- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve decided to renew my temple recommend and I’m excited to go to the temple again. I’m meeting with the bishop on Sunday for my interview. I was inactive in the Church for about a year, and I never did drugs or alcohol or had sex (impressive for a college student, I suppose) but I did do some things that are forbidden in the “For the Strength of Youth” pamphlet, like “touching the private, sacred parts of another person’s body.” I’m having a battle with myself about whether or not to confess them to the bishop. The thing is that I’m actually not sorry for them because they seemed normal and reasonable for a person in my situation. Since my understanding of Jesus and the Atonement is more metaphorical, I don’t really accept the concept of sin as literal, so I don’t feel “spiritually unclean.” I feel like I’m an adult and that I can make my own decisions about what is appropriate behavior. My bishop is awesome, and it really doesn’t seem like any of his business. I don’t know if he’d even care. But at the same time, I don’t want to feel like I’m carrying some dirty little secret that never got resolved, and I don’t want to confess later and have my recommend revoked or suspended.
I guess that the decision is ultimately mine, but what are your thoughts on it? Are such confessions to the bishop necessary? Or should I just let it go and not say anything?
I believe in the concept of confession, and I believe in confession to a Bishop for what I would call serious sins, but I also know that confession in the Church is a crap shoot in a real way, since Bishops can react very differently to the exact same thing if it isn’t automatically something that would bring excommunication. I know people who have been treated very, very differently for the exact same thing by different Bishops. Therefore, in general, I would not recommend confession of something that is not excommunication worthy, especially if you feel right with God about it. If you simply feel you must, then do. The decision is between you and the Lord – but you need to realize going into it, if you decide to confess, that the result might not be what you think it should be.
Confess to God. The bishop does not need to know. Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk
I’ve wondered in the past about the Church’s problem with reactivating people, because becoming active in the Church again is like turning yourself into the police: you’re supposed to go in to the Bishop and tell him about all the sins you committed while you were inactive. Who wants that? As a TBM I struggled a lot with scrupulosity, which is OCD in a religious context. I would often feel that I’d committed a sin, but what I’d done would not have been considered a sin by the Mormon faith community. I’ve been into bishops many times and confessed “sins” that few bishops would consider to be sins. Anyone who is familiar with OCD knows that performing the compulsion (in this case, confessing to the bishop) actually makes things worse, not better. Whenever I’d confess to the bishop, I’d feel better for a time, maybe a few hours or a few days, but then I’d started to think that maybe I didn’t confess
absolutely everythingand had forgotten some little detail, or I’d remember another “sin” that I’d forgotten to confess, and I’d make another appointment to go see the bishop. One kind bishop of mine helped me get counseling for this problem. One of the best side effects of my faith crisis was ridding myself of scrupulosity. It was an enormous relief to no longer be burdened by guilt for “sin.” I was able to solve the problem by rejecting the concept of sin entirely.
Since I still don’t really accept the concept of sin as real, I think that confessing to the bishop would actually make the problem worse, because I’d go through the same process I did before, which is wonder whether I really did tell him everything, and then I’d remember something else I’d forgotten to tell him, and I’d have to go confess again.
What Ray said. Masturbation has been raised in some minds to near unpardonable and if you think it’s that big a deal your worst nightmare could come true if you confess it to the wrong person. Because of the emphasis on morality/chastity people have gotten used to leaving it to the bishop to decide if it’s that serious and what’s needed for repentance. In doing that it’s easy to forget that if you believe in prayer and personal revelation then God will let you know what’s ok and what’s not. (And in my humble opinion masturbation is not “self abuse” and is no big deal.) Quote:you’re supposed to go in to the Bishop and tell him about all the sins you committed while you were inactive
Fwiw, that absolutely is not official policy. Seriously, there is nothing in the CHI that even implies that need.
Curtis wrote:Quote:you’re supposed to go in to the Bishop and tell him about all the sins you committed while you were inactive
Fwiw, that absolutely is not official policy. Seriously, there is nothing in the CHI that even implies that need.
