Repentance and confession - What would you do?

[FN Phat]

I think it is pretty cut and dry. The man made a bad mistake and he needs to make it right.

"Jacob taught that the Lord delights 'in the chastity of women' (Jacob 2:28). I delight in the chastity and purity of all women and men. How it must grieve the Lord to see virtue violated and modesty mocked on every side in this wicked world. The Lord has provided for His children great joy through intimate, loving relationships, as my grandchildren were learning. I delight in the clarity of the proclamation to the world on the family which warns that 'individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God.' "

That is if you believe these things to be right.

[RobinFinderson]

I think it is pretty cut and dry. The man made a bad mistake and he needs to make it right.

"Jacob taught that the Lord delights 'in the chastity of women' (Jacob 2:28). I delight in the chastity and purity of all women and men. How it must grieve the Lord to see virtue violated and modesty mocked on every side in this wicked world. The Lord has provided for His children great joy through intimate, loving relationships, as my grandchildren were learning. I delight in the clarity of the proclamation to the world on the family which warns that 'individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God.' "

That is if you believe these things to be right.

Crap! That makes three of us on the island... awkward!

[Surfah]

I don't understand how any truly believing Mormon can advocate anything different than DDD has prescribed. We are talking about the willful breach of a contract that has ETERNAL CONSEQUENCES. The wronged partner needs this information to make an informed choice about how s/he will spend the eternities.

What if the friend's first Bishop was a "good" Bishop and knew he and his wife well? So well in fact that he knew that the wife would never recover from such a confession and being led by the Spirit, determined through personal revelation that he should not confess to the wife. What then? Do you still believe that the friend should tell his wife, in effect rejecting his Bishop's counsel?

[cowboy]

I don't understand how any truly believing Mormon can advocate anything different than DDD has prescribed. We are talking about the willful breach of a contract that has ETERNAL CONSEQUENCES. The wronged partner needs this information to make an informed choice about how s/he will spend the eternities.

I disagree. If we believe in repentance, then all sins are forgotten once the repentance process is complete. Therefore, if he has repented, then he is clean before both God and his wife. There was no eternal marriage at the time, so no eternal contract was breached. If they choose to be sealed in the future, it he will have repented and changed.

I am not sure cowbow was necessarily looking for "cowboy, nobody really knows what should be done."

I certainly was looking for discussion. Philosophical and ethical dilemmas intrigue me.

I think though that the question becomes a matter of whether confession to the wife is truly necessary for repentance. The answer, to quote my favorite finance professor, is "it depends." Circumstances and individuals all play into the answer.

Confession to a priesthood leader isn't for the Catholic purpose of absolution, as only God can provide that. And, with the repentant, it is certainly not designed to punish the sinner. Rather, it is designed to help the transgressor understand and take advantage of the gift of the atonement. This is why it is only necessary for egregious sins like adultery.

In this case, confessing to the wife at the time may have saved him 10 years of guilt and hellish torment, but a bishop may not think that it is necessary now.

These are rambling thoughts hastily arranged, but they are my thoughts so far.

[beelzebabette]

I think it is pretty cut and dry. The man made a bad mistake and he needs to make it right.

"Jacob taught that the Lord delights 'in the chastity of women' (Jacob 2:28). I delight in the chastity and purity of all women and men. How it must grieve the Lord to see virtue violated and modesty mocked on every side in this wicked world. The Lord has provided for His children great joy through intimate, loving relationships, as my grandchildren were learning. I delight in the clarity of the proclamation to the world on the family which warns that 'individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God.' "

That is if you believe these things to be right.

Of course he needs to make it right, cowboy's question was how you would go about doing so.

I still maintain there's more than one correct way (dependent on circumstances) for someone in this situation to achieve redemption, and I certainly don't dispute that for some of you that would be full disclosure to a bishop and wife.

[RobinFinderson]

What if the friend's first Bishop was a "good" Bishop and knew he and his wife well? So well in fact that he knew that the wife would never recover from such a confession and being led by the Spirit, determined through personal revelation that he should not confess to the wife. What then? Do you still believe that the friend should tell his wife, in effect rejecting his Bishop's counsel?

