Confessing private sins on the Internet

[spamlds]

Over the past couple of days, I've seen some disturbing posts on the site here. They involved individuals confessing extremely private information about their transgressions or their family conflicts.

I work in the information technology field. I also worked in the Air Force in what has come to be known as Information Warfare. Let me assure everyone that there is no assurance of privacy on the Internet. Web sites can be hacked. Search engines allow a skilled user to mine data using key phrases and characteristic patterns of writing. It isn't very hard for the authorities or someone unscrupulous to identify a user with commonly available tools.

Also, you should be aware that what you post on the Internet is forever. Just go to "www.archive.org" and you can find multiple iterations of web sites that have long since disappeared. The information is archived on servers and can be recalled in the future. It is prudent to be cautious about what information you post about yourself and your loved ones.

From a doctrinal standpoint, leaders of the Church have discouraged "public" confessions of sins. Here are instructions regarding confession from President Brigham Young.

"Keep your follies that do not concern others to yourselves, and keep your private wickedness as still as possible; hide it from the eyes of the public gaze as far as you can. I wish to say this upon this particular point in regard to people's confessing. We wish to see people honestly confess as they should and what they should.

"But if you have stolen your neighbor's cattle, own it, and restore the property, with fourfold if it is requested. If you have taken your neighbor's spade, own it, and return it, with fourfold if he requires it. I believe in coming out and being plain and honest with that which should be made public, and in keeping to yourselves that which should be kept. If you have your weaknesses, keep them hid from your brethren as much as you can. You never hear me ask the people to tell their follies. But when we ask the brethren, as we frequently do, to speak in sacrament meetings, we wish them, if they have injured their neighbors, to confess their wrongs; but do not tell about your nonsensical conduct that nobody knows of but yourselves. Tell to the public that which belongs to the public. If you have sinned against the people, confess to them. If you have sinned against a family or a neighborhood, go to them and confess. If you have sinned against your Ward, confess to your Ward. If you have sinned against one individual, take that person by yourselves and make your confession to him. And if you have sinned against your God, or against yourselves, confess to God, and keep the matter to yourselves, for I do not want to know anything about it."

I pass this information onto the site's members in the hope that they will accept this as wise counsel. There is much to be gained from studying the teachings of the prophets and the scriptures and avoiding idle speculations about subjects that don't edify. Believe me, as a person who serves currently as a "judge in Israel," there is nothing edifying about hearing legitimate, proper confessions of sin. My heart aches for people who struggle with sins and it weighs me down. Thank goodness the Lord takes this burden from my heart when it becomes too much to bear. Certainly it is not uplifting to the site's visitors, investigators, and those who are seeking strength.

Every member of the Church has a bishop or branch president appointed to hear his or her confessions. They have authority from the Lord given to them to assess, counsel, and administer discipline as necessary. They are the Lord's agents in the redemptive process.

The Internet and forums like this offer no saving virtue, no redemptive power. If anything, they open up a person who is weak and struggling to even greater power of the Adversary because of the open nature of the replies that come.

The site moderators would do well to remove discussions that are contrary to President Young's counsel regarding confession and to privately contact the members with encouragement to seek counsel from their priesthood leaders.

[pam]

The site moderators would do well to remove discussions that are contrary to President Young's counsel regarding confession and to privately contact the members with encouragement to seek counsel from their priesthood leaders.

I have posted numerous times that this is a public forum and that we have numerous search bots that archive this information. That posts can be googled and many times found.

That being said, from a moderators perspective, we won't censor or delete posts of this nature unless totally inappropriate. Many people who post have nowhere else that they feel the anonymity to get advice. What people do need to realize is that this is public and that they will get a wide variety of responses. That many who respond to their post think they are the next Dr Phil or Dr Laura.

Most threads started do get the advice to go see their Bishop or Branch President. It's up to that person to make the decision to do so. If ONE thing posted touches them to do so then we have done what the mission of this board is. To bring people back to Christ or to Christ.

I would also say that those who respond need to understand that they are hearing a one sided explanation. There are two sides to every story, yet we tend to judge the other party involved without hearing their side.

Edited August 13, 2010 by pam

[Mahone]

Regarding the automatic archive issue, the easiest way to solve that on more sensitive sections of the forum is to ensure people need to log in, in order to see it. That way, the archive spiders (which work in a very similar way to search engines) won't be able to archive or even find the information.

This forum already does this to a certain extent. There is the open section of the forum which is invisible to a lot of members, including those who aren't registered. No auto archive bots can get into this section, and neither can any search engines like google.

[pam]

Also applies to our 4 moderator forums.

[Guest]

I go by the principle that I only share information on the internet that I am willing to share on fast and testimony Sunday.

[Wingnut]

This forum already does this to a certain extent. There is the open section of the forum which is invisible to a lot of members, including those who aren't registered. No auto archive bots can get into this section, and neither can any search engines like google.

We have an Adult forum and an Open forum. Maybe we should have a Confessions forum?

Also applies to our 4 moderator forums.

Four??

Actually, I mostly agree with the OP, except for the admonishment to the moderators, and I think Pam did an excellent job addressing that. So many of the people who come here seeking advice for sins are advised to talk to their bishops, but I can't help think that they already know that, because half the time, they're asking if they "have" to talk to the bishop, or if there's any way out of it.

[beefche]

Yes, Wingy, four. One for pam to chastize us, one for prisonchaplin to preach to us, one for us to exchange recipes, and finally one to discuss the latest on Dancing with the Stars.

[Wingnut]

Well I want in on the recipe exchange forum.

What?

