Repentance and confession - What would you do?

[Jeff Lebowski]

I think my child pornography example clarifies my point. Yes, some bishops (most?) would overlook what appears (from the confession) to be the 'accidental' acquiring of the illicit pornography. But that certainly can not be the official church policy, and no person who values the greater good of what the church might potentially accomplish could reasonably argue that letting the child porn confession slide is the best course of action. Accident or not, to paraphrase Nephi, "It is better that one accidental consumer of child pornography be sent to prison and have his life ripped asunder than for the body of the church to have its reputation impugned and its tithes and offerings bound fast to a hefty civil suit."

You are crafting a highly detailed and unlikely hypothetical to make your point. In terms of the general case, I don't think your premise is justified.

[Babs]

Me, or the guy who cheated?

I wish to inflict as little as possible on my family, which is why I don't cheat. However, if I were to cheat, I hope I feel the desire to set things straight with my wife.

Again, your stance doesn't withstand much scrutiny because you are advocating dishonesty.

Not true. My stance is the one advocated by qualified professionals the world over -- that is, that if there is little risk of the offended discovering the affair on his/her own, he/she should be spared the pain of the confession. If you had done even the most rudimentary research before mounting your soapbox, you would already know this.

See, TD, the world does not revolve around one principle alone. Often two or more principles conflict. And so there exists a hierarchy of principles. Perhaps each of us has to establish the hierarchy ourselves, but it exists nonetheless.

Nearly everyone would agree that honesty should be upheld. But very few would argue that honesty should be upheld at all times -- and I would argue that even those who suggest as much don't actually do so.

[beelzebabette]

I think my child pornography example clarifies my point. Yes, some bishops (most?) would overlook what appears (from the confession) to be the 'accidental' acquiring of the illicit pornography. But that certainly can not be the official church policy, and no person who values the greater good of what the church might potentially accomplish could reasonably argue that letting the child porn confession slide is the best course of action. Accident or not, to paraphrase Nephi, "It is better that one accidental consumer of child pornography be sent to prison and have his life ripped asunder than for the body of the church have its reputation impugned and its tithes and offerings bound fast in a hefty civil suit."

BS. In your hypothetical, if the acquisition were truly accidental, the acquiree should have destroyed the material immediately--not after seeking a bishop's advice. When you work your way backward from the conclusion you seek, you have to go forward again to make sure the example still works.

Try again.

[SeattleUte]

It will likely anger the kids, too.

So now you're advocating for telling the kids? Get them involved in the process? Yes! Dad should be shamed before the little ones too! Is that it?

[TripletDaddy]

I agree with Babs (assuming I interpret her position correctly) that burdening the wife with that knowledge can cause unintended harm.

I think that universally, everyone here agrees with that. The issue isn't whether it will cause harm. Of course it is going to hurt the wife to find out. It will likely anger the kids, too.

The issue is integrity and honesty.

As babes has indicated, in this scenario, the integrity is already destroyed, so by her own definition, people are making decisions without having integrity. Sounds like a great plan.

This is one CUF island I am happy to populate solo. The more people that advocate lying, the more interesting this thread becomes.

[RobinFinderson]

That's a blanket statement that I don't think is warranted. Depends on the bishop.

I think my child pornography example clarifies my point. Yes, some bishops (most?) would overlook what appears (from the confession) to be the 'accidental' acquiring of the illicit pornography. But that certainly can not be the official church policy, and no person who values the greater good of what the church might potentially accomplish could reasonably argue that letting the child porn confession slide is the best course of action. Accident or not, to paraphrase Nephi, "It is better that one accidental consumer of child pornography be sent to prison and have his life ripped asunder than for the body of the church to have its reputation impugned and its tithes and offerings bound fast to a hefty civil suit."

[beelzebabette]

The wronged partner needs to know so that s/he can make an informed choice about whether or not the eternal relationship is still in the cards.

I don't think that applies (yet) in this case. The act would precede the sealing.

[beelzebabette]

No. The damage control is the wife and kids. How much pain do you really wish to inflict on the blameless?

Here's what the thread boils down to for me--admittedly an outsider to the intricacies of a marital relationship. A two-pronged approach to the repentance process (as we've established the sin has been forsaken): 1) getting right with God and 2) making things right with the wife.

I would agree with a sin of this severity that confession is part of the repentance process, and I would say this guy felt it was important to go to a religious leader so I would stipulate for my response going to the bishop was the way to address #1. Addressing the need to confess to the spouse, I'd say there's a possibility the bishop was incorrect in making that a part of the repentance process (and that's the part of the discussion I think is more useful).

I agree with Babs (assuming I interpret her position correctly) that burdening the wife with that knowledge can cause unintended harm. Sure, it may seem like the easy way out to not tell the spouse, but that doesn't make it inherently wrong. Again, I understand I can't extrapolate a non-marital experience to claim I have the answers here when I've never so much as shared a bed with someone, but I'm trying to say I think Babs' position has a lot more merit than some of you are claiming.

[TripletDaddy]

No. The damage control is the wife and kids. How much pain do you really wish to inflict on the blameless?

Me, or the guy who cheated?

I wish to inflict as little as possible on my family, which is why I don't cheat. However, if I were to cheat, I hope I feel the desire to set things straight with my wife.

Again, your stance doesn't withstand much scrutiny because you are advocating dishonesty.

Although your approach is definitely more convenient. In fact, why admit anything to anyone if it causes pain? Lie about as much as possible if the truth will cause discomfort or inconvenience. Like Rocky, I am learning a lot today, too.

[Jeff Lebowski]

The Bishop is looking out for the interests of the church first, before the interests of the couple.

That's a blanket statement that I don't think is warranted. Depends on the bishop.

[RobinFinderson]

We don't agree. The church is not a corporation. The church is a body of saints. The Bishop has the unique role of sheppard over the body -- the language is more than poetic it is his role. He will look after the members first but in the instance you mention by law in the US and Canada he must report the incident.

The church is also a corporation, or more accurately, several corporations. You know this, or if you don't, you have been asleep.

[tooblue]

I am talking about the church as a corporation. You are talking about the church as a poetic body. Your conclusion that the bishop is first beholden to the law of the land suggests to me that if we were using the same definition of church, we would probably agree.

We don't agree. The church is not a corporation. The church is a body of saints. The Bishop has the unique role of sheppard over the body -- the language is more than poetic it is his role. He will look after the members first but in the instance you mention by law in the US and Canada he must report the incident.

[RobinFinderson]

No. The damage control is the wife and kids. How much pain do you really wish to inflict on the blameless?

Babs, in a Temple Marriage, the ETERNAL outcome of the marriage is at stake, and depends on the integrity of the partners. If the couple believes literally what the church teaches about the covenant of eternal marriage, there is really no wiggle room. The eternal consequences far outweigh the temporal pain to the blameless. The wronged partner needs to know so that s/he can make an informed choice about whether or not the eternal relationship is still in the cards.

[SeattleUte]

Another theme I'm getting out this thread: You should be allowed to control the consequences of your actions, and if that control is taken away, then it's not fair and vindictive.

I've also learned that having to live with the withholding of dark secrets, actions and choices is a sufficient price paid.

I've learned a lot today.

Good! So something good has come of this "nauseating" thread.

[RobinFinderson]

The body of the church and the church are one and the same. In regards to your child porn hypothetical the Bishop is beholden to the law of the land -- the state -- first, and the individual second FYI. By law he must report it.

I am talking about the church as a corporation. You are talking about the church as a poetic body. Your conclusion that the bishop is first beholden to the law of the land suggests to me that if we were using the same definition of church, we would probably agree.