cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board - Why does the church teach us not to share past indiscretions?

- Religion (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=9)

- - Why does the church teach us not to share past indiscretions? (http://www.cougarguard.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18501)

Why does the church teach us not to share past indiscretions?

we are taught this very clearly on our missions.

Yet doesn't it say in D&C that sins should be confessed in front of the whole church?

People that are struggling can feel like they are the only ones really struggling, that no one else that is active have had these problems.

I mentioned this to a Bishopric member the other day, and he said he was in EQ meeting, and a member mentioned that he had been previously disfellowshipped for adultery. Took everyone by surprise, because this is not the thing that people admit or talk about or bring up. The Bishopric member said there must have been some spiritual purpose for him to say that at the time.

The Mormon mindset of not admitting sin is so very different than many other Christian faiths, where the mentality is "I am a sinner."

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 208501)

Cicero comes to mind . . .

Quote:

Originally Posted by M. Tullius Cicero

Therefore, it may be understood by many circumstances that our ancestors surpassed other nations not only in arms, but also in wisdom and prudence; and also most especially by this, that they devise a singular punishment for the impious. And in this matter consider how far they surpassed in prudence those who are said to have been the wisest of all nations. The state of the Athenians is said to have been the wisest while it enjoyed the supremacy. Moreover of that state they say that Solon was the wisest man, he who made the laws which they use even to this day. When he was asked why he had appointed no punishment for him who killed his father, he answered that he had not supposed that anyone would do so. He is said to have done wisely in establishing nothing about a crime which had up to that time never been committed, lest he should seem not so much to forbid it as to put people in mind of it. How much more wisely did our ancestors act! for as they understood that there was nothing so holy that audacity did not sometimes violate it, they devised a singular punishment for parricides in order that they whom nature herself had not been able to retain in their duty, might be kept from crime by the enormity of the punishment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 208501)

I agree with you on this one. I think the idea behind is that once you have repented and moved on from the sin, the Lord remembers it no more and neither should you (or at least not dwell on it, talk about it, etc.)

But I do agree that the above has been twisted into never talking about anything and putting on an air of perfection. Some of the best lessons I have been in have been where either the instructor and/or class members have shared experiences where they struggled with the principle being taught (sin or otherwise).

I've known people who have said that because they repented of the sin, the sin actually never occurred.

In this case, you could never talk about it or admit to it, because it never happened.

I think the practice of confessing your sins before the whole church was part of the process to gain forgiveness for recent sins and not a repetitive chronicling of past misdeeds for which you had already repented and gained forgiveness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 208507)

I've known people who have said that because they repented of the sin, the sin actually never occurred.

In this case, you could never talk about it or admit to it, because it never happened.

This brings to mind the practice among Evangelicals who will consider themselves a "born-again virgin" after they have been saved. An interesting concept.

How many LDS believe that a fornicator who has repented is just as virtuous as someone who is literally a virgin? If not, why not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by MikeWaters (Post 208501)

The primary reason missionaries are taught this (and by extension, I suppose, the membership) is that it can have unintended consequences. Talking about sin and repentance to someone who is spiritually immature may lead them to believe that because of repentance, they can sin whenever they wish. "Why not? I can always repent! After all, didn't you?"

That doesn't mean we need to make pretenses to perfection. All of us ought to acknowledge our fallen state. And there may be times when a story of repentance, especially when fresh, can spur multitudes to action. But it seems to me that when that water has flown under the bridge, it's best not to go chasing after it time and again.

I don' tthink it is the fact of repentance or past imperfecti0on as much as it is the detailed nature of the indiscretion that we are advisewd to avoid. IMO, this is [probably for severla good reasons:

1. Stops the sinner from dwelling on what has been left behind;

2. Prevents the listener from dwelling on sins;

3. If the sinner is in leadership or is a missionary sharing an indiscreiton might tend to demean the office or th erole the sinner is in;

At the right time and place, revelation of some past indiscretion might be appropriate (although I think this is likely to be a rare circumstance). As a general rule, however, I agree that we should avoid it..

Interesting you bring this up. I had a business lunch on Friday with one of my best clients and we got to talking about religion at least a little because he has a degree in theology and had taken a correspondence course from BYU. He is a JW, mostly (I get the feeling) because his wife is. But as we were talking doctrine he very frankly shared with me some very serious misconduct in his past and sequed right into how the teachings of his church had assisted him in overcoming them. There was something very disarming about that candid confession and it really made his humility show through.

I don't think that public confession should be a requirement nor do I think that such things should be shared in settings where they are not age appropriate. That said, I don't think anyone us ought to feel uncomfortable with others sharing these things in the right setting. I'm not so sure that the discomfort isn't at least a little cultural.

I agree with Mike again. Seriously, I think this is a cultural thing about the Morom church that bugs me. Nearly EVERYONE in the church puts on the air of perfection while amidst other members. The makes it even more difficult for those that are struggling (in other words, everyone.) to feel that they are not alone. We are taught to love and not judge sinners (in other words, everyone), but do we really follow that teaching in church? I don't think we do and that is sad.

If Brother so and so comes forth bravely and admits to a porn problem, it seems that many members will shun him as a perv rather than help him.