What Role Does Confession To Church Authorities Play In Repentance?

[blooit]

The general guidelines are pretty clear I think. Sins of "a sexual nature or similar seriousness" should be confessed to church authorities. Is this because of the help it provides to those with serious addictions, to protect the name of the church, or an actual necessary step to repentance?

Some might answer all three, and this could be right. I've just had some questions about this recently while working with teens. For example, the church typically gives great leeway to people who did not confess, but lived very righteous lives for a long time. This suggests to me that some level of repentance might take place without (or previous to) confession.

I am familiar with a situation where three teens committed the same offense. Two resolved it without ecclesiastical confession. The third confessed and was disfellowshipped. Years later, the one who confessed was denied a position with CES because he had been disfellowshipped. It was a very hard situation for him. He had a strong testimony, but struggled to come to terms with this.

I could go on, but I think the crux of my question is, can someone repent (however unwise) without ecclesiastical confession? I see very little evidence of this practice in ancient times. In the scriptures, dramatic repentance seems to take place in many different ways, and often without church discipline.

[Storm Rider]

These types of situations are complex and there is not a one size fits all type of response. True repentance demands humility before the Lord. Some individuals are so burdened by guilt that talking with the Bishop is what is needed. For them it is is a necessary step. The NT talks about the confession in Act 19:18. Some who don't confess today are overcome years later, still carrying around guilt, they go to the Bishop and confess their sins. Again, the fundamental teaching that we strive to teach the saints is to follow the Spirit. There is no law or list of sins that demand confession, but the broken heart is not afraid of confession, but will confess as lead by the Spirit. Sorrow is upon the individual that tries to bury their sin and will stay upon him as long as it is buried.

Some feel that sweet joy of forgiveness without talking with the bishop and do not feel lead or prompted to talk to the bishop. When in doubt, confess is a good rule of thumb.

Though we have faith that each bishop tries his best to follow the Spirit, it is troubling to see such a disparity between what we think are punishments for similar acts of sin. I have seen similar situations to what you have cited above. I have no answers, but I have faith that each individual is in our Father's care. The one that walks uprightly before the Lord, follows the counsel of his leaders will be blessed here and in the eternities. The ones who do not confess and did not follow the promptings of the Spirit may also be blessed here and in the eternities. The take-away is to follow the Spirit in all that we do.

[bluebell]

My only thought is that if someone is too embarrassed to confess to the bishop (of a sin that most would agree needs to be confessed) then that would seem to imply that their own pride is more important to them than regaining their relationship with their Savior and being square with Him.

And if it's true, that they are putting their pride above their relationship with God, then how can they exercise godly sorrow, or show a 'broken heart and contrite spirit' necessary for repentance?

It's impossible to speak to all scenerios but in my thinking, repentance, especially of serious sin, is about saying to God-I messed up, but nothing is more important to me than returning to you.

In the end though, God is the judge. Thank goodness.

[mfbukowski]

The rule is that one confesses the sin to the person he has offended. If no one is offended, no confession is necessary, and simple repentance is all that is necessary. If one is rude, one apologizes. If one steals something, one makes restitution. If one does something which affects one's marriage, one confesses to the spouse.

If one does something which could theoretically affect one's church membership or temple recommend status, one confesses to the Bishop. Of course this is part of the overall repentance process, but I think confession is more part of restitution than it is actually a part of repentance.

It is "getting it off your chest" and making ammends more than it is a part of actually forsaking the sin.

[mfbukowski]

I am familiar with a situation where three teens committed the same offense. Two resolved it without ecclesiastical confession. The third confessed and was disfellowshipped. Years later, the one who confessed was denied a position with CES because he had been disfellowshipped. It was a very hard situation for him. He had a strong testimony, but struggled to come to terms with this.

As a former bishop, let me ask you how you know that the two have actually "resolved" the matter?

Though they received no earthly punishment, how do we know the issues are "resolved" with the Lord?

Further, how do you know it was the "same offense" since the details of the situation often have a great bearing on the resolution of the issue? For example, if two people commit fornication, one brags about it to all the young men and the other never says anything, is that the "same offense"?

If the offense is "generally known" (and as I recall that phrase is actually in the guidelines) the bishop must deal with it in a different way than if the offense is not generally known.

If one commits fornication with someone who is not accountable for example, it is also quite different than committing the "same sin" (fornication) with someone who IS accountable.

So often there are vast differences in the individual circumstances of what may appear to be the "same sin".

I'm not saying the system is always just- it can't be because Bishops are fallible human beings with their own foibles - but oftentimes the situation is more complex than it appears.

And another issue is- what can we do to improve the situation insofar as it is NOT just? We look at other churches which have had problems with confession and dealing with massive abuse- and we see that perhaps we are not doing too badly after all.

Edited July 12, 2012 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

duplicate

Edited July 12, 2012 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

I could go on, but I think the crux of my question is, can someone repent (however unwise) without ecclesiastical confession? ...without church discipline.

I would say that is an individual decision between the sinner and the Lord according to the light he possesses. I agree it is unwise to delay or skip confession as it is indicative of some kind of denial that can interfere with a more complete repentance and/or progress. But it is also unwise to force a confession just to get it over with, for the same reason. The ultimate goal is to cultivate humility and submission to the Lord so that the Spirit can cleanse us, the temporal outcomes and consequences being what they may (such as the man’s CES employment). I think the parable of the laborers in the field might speak to this as well as other applications.

