Repentance and confession - What would you do?

[TripletDaddy]

please stop cheating, but also please don't tell me.

Good relationships are always built on good communication.

lol.

[TripletDaddy]

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.

Ah, the old "I'm older and wiser" approach. Well, here you go, old man....a summary of my firebrand positions...

1. Adultery is a horrible situation for all involved
2. If a husband cheats on his wife, he should be honest with her and tell her
3. Within the LDS culture, we confess our sins to our priesthood leaders. Adultery is considered to be one of the most grievous sins.
4. Rationalizing a refusal to admit the affair 10 years later has practical benefits, to be sure. What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas. But it is still a lie. I expect more out of my relationship with my wife than to live a huge lie. I hope my wife expects the same from me.
5. It is hard to believe a guy that has cheated on his wife and ran and hid from his Bishop, waits 10 years, still feels guilty about it but refrains from telling his wife....is now motivated out of love and concern for his wife, as opposed to CYA now that he has even more to lose. I am sure he is motivated by both, but the fact that he is motivated at all by CYA shows that his selfish ways have not really changed all that much.
6. If a guy that has cheated goes to his Bishop and the Bishop says, "go and sin no more," then cool. No worries. I have no vested interest in seeing folks burned at the stake.

If these positions are radical, extreme, or whatnot, then so be it.

Equal rights for gays isn't a good analogy. I suppose that is payback for my prior poor analogy.

[KillerDog]

I know a guy who had an "affair." It wasn't an affair in the traditional sense, it never progressed beyond kissing and a little light petting, but the guy was going to leave his wife to be with this woman and sue for full custody of his young children. At the last second, he decided against it, broke off the illicit relationship and tried to make it work with his wife.

Years later, after having been a Bishop, he confessed the sin to his priesthood file leader in hopes of some absolution. He was told that it wasn't a problem but he should probably tell his wife. This guy thought that was bad advice but went with the counsel of his priesthood leader. The marriage never recovered.

His wife could not forgive the minor indiscretion. She could not let the indiscretion go and, over time, pushed her husband away completely. He continually tried to make it work; I believe she tried to make it work too. But her nature wouldn't allow forgiveness. They grew further apart, started living in separate places and eventually he did commit a more traditional form of adultery.

The second incident caused additional problems and a Disciplinary Counsel convened. He was not excommunicated and his spouse was livid. She wanted him exed. She concocted elaborate conspiracies that had prevented him from being justly punished. They didn't divorce (they were kinda weird about divorce) but they also didn't live in the same place or speak to each other for many years. Finally, the wife filled out and filed a divorce petition. One week before the judge was to sign the divorce petition, the guy died. The only person in the hospital room with him was his estranged wife who was in the process of divorcing him...he still wanted to make it work.

Should he have told?

[RobinFinderson]

Does one establish this agreement at the outside of the marriage so a partner knows he can cheat with impunity, or does this come up later (ala, so... if I had cheated on you would you want to know about it)?

Whether one tells or not, there is never such thing as cheating with impunity.

I don't think such conditions should be asked for, and there is really no agreement to be made. Unlike marriage vows, this isn't a contract. It is a request pertaining to how a person would like to be treated. If I felt strongly about this, I might make the request like this, "Faith, I just want you to know that I love you, and I want to spend the rest of my life with you, and I hope that you feel the same way. But I also want you to know that it would be unbearably hard for me to see you the same if I ever found out that you had cheated on me. So if you have, or if you ever do, and if you still love me and want to be with me, then please stop cheating, but also please don't tell me."

Good relationships are always built on good communication.

[Surfah]

Also, it is interesting that you say that this issue is between a man, wife, and God. Based off much of the advice given here, it seems like the wife isn't involved at all. She is kept completely in the dark.

http://cougaruteforum.com/showpost.p...&postcount=129

[TripletDaddy]

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.

I do see what you are saying. I don't have the answer. Admittedly, I have never really pondered that issue.

I don't have a huge problem with the notion of going to the Bishop to confess things. I have never viewed the Bishop to be the one to dole out "forgiveness" or hand out punishments. He interprets the existing rules, much like a referee. He hands out advice and tries to give comfort. Sometimes this involves discipline, but I don't anything wrong with it, personally. These examples of Bishops asking for lurid details are clearly an extreme and I doubt many would argue that such inquiry is necessary. By and large, aren't Bishops good folks who are motivated to help members remain active and in full fellowship?

Also, it is interesting that you say that this issue is between a man, wife, and God. Based off much of the advice given here, it seems like the wife isn't involved at all. She is kept completely in the dark.

[Surfah]

See, this is why I don't think the guy should turn over to the Bishop the decision about whether his wife should find out or not. He knows his wife better than the Bishop knows her. He knows that it could trigger a depression that could have a terrible impact on children. I recognize that I am less devout than most LDS people, but I don't understand why any intelligent adult would let a Bishop make that decision on his/her behalf. The Bishop could be Chris Buttars for all we know. People really think it's a good idea to roll the dice like that?

I agree that this has been an interesting thread. I like when things stay relatively civil.

Or the Bishop could be Lebowski's dad. You've stated it and Robin has also. If you believe then you need to confess. If you don't, don't.

[beelzebabette]

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.

Does one establish this agreement at the outside of the marriage so a partner knows he can cheat with impunity, or does this come up later (ala, so... if I had cheated on you would you want to know about it)?

[CardiacCoug]

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.

See, this is why I don't think the guy should turn over to the Bishop the decision about whether his wife should find out or not. He knows his wife better than the Bishop knows her. He knows that it could trigger a depression that could have a terrible impact on children. I recognize that I am less devout than most LDS people, but I don't understand why any intelligent adult would let a Bishop make that decision on his/her behalf. The Bishop could be Chris Buttars for all we know. People really think it's a good idea to roll the dice like that?

I agree that this has been an interesting thread. I like when things stay relatively civil.

[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.

[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]

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]

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.

[SeattleUte]

Again, your ignorance is unfathomable.

Again, you are talking crazy.

[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.