Cheating on a spouse is a sin with with eternal repercussions, per Mormon dogma. In your scenario the Bishop receives revelation that seems to contradict the most simple and straightforward interpretation of 'honoring one's covenants.' The individual would then have to choose a world paradigm: Either the universe is governed by laws that people can know and understand, or the universe operates on God's caprice.

[FN Phat]

Crap! That makes three of us on the island... awkward!

You can be the skier in the middle

[Surfah]

Of course he needs to make it right, cowboy's question was how you would go about doing so.

I still maintain there's more than one correct way (dependent on circumstances) for someone in this situation to achieve redemption, and I certainly don't dispute that for some of you that would be full disclosure to a bishop and wife.

If you're an orthodox Mormon as CardiacCoug says, what other ways are correct other than confessing to your Bishop and heeding his counsel?

[RobinFinderson]

I disagree. If we believe in repentance, then all sins are forgotten once the repentance process is complete. Therefore, if he has repented, then he is clean before both God and his wife. There was no eternal marriage at the time, so no eternal contract was breached. If they choose to be sealed in the future, it he will have repented and changed.

I have been abstracting the specifics to apply to cheating and confession in general. I don't think that it is useful to make a distinction between a temple marriage and a temporal marriage. I have only done so to underscore that the breach of contract is significant, and that a partner should know if s/he is party to a sham contract so that s/he can make the choice to either renegotiate the terms of that contract or look for an honest partner. But whether eternal or not, there is no difference. The wronged partner should be able to make an informed choice.

[beelzebabette]

Cheating on a spouse is a sin with with eternal repercussions, per Mormon dogma.

D&C 132:15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

v. 19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

Per Mormon dogma, the two types of marriage are distinct.

[RobinFinderson]

D&C 132:15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.

v. 19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

Per Mormon dogma, the two types of marriage are distinct.

I address this in my previous post. I use the eternal example to underscore the significance of the breach of contract. But whether we are talking about an eternal contract or a temporal one, the outcome is the same -- the wronged partner should be allowed to make an informed choice.

[FN Phat]

Of course he needs to make it right, cowboy's question was how you would go about doing so.

I still maintain there's more than one correct way (dependent on circumstances) for someone in this situation to achieve redemption, and I certainly don't dispute that for some of you that would be full disclosure to a bishop and wife.

IMO not heeding the council of his bishop, he chose to elude the consequences of being truthful, to himself and his wife. Which I don't believe to be a "correct way".

[Surfah]

I address this in my previous post. I use the eternal example to underscore the significance of the breach of contract. But whether we are talking about an eternal contract or a temporal one, the outcome is the same -- the wronged partner should be allowed to make an informed choice.

I actually agree with this as a matter of ethics irrespective of religion.

[RockyBalboa]

I guess for me a lot of it comes down to whether you actually have the audacity to believe that keeping an egregious act secret from the person you're SUPPOSED to be closest to is an act of selflessness..aka...as some have put it here..."protecting the innocent" (highly ironic considering the act).....

or an act of covering one's own ass to the grave.....it really bugs me that someone would characterize this for some different than it really is.

For those of you in here who're married or have been.....were you in this hypothetical situation, you're basically saying after banging someone other than you're spouse, you'd keep it from her/him?

If you would keep it from her/him, don't tell me you're doing it out of love. Because that's the LAST thing it is. I've had many gals tell me, it's not so much the act, but the deception after the fact, that he was NOT HONEST WITH ME to begin with.

[beelzebabette]

If you're an orthodox Mormon as CardiacCoug says, what other ways are correct other than confessing to your Bishop and heeding his counsel?

I don't care to go back to another board's discussion of what constitutes an orthodox Mormon to see if there was a consensus. So, you may deem this answer incorrect.

An orthodox Mormon understands his leaders are fallible men who seek the Lord's guidance. I don't think it's out of line to say, "After praying about it I think you got this one wrong, and I'd like you to reconsider your counsel as it relates to consequences for my guiltless wife." As we've discussed, different bishops may give different advice to the same individual given identical circumstances. If, in your orthodox Mormon scenario, the bishop says the wife still has to know and you believe him to be inspired, I think the course of action is clear. If bishops got things right the first time each and every time, no one would ever get a different answer going up the chain of command.