[rpn]

Confession of serious sins (generally, a deliberate and major offense against morality --- where is the OP quote from?) is required, and used to demonstrate first steps of repentance to the leaders who are trying to implement the Lord's will for the sinner. I don't think that confession does anything but bring the person to outside accountability, to the person whom they offended, and to God, via the Church. Discussions with a bishop may help a person figure out repentance, or bring them peace, or give information to protect the innocent. But that can happen as much without confession of a specific sin as it can with it.

IME, forgiveness from the Church and forgiveness from God are not the same thing. Sometimes church forgiveness takes a lot longer than His, and sometimes it happens before His.

[blooit]

I understand that there is always more to the story than we might know, and that there are always exceptional circumstances, and that in the end, God will be the final judge. Those are all important points. My question really is whether or not their are since for which full repentance is impossible without confession to church authorities.

[Bob Crockett]

I am familiar with a situation where three teens committed the same offense. Two resolved it without ecclesiastical confession. The third confessed and was disfellowshipped.

I read this statement and conclude that the third has made his peace with God and the others have not.

[blooit]

I read this statement and conclude that the third has made his peace with God and the others have not.

Perhaps. In this case, all three were involved in a crime - the same crime - together. All three served missions after the crime had been committed. Only one went to his bishop and was disfellowshipped.

[CASteinman]

I believe confession to Church Officials has been established in lieu of confession before the entire Church body.

[Yep]

The general guidelines are pretty clear I think. Sins of "a sexual nature or similar seriousness" should be confessed to church authorities. Is this because of the help it provides to those with serious addictions, to protect the name of the church, or an actual necessary step to repentance?

Some might answer all three, and this could be right. I've just had some questions about this recently while working with teens. For example, the church typically gives great leeway to people who did not confess, but lived very righteous lives for a long time. This suggests to me that some level of repentance might take place without (or previous to) confession.

I am familiar with a situation where three teens committed the same offense. Two resolved it without ecclesiastical confession. The third confessed and was disfellowshipped. Years later, the one who confessed was denied a position with CES because he had been disfellowshipped. It was a very hard situation for him. He had a strong testimony, but struggled to come to terms with this.

I could go on, but I think the crux of my question is, can someone repent (however unwise) without ecclesiastical confession? I see very little evidence of this practice in ancient times. In the scriptures, dramatic repentance seems to take place in many different ways, and often without church discipline.

I was disfellowshipped for a time as part of the repentance process at one point in my life. I do not believe that it is possible to fully reach a point in repentance where you can feel truly at peace without such. It tests one's resolve as well as teaches the individual. I feel that the question about "why do I have to do this?" is more a tendency of lack of true repentance spirit than it is a valid question. If this were a valid question, the following would be logical as well: "God knows when we feel bad about something, why repent at all?"

I think whenever we ask ourselves, "Why do I have to ...?" We should look at ourselves and really ask if we are truly devoted to our course.

[Calm]

Perhaps. In this case, all three were involved in a crime - the same crime - together. All three served missions after the crime had been committed. Only one went to his bishop and was disfellowshipped.

If they did not resolve the legal issues, I don't see how the full process of repentance could take place.

[rongo]

mbukowski:

As a former bishop, let me ask you how you know that the two have actually "resolved" the matter?

As a current bishop (in his sixth year), let me add my firm belief that "all hens come home to roost." No matter how bottled up or buried something is, if it isn't properly resolved, the time will come when the person finds it intolerable not to formerly resolve it. This may take decades, but it will happen. This is usually when people are prompted to consider the doctrine of the Holy Spirit of Promise, and they worry about their state. No matter what covenants one has made or what ordinances one has received, if they were unworthy, they are not sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise. This is a terrifying thought. I am convinced that concern over this comes to all, eventually ------ later if one is determined to bury it and "whistle past the graveyard." This is the most valuable function of confession to priesthood key-holders: it leaves the person knowing that everything was on the table, and instills confidence because judgment through priesthood keys is administered. If a full confession was given, the person does not/ should not have to worry that they held back anything. It allows the person to shift the burden of worry and terror to a trusted judge.

Yep:

I was disfellowshipped for a time as part of the repentance process at one point in my life. I do not believe that it is possible to fully reach a point in repentance where you can feel truly at peace without such.

This is a key component in considering what formal discipline should be administered. Many people would be harmed by perceived too much leniency (some have specifically said as much in councils I have conducted); it would be spiritually damaging to them to get a perceived "slap on the wrist."

I think the real value of confession to priesthood leaders about serious things is the sealing authority in Mattew 16. Not temple sealings, temple sealers, apostles, etc. ------ but the principle that things sealed or loosed on earth by proper authority are sealed/loosed in heaven. I believe that this apostolic authority is delegated to the narrow, limited stewardships of bishops/branch presidents/stake presidents in sealing/loosing sin and guilt for serious transgression. I think this is more for the person's confidence and worry ----- it is helpful to have a judgment from another party in whose key-authority one has confidence and faith, if a full confession has been given.