Repentance and confession - What would you do?

[Surfah]

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.

I don't doubt A and C, but as to point B you can't say that these people clearly benefited by waiting to confess. There is no way to quantify the guilt and self inflicted torture by wrestling with the unconfessed sin all those years, nor the possible blessings lost because of not doing so.

That said, I'll reiterate what I said before. I think Cowboy's friend should speak to his Bishop and do whatever he counsels him to do. And his Bishop may very well tell him that he's sorry he's carried that burden for so long and send him on his way and I would have no issue with that.

My father was a bishop as well and speaking generally about this subject with him before, his experience was similar to your father's. I don't think we give those chosen to be judges in Israel enough credit that what they do, they do in our best interest and are following the Spirit when giving counsel.

[cowboy]

So the sinner completely disregards the counsel and terms of restitution for this man's repentance, but because 10 years have passed he can now find forgiveness? Part of progression is heeding the counsel of your leaders (for Cardiac - so long as you believe them to be called of God and integral to working out your salvation).

DDD said it best that there is something troublesome when we shop for forum with a friendly venue.

This is a fascinating thread to me because there are obviously no right answers. I can't remember who said it, (Babs, Cardiac? - too lazy to look) but this is a situation that needs to be considered on an individual basis.

On one hand, under the assumptions that the husband believes the church teachings, and that his leaders are called of God, it seems obvious that he needs to follow their counsel. On the other hand, I believe Tim makes a good point that the husband has turned away from the sin, is a loving and responsible husband and father now, and that ten years of hell may in fact change the bishop's counsel to him now.

I posed this question to another couple who came over for dinner last night, (I led them to believe it was a hypothetical situation) and the responses were just as varied and deeply felt as they are here. In the end, the other couple agreed that the husband should again seek counsel of the bishop, but one thought he should tell the wife, and the other wasn't sure.

My wife had the strongest feelings, and she felt very strongly that the husband not tell her. She felt this way in part because she knew who I was talking about, and knows that the wife has had struggles with depression in the past. Further, my wife said she just wouldn't want to know. Period.

I have really enjoyed this discussion. It is interesting to see so many thoughtful arguments that oppose one another.

[Jeff Lebowski]

I don't doubt A and C, but as to point B you can't say that these people clearly benefited by waiting to confess. There is no way to quantify the guilt and self inflicted torture by wrestling with the unconfessed sin all those years, nor the possible blessings lost because of not doing so.

That's why I phrased it the way I did ("consequences from the church"). I have no way to know what they suffered on a personal level.

[Surfah]

That's why I phrased it the way I did ("consequences from the church"). I have no way to know what they suffered on a personal level.

But we don't even know what the consequences from the church are either as every Bishop is different and every case is evaluated on its own merit. So really we can't know or shouldn't presume to know what suffering there may be on a spiritual level.

[Jeff Lebowski]

But we don't even know what the consequences from the church are either as every Bishop is different and every case is evaluated on its own merit. So really we can't know or shouldn't presume to know what suffering there may be on a spiritual level.

??? I didn't presume to know that.

I was just making a point that the passage of time can have an impact on the consequences of a confession.

[ERCougar]

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?

No, I didn't know that "forum shopping" had any specific meaning, but do you not see the language you're using here? "Jurisdiction", "lawsuit", "grievance"? It all carries the strong implication that the Bishop is the one handing down the penalty. I think that's a distracting and counterproductive concept. I know we consider them "judges in Israel" (not a huge fan of that term either), but in these kinds of cases, where the social consequences of excommunication can loom so large, it's too easy to think that those are the primary consequences.

Why should there be a "forum" at all? Isn't these between a man, his wife, and God? Why the third party?

I realize we're just going to end up agreeing to disagree on this--that's just where I'm coming from.

[Surfah]

??? I didn't presume to know that.

I was just making a point that the passage of time can have an impact on the consequences of a confession.

My apology. And I agree.