[spamlds]

In the responses so far, it seems the counsel of Brigham Young to not share our "follies" with the world is not an issue. I appreciate this being an open forum. That's fine. I'm all for free-speech. It is also the case that those who come here confessing their sins are often the least educated in terms of what is spiritually correct (as opposed to politically correct.) Because they may not know that such counsel from Brigham Young exists, it depends on informed members and moderators to enforce the standards.

The moderators would be doing a service to the individuals and to the Church, to include this as a policy in the terms-of-service or the forum rules to prohibit such explicit confessions of personal transgressions. It's not censorship--it's protecting the dignity of the transgressor.

I have seen public meetings in the Church, such as testimony meetings, where new converts get up and give a testimony of how evil they were before they joined the Church and how much it has changed their lives. This is popularized in the Evangelical culture on shows like "The 700 Club" where people who "found Jesus" praise him for delivering them from drugs, prostitution, and all sorts of unseemly behaviors and habits. Such public confessions are unwarranted and they don't edify the body of Christ.

New members or members who have not been active for long periods of time may lack the sensibility and sensitivity to where the line is, when discussing such feelings. When such testimonies have occurred in our testimony meetings, you can feel the Spirit's presence suddenly "evaporate." I have also seen wise bishops go up to the "confessor," put an arm around them, and gently provide them encouragement to change the subject. If a bishop can do it in a testimony meeting, a moderator in a forum like this certainly can do the same.

Let's suppose that someone comes to this forum and confesses some sin, like a brother did here recently--that he lied to his priesthood leaders in an interview before going to BYU. Yes, many members counseled him to go and speak with his bishop ASAP. But suppose just one of them said, "Oh, it's no big deal. I'm sure there are a lot of people who do that. Don't worry about it." Suppose that the latter is the counsel he chose to follow and he never goes to resolve the issue with his bishop. Wouldn't it be tragic? Are we accountable for the advice we give? Sure we are!

When we speak face-to-face, there is a certain amount of self-editing that occurs. We adjust our conversation according to whom we speak with. A bishop would not go and discuss the law of chastity with a class of MiaMaids in the same manner as he would the Relief Society. He wouldn't discuss pornography and masturbation with a primary class, whereas a frank discussion and warning might be appropriate to an Elders' Quorum meeting. Certainly, there are one-on-one interviews with a bishop or branch president where details of transgressions are appropriate.

In an Internet forum such as this, we have teenagers, college-students, mature adults, and of course people who aren't members of the Church. We should be more circumspect in conversation in general, because we don't have the face-to-face input that would naturally lead us to self-edit. Again, moderators serve an important purpose in maintaining quality of conversations.

There is a responsibility to the Church that moderators of Church-oriented web sites must shoulder. If they let discussions run wild and free in such a manner that they no longer edify, or they permit critics and apostates to harm the faith of others, then they share part of the responsibility. Certainly the new Mormon.org is aggressively moderated. I'm not faulting the moderators here. I'm just suggesting that they should not feel reticent to exercise a little more guidance.

[ryanh]

When such testimonies have occurred in our testimony meetings, you can feel the Spirit's presence suddenly "evaporate." I have also seen wise bishops go up to the "confessor," put an arm around them, and gently provide them encouragement to change the subject. If a bishop can do it in a testimony meeting, a moderator in a forum like this certainly can do the same.

I don't disagree with what you have reasoned. It does at times feel that this site could raise its level of respectability in a number of ways.

However, it is worth pointing out that there is a big difference between a Sacrament Meeting (esp and Fast and Testimony Meeting) and an open forum on the internet. Expecting the same standards is a little unreasonable. If this were an official Church site, I could understand.

I think when people are finally at the point of being mature enough to not feel the need to seek out anonymous public advice, then they are ready. It isn't reasonable to expect human nature will elevate itself until the spiritual maturity is actually present. Until then, they will either seek their advice here, another site, or from a good friend or two. Would you rather a person too scared to go to their Bishop talk to their one close friend who says "don't worry about it", and they don't get the majority of voices saying "see your Bishop!"? Seems like a far more worrisome scenario than allowing a person to have their agency to choose the poor advice of one out of a chorus of consenting advice.

[Just_A_Guy]

Yes, Wingy, four. One for pam to chastize us, one for prisonchaplin to preach to us, one for us to exchange recipes, and finally one to discuss the latest on Dancing with the Stars.

I heard a nasty rumor that anyone who submits a recipe involving hamburger gets banned post-haste.

[ryanh]

Furthermore, President Young's counsel applied to the one, not to the hearer. He didn't say "tell your neighbor to cease if he/she tries to tell you of follies that do not pertain to you". I'm not sure that the counsel is entirely applicable to the moderation of a forum, or even to being a friend and confidant to those close to you. It is to the speaker, not the hearer/reader.

[hordak]

From a doctrinal standpoint, leaders of the Church have discouraged "public" confessions of sins. Here are instructions regarding confession from President Brigham Young.

Do you have another source for that because the JoD in which it is found in not Doctrinal.

Brigham Young was know for having some strong opinions (which can be found in the JoD)

I'm not saying that it isn't good advice. I think it's great to remind people that things stay on the internet forever. I also think you make some good points about how we are more likely to reveal too much in this anonymous format.

However it can be helpful to reach out to other who might be in similar situations

Here is Jessica Lynn, who grew up with drug addicted, dealing parents and is sharing it with the world on mormon.org

Hi, I'm Jessica Lynn | Mormon.org

If it's wrong to share our own sins, why would sharing the sins of our closest family members get the ok?

I do agree there is a time and place (You wouldn't teach primary kids about the danger of fornication by showing off your child support order)

But think your line in the sand is to ridged

[beefche]

Pam has explained the moderators actions. Thread is closed.