- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I hope I am posting this in the right area. So I am wondering what you all think of the one step in repentance that says, “(depending on the sin) you need to confess to a priesthood leader.” Ever since I had a horrible experience with a bishop I am in a place that says, “Heck no will I ever go and talk to a bishop even if it is one of those ‘sins’ that ‘qualifies’ as needing priesthood intervention.” I feel like I do not really see straight on this issue because of the painful experience I had. Plus I am not even sure I understand why the church tells people they should confess to priesthood leaders. My husband says that we do it for spiritual guidance and healing, but I really do not see it that way. It just seems like a shame and humiliation step. I would appreciate some insight that can help me move to a healthier place than being in my obstinate angry place. I can not see any real good come from confessing. Maybe for some it is therapeutic and lets them get something off their chest. I would say however there is no reason to confess anything to a church leader if you do not feel inclined to do so. Of course this is coming from an individual who does not believe in the concept of sin. You go to the priesthood leader to confess if you feel that being punished by the church is necessary for your repentence. It is important to understand that this is the purpose of confession — to have the bishop help you repent, and his tool for doing that is called ‘church discipline’. Except for certain very major sins such as murder, rape, incest, or child abuse, I don’t see the purpose in church discipline if I have a close relationship with the god of my understanding and have worked through my personal spiritual understanding what I need to do to repent.
but if you feel the need to go to the bishop…
According to the manual, The first purpose of Church discipline is to save the souls of the transgressors by
helping them repent.” Note that the church discipline does not save the souls of transgressors, only repentance can do that. So, this logic says that if you feeel that you need to be punished in order to repent, then as the manual says, “church discipline is often adequate for this purpose.”
There is informal discipline, and formal discipline. Informal is completely optional, but formal may be mandated if a person comes to the bishop with specific offenses. Again, even the purpose of ‘formal discipline’ is to
help the person have a ‘change of behavior and change of heart’. There are two other reasons for church discipline – to protect the innocent and safeguard the integrity of the church.
So, let’s say you have some private action or behavior in your past that you think is “really sinful”. You’ve prayed, you’ve changed, you’ve done all the private things you can to think you’re forgiven, but you just aren’t sure. What church discipline does for you is that by going through some sort of discipline, you feel that the church leaders have helped you get closure to this sin. So, the rationale is that if you pay for this sin, somehow, by anything from informal probation, to disfellowship, to excommunication. Once you’ve gotten all that load of sin off you, now you’re clean again.
Here’s the kicker though — even the church handbook says that the church doesn’t forgive sins, only God can do that through the redeeming grace of the atonement. The key is understanding your relationship with the god of your understanding, and knowing for yourself you have been forgiven. Confession is necessary in repentence, but to whom? If I have done something harmful to my wife, then my confession should be to her, and perhaps no-one else. There are some real challenges to confession, but in the end, doing what’s right is hard, and ideally, it would be nice to have a spiritual counselor help me through this process. The problem is that the tools of the church for this counseling often involve church discipline, and I’m not sure it’s entirely warranted.
The church’s position is that some serious transgressions
mayrequire discipline: These include attempted murder, forcible rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse, intentional serious physical injury to others, adultery, fornication, homosexual relations, deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities, and a bunch of major felonies. Certain transgressions are serious enough to
requiredisciplinary council and probably strong formal discipline. I call these the ‘Big 4’: murder, incest, child abuse, and … apostasy. That last one may get the majority of us at some point or another, but it really means those who persist in clear, open, and deliberate public opposition to the church or its leaders. NO disciplinary councils are required for failure to comply with some church standards, including the WoW, pornography, ‘self-abuse’, tithing, inactivity, or inattention to church duties. As well, if the passage of time has demonstrated that a person has repented of anything but the ‘big 4’, there is no need for any formal discipline.
So, in my impression, I have to ask myself, “Have I repented?”
To put it into perspective, 25 years ago I was a pretty serious binge drinker. Totally active on the outside, but when I travelled, I would get absolutely ripped. Guilt told me that once I blew it with one drink, I might as well enjoy it. Well, in the fall of ’87, i coudn’t stop, and I landed in AA. I had a spiritual experience not too far into my recovery where something happened that really changed my heart. It wasn’t me, it was something I thought at the time far greater than myself. I not only stopped drinking, but I aslo came to understand that god, whoever that may be, has fully forgiven me of my drinking and a whole lot of other stuff.