[SeattleUte]

Do you truly believe he is happy -- why then is he even considering confession? And if he is not happy, his marriage is not happy and we can be certain that more than one quarrel has been started because of his unhappiness due to this terrible secret he is harboring.

I had been considering this. His wife may be dragging him back to church for a reason. I won't judge this attempted fix because no two unhappy families are the same.

[Surfah]

Why should there be a "forum" at all? Isn't these between a man, his wife, and God? Why the third party?

Actually, if you don't confess to your wife then it's just between man and God.

[Surfah]

I had been considering this. His wife may be dragging him back to church for a reason. I won't judge this attempted fix because no two unhappy families are the same.

Sometimes you crack me up.

[SeattleUte]

Again, your ignorance is unfathomable.

Again, you are talking crazy.

[SeattleUte]

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.

3D, frankly your firebrand, black and white view of things in this thread has surprised me. It seems uncharacteristic. I think this subject, like gay marriage, is one that you will come to mellow on and even about which maybe you will modify your view after you have lived and learned a little more.

[RobinFinderson]

Q1. Why is sexual infidelity painful?
A1a. It feels like the unfaithful partner doesn't love you.
A1b. It is a breach of trust.
A1c. It feels like the unfaithful partner has abandoned the project of building a life together.
A1d. There is a great sense of insecurity.
A1e. Did the unfaithful person use protection? Did the unfaithful put you at risk of getting an STD? Could the unfaithful have other children (if he is a man)? Are your children yours (if she is a woman)? Did the unfaithful put your family at risk of having to face a jealous/dangerous other?
A1f. Other reasons.

Q2. Do people in 'Open Relationships' experience this same pain?
A2a. Maybe.
A2b. But 'fidelity' is now measured against different 'terms of agreement.'
A3c. So maybe not.

I'm not suggesting that 'open relationships' are the way to go for everyone, but what I admire about them is the way that couples or multiples forge their own meaning about what the relationship is supposed to be. It allows a certain inventiveness and creativity in defining goals and expectations. I also think that it infuses the relationship with a sense of evolution, that as the people in the relationship change, that the relationship and its expectations can evolve with the people involved.

The difficulty of most traditional relationships, and this hold especially true for Mormon temple marriages, is that the goals of the relationship are written by someone else, and may not meet the interests or needs of the people involved. But for the believing LDS there are no other real options.

Anyhow, back to the original question:

Q3. Should the unfaithful Mormon confess to the Bishop and/or spouse?
A3a. In the LDS faith, the marriage vows are a contract. Assuming the couple agreed to the contract in earnest, the cheater has no other ethical choice but to tell the partner. The original contract is a farce, and the wronged party should have the opportunity to decide or not to renegotiate the terms of the contract.
A3b. The Bishop is a different matter. Confession to the Bishop isn't necessary if the person doesn't accept the church's requirement of confession.
A3c. Furthermore, the Bishop is required to hold the church's interests above that of the individual. In other words, the Bishop's counsel can not be trusted to reflect what is best for the couple if the Church has a competing interest at stake.
A3d. However failure to confess would require (ethically) that the person not accept callings in the church, since the church would not have the details needed to make an informed calling.

[SeattleUte]

Why should there be a "forum" at all? Isn't these between a man, his wife, and God? Why the third party?

I realize we're just going to end up agreeing to disagree on this--that's just where I'm coming from.

Because they want to control you.

[RobinFinderson]

My wife had the strongest feelings, and she felt very strongly that the husband not tell her. She felt this way in part because she knew who I was talking about, and knows that the wife has had struggles with depression in the past. Further, my wife said she just wouldn't want to know. Period.

You know, I don't think it is a bad idea for a couple to let each other know their feelings about this issue... sort of negotiate the terms of agreement in this area where the terms are set in the covenant language. Because without knowing what the other feels, I would think the cheater would be ethically bound to telling the truth. But with an agreement in place, not so.