You’re right, I doubt there’s anything in the handbook about it. I assumed that it was implied in temple recommend interview question 13: “Have there been any sins or misdeeds in your life that should have been resolved with priesthood authorities but have not been?” As a TBM I always had a strict and somewhat harsh interpretation of the Church’s doctrine.I’m fine with the need to confess some things before getting a temple recommend, if there really are serious, unresolved issues in the past. I like that “should” is left open to the interpretation of the individual, even though I understand how leaving it open-ended can lead some people who are prone to see anything as serious sin to confess things that I don’t think are serious enough to require confession. I like the introspection involved in the question – but that is due partly to the fact that I don’t tend to beat myself up over past mistakes but, instead, try to use them as learning / changing motivation. For those who naturally are overly-hard on themselves, this question can be a bit of a hammer. I wouldn’t mind if it was removed, but it’s not something about which I am adamant.
The church may have a list of specific sins that it feels requires a confession, written or otherwise. I know this is the impression that I’ve gotten during my time as a member of the church. I think the admonition to confess “serious” sins nearly always translates to murder and all the hedges placed around sex. I see the confession process as necessary when you need to reach out for additional help in the repentance process. It should be a way to make sure people don’t have to tread the path alone, not some process to embarrass one past the point of constructive humility. If it’s serious, like murder serious, I think the confession should be made to real authorities, not an ecclesiastical leader. I’ve never agreed with any policy that would have members report first to the bishop in cases where actual laws are broken.
I like nibbler’s take on it. Repentance is an “effective change” program.
It’s useful for recognising negative behaviours and wanting to change them, making things right with others if needed (or possible), establishing new and positive behaviours and moving on.
Like nibbler said, if effective change needs support from a third party, like a bishop, then go for it. But otherwise don’t worry.
If it’s not something you personally consider to be a sin/damage your spirituality//hurt others/offend God then I’d question the need to make any change at all. It’s your call.
I think confession can be helpful in some cases. In the ideal scenario the confession and associated repentance would represent letting go of the past and being open and forgiven by God. In my current situation – I would likely never confess to the bishop. My worst case scenario would be that my bishop would require me to jump through hoops of faith in order to prove my repentance. That my confession to him would open the door to probing questions about my faith. Any ambigious or evasive answers might be seen as lack of repentance.
An easy example would be if he felt that in order to show repentance and contrition for some sin, I would have to pay tithing. SWK makes a case in MofF that a person is not truly repentant until they agree to live all of God’s commandments.
But I do not currently hold a TR. I know what the expectation is to receive one and I will let them know when I am ready. I’m probably seen as recalcitrant but harmlessly so.
InquiringMind wrote:One of the best side effects of my faith crisis was ridding myself of scrupulosity. It was an enormous relief to no longer be burdened by guilt for “sin.” I was able to solve the problem by rejecting the concept of sin entirely.
Amen. I agree whole-heartedly with the first sentence, even though I don’t reach your same conclusion.
Only you can decide about your general question, but all I can say is that I’ve seen up close and personal a bishop involved in a matter that I really think is none of his business. (And he’s not involved because the person asked for support.)
IMO you don’t need to confess to a bishop ever. For anything related to addiction seek a psychologist. For anything related to the law see the police. For anything else that would be considered a sin see the Lord. Seriously I don’t understand why we have this idea that we need a third party to confess to and get access to the atonement. It should be a one on one process between you and Christ. No need to involve an outsider who may judge you. Also I think the only two things that a TBM might think need to go to a bishop is fornication and adultery. Those are the only things that break the law of chastity. I seriously wish as a church we would stop having a backwards view of sex and all things related to it. It’s one of my greatest sticking points. Rant over, basically don’t confess you didn’t do anything wrong.
Confession is a gift to be able to find peace and reconciliation to a guilty conscience. If you are right with God, in a completely honest way, why confess to a bishop? To please the bishop? To please the church?
No bishop would teach you those are the right authorities to ask for forgiveness.
If you later feel pricked, or feel you were wrong, then you confess at those times. They give you plenty of chances to do that.
I think some people want to have the bishop fix their relationship with God for them. Bishops can be coaches or trainers to help, but the real work is to be right with God. But once you ask a coach/trainer to help…you can’t un-confess.
Confession, IMO, is necessary if you need it to know that you are forgiven from God. So if you feel forgiven from God (or that there is nothing to forgive), I agree with the advice above. Forgive yourself–that seems to be the crux for you, particularly if you have a scrupulosity issue. Have you read any of Mormon Therapist’s columns? She is excellent on these topics and works with many LDS people who have issues with scrupulosity. She is faithful, but also a licensed sex therapist. She is amazing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.