

'Nuf said.

[tooblue]

Obviously, I don't consider that an inspired part of our current church. It's not scriptural, unless you're relying on some later interpretations of scripture (interpretations that could just as easily be seen the other way). I've already made my opinions known on this, so I'm not really dying to get into another discussion. I feel pretty strongly about, you likely do too, so we're not going to convince each other of much.

To clarify -- what I posted elsewhere:

It is not policy it is doctrine given to us by the Lord himself:

D&C 19:20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I ahumble you with my almighty power; and that you bconfess your sins, lest you suffer these cpunishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have dtasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit.

D&C 58:43 By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will aconfess them and bforsake them.

Marion D. Hanks stated: "Those sins which injure others we are to confess to those whom we have hurt, and seek forgiveness and reconciliation:"

D&C 42:88 And if thy abrother or sister boffend thee, thou shalt take him or her between him or her and thee alone; and if he or she cconfess thou shalt be dreconciled.

"Sins that by their nature put in jeopardy our membership or good standing in the Church must also be confessed to the Lord’s agent, the bishop or other appropriate Church officer. The bishop as common judge has stewardship of the flock and its members. He is responsible for safeguarding the “body of the Church” and its various members in his appointed jurisdiction, even to the point of “cutting off the right hand” or “plucking out the right eye” if it offends."

It is scripturally based and the interpretation is by apostles not me.

[Jeff Lebowski]

On the other hand (as opposed to procrastination), I can remember my father telling me that time is often a significant element of repentance - I took it to mean that the passage of time without repeat of the same sin. In other words, the significance of a sin (and associated church punishment) may be reduced the farther back in time it occurred.

In other words, if the guy goes to his bishop and confesses the adultery now, he likely would not face the same consequences.

My father was a bishop back in the 70's. Years later he told me that lots of members came in and confessed affairs, premarital sex, etc. that had happened 10-20 years or more prior. He smiled and told them all that they were forgiven and to stop carrying around the guilt. On hearing this, my thoughts were:

a) my old man was a pretty cool bishop
b) in terms of "consequences" from the church, these people clearly benefited by waiting to confess.
c) perhaps the reason that there were so many confessions of this type is that people perceived that he was a gentle soul.

[TripletDaddy]

I said your post "and others", right?

so you were venting to me about the posts of others? ok.

[ERCougar]

To clarify -- what I posted elsewhere:



It is scripturally based and the interpretation is by apostles not me.

Which one discusses the need to confess under-the-clothes touching to the Bishop again? Which one even discusses the need to involve the Bishop in anything?

There's a better example from the D&C, but I have my own thoughts on that one.

Anyway, fruitless discussion--I realize there are prophets who have laid down the rules. I think they're wrong (on this point), you think they're right. Fine.

[tooblue]

My father was a bishop back in the 70's. Years later he told me that lots of members came in and confessed affairs, premarital sex, etc. that had happened 10-20 years or more prior. He smiled and told them all that they were forgiven and to stop carrying around the guilt. On hearing this, my thoughts were:

a) my old man was a pretty cool bishop
b) in terms of "consequences" from the church, these people clearly benefited by waiting to confess.
c) perhaps the reason that there were so many confessions of this type is that people perceived that he was a gentle soul.

And this may well be what awaits Cowboys friend.

[ERCougar]

so you were venting to me about the posts of others? ok.

Yup. The "friendly forum" comment bugged me a little and triggered my response. You're obviously a good troll--part of the (eternal and God-given) consequence is to take a little extra venting.

[tooblue]

Which one discusses the need to confess under-the-clothes touching to the Bishop again? Which one even discusses the need to involve the Bishop in anything?

There's a better example from the D&C, but I have my own thoughts on that one.

Anyway, fruitless discussion--I realize there are prophets who have laid down the rules. I think they're wrong (on this point), you think they're right. Fine.

Looking for preciseness and then when it is not omnipresent you claim error ... that is fruitless. How many scriptures explicitly outline EVERY aspect of our worship -- every commandment -- every must do?

[TripletDaddy]

Yup. The "friendly forum" comment bugged me a little and triggered my response. You're obviously a good troll--part of the (eternal and God-given) consequence is to take a little extra venting.

I said "forum shopping" not friendly forum.

Since you did not go to law school, here is a brief primer. "Forum Shopping" is an actual concept of civil procedure in which a party to a lawsuit seeks to have the grievance moved to another jurisdiction, almost always because the results/outcome will be more favorable. This is something we learn usually in the first year of law school.

So I am not sure why this comparison bothered you, but one guess is because you don't know what forum shopping is?