Well my wife thought that I should confess to the bishop. I did, and he retrieved my TR and put me on informal probation for a while. It was not only anti-climatic, but it also was exactly the opposite of what the spirit told me directly, and the opposite of what I needed, spiritually.
My lesson learned: if I don’t want or need church discipline, then don’t confess to the church. There is no reason to confess private matters to the church. If you’ve gone public with the sin, or if it’s one of the big 4, that is another matter. And if it’s apostasy for which you want to be punished, submit your resignation and save everyone a lot of grief.
Yet personally, i think the act of confession is very helpful. But it is confession to someone who can counsel and is not in the position of punishing. This doesn’t happen in the Church very often. I personally believe that repentence is between me, god, and the person whom I have offended. If I need a coach on the process, personally, i turn to the paid, non-LDS professionals to confess — it’s more objective.
I wouldn’t go unless my concience bothered me so much I felt I HAD to. Jimminy Cricket had it right when he said to let your conscience be your guide. Thanks Wayfarer I appreciated your post. This is something I really struggled with right before I got married, “Oh great I may have went too far with my fiance, does this require a bishop visit?” I became so freaked out by this whole concept I got really sick. I became so obsessed with making sure I did not slip up in the slightest that I began to really hurt myself to ensure I would feel so awful I would not have any desire to mess up. It is all so confusing because I am to a point where I think, “Why would God ask me to further punish myself when what I feel is punishment enough?” However, part of me wonders if I am one of those people the church talks about that makes things convenient for themselves and they will be punished in the after life…it’s all so confusing to me. wayfarer, I agree with what you said. Especially:
Quote:My lesson learned: if I don’t want or need church discipline, then don’t confess to the church. There is no reason to confess private matters to the church. If you’ve gone public with the sin, or if it’s one of the big 4, that is another matter. And if it’s apostasy for which you want to be punished, submit your resignation and save everyone a lot of grief.
I have given confessions to:
1. My Sponser in AA.
2. Very close friends. (Including my current Home Teacher.)
3. My Bishop.
4. Professional Councelor.
The best results came from #1 & 2.
What I want from my confession is: insight & encouragement.
I’ve already beaten myself as soon as I’ve reached this point.
Once I did write a letter to my Bishop asking to have my name removed.
I met with him & he talked me out of it. That probably doesn’t happen very often.
The only qualities I look for is: (This is important to me.)
1. Can he (she) keep a confidence?
2. Does he (she) have the life experiences that I respect & admire?
Some of these people are not in the church.
One considers himself an athiest.
Another is a Muslim.
Another is Jewish.
For what it’s worth.
Mike from Milton.
I tend to agree — with some of the challenges I faced, it was the specialists who knew how to solve the problem I was facing — or I found the answer on my own through research. I had 3 different experiences with bishops (all at BYU), so I’ll share to give more insight: 1st bishop– I confessed something from a year earlier. The bishop cried (I don’t even think I did) and told me I was forgiven and gave me a hug, and that was that. He was very sweet and empathetic, but I felt like I got off light. 2nd bishop– I confessed the same thing to a different bishop. He said the purpose of us meeting was for him to help me determine when I’d been forgiven. I met with him several times over about 2-3 months. He said he couldn’t tell me when I was forgiven, only I would know. There came a point when I really did feel forgiven and that this was in my past. It was a very powerful experience to me. I appreciated that his focus was on just letting me go through my own process and being a sounding board. much later bishop– I was in my interview before my wedding, and I had been attending with my fiance in his home ward even though I didn’t live in those boundaries. The bishop was very angry I hadn’t been attending the ward, and he spent about 20 minutes chewing me out for attending elsewhere. He said he couldn’t recommend me because he didn’t know me. I asked him what I was supposed to do because my fiance’s bishop couldn’t do the recommend because my records were in my student ward. He literally threw papers around his desk and threw his hands in the air to demonstrate his frustration. Then he started in on chastity questions, and the last thing in the world I was going to do was talk to this guy for one second longer than necessary. He leaned forward and squinted at me like he was trying to read my mind, and he kept drilling down with additional more personal questions about chastity, naming off things he thought I might have done as someone on the verge of getting married. It was like he was on a witch hunt. He was scary! A number or years ago I had a conversation with a PhD psychologist who was a committed Christian and whose father was a Lutheran pastor. I mentioned about confession in the LDS church and he became visibily upset that there was any need to place anyone between themselves and God in finding forgiveness. In thinking about that I’ve realized that people in the church, myself included, don’t have the confidence to feel we’ve been forgiven and have to have someone tell us we have been or punish us so that we can feel we’ve paid a price. I mentioned in another thread that the branch president I clerk for in a YSA branch gets frustrated at the kids that come in an confess about the same thing over and over. My last experience with confession cost me a year on the sidelines, morning and evening prayers that went unheard and unanswered and a compulsory read of The Miracle of Forgiveness. It’s not something I’d recommend or will put myself through again. hawkgrrrl wrote:I had 3 different experiences with bishops (all at BYU), so I’ll share to give more insight:
1st bishop– …I felt like I got off light. 2nd bishop– …He said he couldn’t tell me when I was forgiven, only I would know… much later bishop– …He was scary!
