Repentance and confession - What would you do?

[LA Ute]

I don't know who you had as a bishop, but that is way down the list of all of the bishops I have known. Helping people was the priority.

When there is a dsciplinary council at the stake level, half the group is assigned to assure that the interests of the church are treated fairly, and the other half is assigned to do the same regarding the interests of the individual who's the subject of the council.

[Medfordcoug]

The Bishop is looking out for the interests of the church first, before the interests of the couple. Usually the church's interests and the couple's interests will not be mutually exclusive, but if they are, the Bishop has an obligation to represent the church's interests. Is this really controversial?

I don't know who you had as a bishop, but that is way down the list of all of the bishops I have known. Helping people was the priority.

[Moliere]

Scary, but I agree. I think after 10 more years of water under the bridge, he's on his own on this one. It would be unfair to his wife and kids at this point. This is the burden he must bare. If he's been faithful for 10 years, then I think he needs to move on and keep this to himself.

Looks like you just found the loophole in the law of chastity. Sleep around and wait 10-20 years and all is forgiven. Reminds me of the Mormon folklore stories of the BYU students that would go to Vegas on weekends, get married, do married people things, then get divorced and go back to school. They thought they had also found a loophole. I'm guessing they turned out to be great investment bankers.

[cowboy]

Nothing new, cowboy?

I don't want to say much more. PM me if you want details.

[wuapinmon]

Nothing new, cowboy?

[LA Ute]

Is it doctrine or procedure? It makes sense to encourage confession, so people can move on after they have sinned. But nothing magic happens when someone confesses. It seems that it is merely for the benefit of the one who has sinned. If the sinner isn't benefited by the confession, what purpose does it serve?

I don't think there's much question that it's doctrine. The most-quoted verses are these from the D&C:

42 Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.

43 By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them.

Like I remarked below, there's lots to say about to whom confession is to be made and under what circumstances, but there's no denying it's part of Church doctrine.

This is from the Church Handbook of Instructions, p. 107:

Repentance requires that all sins be confessed to the Lord. [Quotes D&C 58:43.] Members should also confess to their presiding officer if they have committed serious transgressions. Members who voluntarily and completely confess transgressions demonstrate that they have begun the process of repentance.

Presiding officers should respond to confessions with love and understanding. If a sin that is confessed may be serious enough to require formal Church discipline, the presiding officer explains this to the member.

Presiding officers should encourage members to seek the Lord's forgiveness, forsake the transgression, and make restitution.

Obviously the above raises other questions, like "What transgressions are 'serious enough to require formal Church discipline?'" There are 18 pages in the CHOI on Church discipline. It's remarkably detailed, but a recurrent theme is that each situation is different and inspiration is required to make the process work.

[Non Sequitur]

I'm just talking church doctrine. The way I read it, there is a duty to confess. The question always is, to whom.

Is it doctrine or procedure? It makes sense to encourage confession, so people can move on after they have sinned. But nothing magic happens when someone confesses. It seems that it is merely for the benefit of the one who has sinned. If the sinner isn't benefited by the confession, what purpose does it serve?

[LA Ute]

There is no "duty" to confess. People confess because it eases their guilt. It's human nature. God doesn't need confession. People who have transgressed their beliefs need it for peace of mind. If you have already achieved peace of mind, then it seems that confession is extraneous.

I'm just talking church doctrine. The way I read it, there is a duty to confess. The question always is, to whom.

[wuapinmon]

Good question. But in that case, any duty to confess would be for the benefit of the spouse. God doesn't need the confession.

I'm not sure I agree with that. There's more than just God being wronged here. He betrayed her and broke a marriage covenant. In this case, since there is a second contract, that of the New & Everlasting Covenant, which has to be done in the temple, and entry therein is predicated on righteousness, it seems to me that the covenant cannot be made if he does not come clean to her. Otherwise it's a kind of fraud. How much worse of a betrayal is it to make the covenant and then tell her vs her finding out beforehand? This is a case where I might inquire of a Q12 member for guidance--definitely not Elder Packer.

[Non Sequitur]

Wouldn't violation of the covenant of marriage need to be confessed to the spouse so that person could see if they wanted to maintain the contract of marriage?

Good question. But in that case, any duty to confess would be for the benefit of the spouse. God doesn't need the confession.

[wuapinmon]

There is no "duty" to confess. People confess because it eases their guilt. It's human nature. God doesn't need confession. People who have transgressed their beliefs need it for peace of mind. If you have already achieved peace of mind, then it seems that confession is extraneous.

Wouldn't violation of the covenant of marriage need to be confessed to the spouse so that person could see if they wanted to maintain the contract of marriage?

[Non Sequitur]

I can't get past the idea that simply delaying the confession that should have been made long ago somehow removes one's duty to make it. If that's true, then why ever confess? Just wait, and the painful duty goes away. Doesn't make sense to me.

There is no "duty" to confess. People confess because it eases their guilt. It's human nature. God doesn't need confession. People who have transgressed their beliefs need it for peace of mind. If you have already achieved peace of mind, then it seems that confession is extraneous.

[RC Vikings]

I can't get past the idea that simply delaying the confession that should have been made long ago somehow removes one's duty to make it. If that's true, then why ever confess? Just wait, and the painful duty goes away. Doesn't make sense to me.

Perhaps I am wrong here but the confession is not what makes it go away. Confession is a means of changing your life in order for repentance to happen. If someone forsakes the sin and does it no more on their own aren't they in the same place as someone who went to a bishop and also forsake the sin. We seem to think that the bishop is there to hand out punishment and not to help someone overcome sin but I hope it is the later.

[Tick's wife]

You seem to be advocating confession, as does the Bishop that told you the story. Or am I misunderstanding?

What is the difference? I really don't know. Explain.

[TripletDaddy]

I think the guilt he's lived with all this time is repentence enough. Why put him through it again, especially now that he is making an effort to be active.

We were told by a Bishop, once, of a story of an older couple, who went to confess about having pre-marital sex, yet still sealed in the Temple, raised their kids, sent kids on Mission, saw them married in Temples, served faithfully but yet, still felt the need to confess to their Bishop. The Bishop said they were forgiven due to all their services and pain they endured all this time.

You seem to be advocating confession, as does the Bishop that told you the story. Or am I misunderstanding?