What I find amazing is the diversity in what should be a remarkably consistent calling.I once had the unique experience to direct a choir at a priesthood leadership meeting where BKP was present. He explained the concept that the church needs to be the same everywhere: essentially a McChurch approach. Ok, I guess I can eat at mcdonalds once a week, i think. but the reality is that the church does not do enough to ensure that the mantle of bishop is consistently worn by its bishops. “let the spirit guide” means that ‘inspiration’ must be present in any decision, and I would think that most bishops who are honest proabably realize it isn’t always there.
Hence the need for guidelines, a la the handbook of instructions or the like. The current version of the handbook is pretty specific that only really serious sin needs to come up in formal church discipline, and even then, it isn’t the bishop who can forgive, but rather, the person him or herself. Bishop #2 was right in being consistent with the handbook, and your experience was positive.
But with the risk of either a disappointing experience in case 1, or a really scary experience in case 3, why would anyone want to subject themselves to arbitrary punishment if it does not actually forgive sin? I am talking, specifically, about private sin where abuse of another individual is not involved.
Shortly before I got married, I had some issues as well. I felt that I had gone well beyond the point of worthiness for temple marriage, and given that, the marriage was going to be off. When I went to the SP counselor for the second interview, he was a loving guy in your category 2 — a great person, who taught with his example the right kind of forgiveness. But had I gotten anyone else, who knows.
I also know of an example of my uncle and aunt, who I think did something before marriage that they didn’t confess, and to make up for it they lived lives of EXTREME contrition. It was a hellish way to live, and all of their children had deep psychotic problems as a result.
repent means change, and if one has changed, one has sought the lord’s forgiveness, then the lord forgives as many times as necessary. god is love. god is love. we need to get this through our thick heads and realize it,, and then the redeeming grace is sufficient to heal us.
GBSmith wrote:In thinking about that I’ve realized that people in the church, myself included, don’t have the confidence to feel we’ve been forgiven and have to have someone tell us we have been or punish us so that we can feel we’ve paid a price….
It’s not something I’d recommend of will put myself through again.
amen. +1.Mike wrote:I have given confessions to:
1. My Sponser in AA.
2. Very close friends. (Including my current Home Teacher.)
3. My Bishop.
4. Professional Councelor.
The best results came from #1 & 2.
What I want from my confession is: insight & encouragement.
I’ve already beaten myself as soon as I’ve reached this point.
Once I did write a letter to my Bishop asking to have my name removed.
I met with him & he talked me out of it. That probably doesn’t happen very often.
The only qualities I look for is: (This is important to me.)
1. Can he (she) keep a confidence?
2. Does he (she) have the life experiences that I respect & admire?
Some of these people are not in the church.
One considers himself an athiest.
Another is a Muslim.
Another is Jewish.
For what it’s worth.
Mike from Milton.
it’s worth a lot. I would agree with you — paying for a listening ear may be a last resort, after a caring sponsor (church people don’t have this, though…) or a very good friend (and these are rare). But I would still go to a professional counselor before taking something to the church.So maybe my order is:
1. My Sponser in AA (if one has one)
2. Very close friends. (Including my current Home Teacher.)
3. Professional Councelor.
…
99. My Bishop.
When I was a child, my mother told me she thought I had a “guilty conscience” as I blamed myself for everything that went wrong in life. I didn’t realize for a long time that these things happen to everyone. When I joined the LDS Church, the notion that you have to confess everything really exacerbated this problem, as it heighted my “super-ego” (Freud-speak for ‘conscience’) and also included an imperative that I had to tell someone in authority to be right with God. Coupled with a reading of the Miracle of Forgiveness, it proved to be highly destructive to me emotionally. I didn’t realize it at the time, but through these new eyes, I see that it wasn’t a lot of help to me personally — particularly since there were no practical words of advice or emotional support.
Honestly, I feel a bit like Martin Luther did — that the bulk of this is between God and man.
wayfarer wrote:I once had the unique experience to direct a choir at a priesthood leadership meeting where BKP was present. He explained the concept that the church needs to be the same everywhere: essentially a McChurch approach. Ok, I guess I can eat at mcdonalds once a week, i think. but the reality is that the church does not do enough to ensure that the mantle of bishop is consistently worn by its bishops. “let the spirit guide” means that ‘inspiration’ must be present in any decision, and I would think that most bishops who are honest proabably realize it isn’t always there. Hence the need for guidelines, a la the handbook of instructions or the like.
This creates tension in me, really. For one, we have some long discussions here about the downside of the CHI — that it was too mechanistic, and generally, not well-liked by many on this forum given how controlling it can be — and how it can mute common sense or even inspiration.
Yet, here, we have a situation where a Bishop is given huge license to interpret as by the Spirit, but we find lack of consistency is an apparent concern.
So, how do you balance the two? When should there be strictly enforced guidelines, and when should there NOT be?
Personally, I don’t like the idea that it’s the same everywhere. That works great for McDonalds, but we are not buying Big Macs here!! We are going to worship and hopefully improve our lives and we are all different. No one menu can satisfy all. In fact, the tedium that such consistency creates is part of what is killing me right now.
The happiest Ward I was in, was one that “broke all the rules”. Here are the things I did in that Ward:
1. In Sacrament meeting, the Bishopric dressed up like the 3 Wisemen and sang a song, along with a full-costume primary that acted at the front of the podium.
2. I sang a spiritually uplifting Christmas song by Garth Brooks in Sacrament meeting while I played my accoustic guitar, during the hymn singing period when the new hymns came out and no one knew them — we had learned them all, thought the choirister, so she turned that period after Sacrament meeting into a spiritual music showcase.
3. It was in this Ward my Bishop indicated that one should meet their individual, life-sustaining obligations and pay tithing on what was left over. Otherwise everyone would be on “some kind of welfare program”.
4. I held a weekend-long canoe trip which involved travelling on Sunday. Our bishop also authorized a sacrament meeting in the woods. It was one of the most spiritual sacrament meetings I attended. I guess I was presiding too as the YM president as no Bishopric were on the trip. But there was no recogition of any of that — we just had people with the right priesthood bless, prepare and pass and that was it — as we sat dressed in woodsy clothing with six o’clock shadows on our faces.
5. Most priesthood leaders home taught others with their wives.
6. Young Men whose less committed families took them away from Church for the whole summer, got the Duty to God Award (in spite of not meeting the Church attendance requirement).
Anyway, that Ward was where I thrived. There were few limits on creativity, and when I left the YM President calling, they threw this big party for me, there were testimonies in Sacrament meeting about me when I left the calling etcetera. Not that it was a motive of mine, but I saw that in THAT environment, the charity that breeds favor among man and maybe even God thrived in me — not in these Wards where people strain about whether you conduct a meeting with your jacket on or not…
So, for some consistency is a great idea….personally, I’d rather have the inconsistent behavior of Bishops so they can at least have a CHANCE at being influenced by the Spirit. The price you pay is an uneven experience.
If you make sure your God-Man relationship comes first, you can get around these kinds of consistency problems — often, by dealing with it on a personal level and leaving others out of it.
SD, where is this ward? I would like to attend. In my opinion, there needs to be more room for personal inspiration & creativity.
Maybe it would keep us awake in the morning & the rest of the week.
It would keep us from being less critical of others too.
Mike from Milton.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.