confessing to my bishop??

[bytor2112]

First off- congrats on your conversion! You've had one incident since being baptized and do not feel that you will have any more problems, right? Do you feel "guilty" or do you feel like you have it under control?

I vote with those who say that you are a saint and that you are worrying to much. I am also a convert and I had guilt so ingrained that it is still sometimes hard to shake. I think you are fine and there is no need to talk to bishop, though, it is always nice to talk to bishop. Repentance is ultimately between you and the Lord, you do not need your bishop to tell you that you are forgiven.

The Bishop doesn't tell you that you are forgiven. Your post suggests that we really don't need to confess sins to our Bishop. You are wrong and that is a dangerous attitude. LDS.net is a fun site with many well intentioned posters, but, advice regarding repentance issues should be kept in context.

I hope he has "it" under control and if he does he should confess.

From Doctrine and Covenants Section 58:32

By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them.

[slamjet]

Not sure if this helps, but here goes my .02:

Part of the repentance process is to first, receive forgiveness from God, but also to reconcile the sin and do it no more. We, as humans, are given a conscience to guide us of what is right and wrong. There are three ways to help clear the conscience so that an individual can progress:

- Confession - talk and let it out.

- Receive forgiveness - from God and, if possible, others.

- Give Forgive - forgive others and ourselves.

The Lord cannot look on sin with the least degree of allowance. I believe this is programmed into our conscience and leads to self doubt and punishing. This programming can be reset so that we can live with ourselves and progress. And the Lord has given us the process of repentance as a way to reset our conscience.

So for this individual to go and confess the seemingly "little sin" serves to show that they have a good sense of what they personally need to reset their conscience, which is to move to the last step, to forgive them-self in a way that's not glossing over or covering up their guilt with dismissiveness and justification, but with true absolution.

This is admirable and a wonderful example of true repentance. To take the steps for real self healing and forgiveness, which is the most difficult kind of forgiveness to give.

[ryanh]

While the Savior didn't utter those exact words of "you are forgiven", if you go back and see what was said (John chap. 8) after Jesus pretty much chased off the Pharisee's by asking them who they thought they were by placing judgement on someone, he then turns to the woman and asks "where are those thine acusers? hath no man condemned thee?" The woman then replies, "No man, Lord." Then Jesus says, "Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more". What more needs to be done after that?! If Jesus is telling the woman that NO man, from that moment on, will EVER judge her for her sin ever again, and that's including Jesus Christ himself, then what else is there that's left to be done?! What process is there that has yet to be completed? It's over!! The case was closed when He told her to "go, and sin no more".

That's quite an interesting reading between the lines. A second time, I will say, it would be prudent to see what inspired scholars of the scriptures say of this account. However, if you are determined to see it as a double standard despite what anyone says, than I simply hope you the best with your choice.

I think you are fine and there is no need to talk to bishop,

What is the problem of checking with the Bishop? If a conscious isn’t clear and free, the bishop can help with that issue too.

What is so funny about various pontifications from the various posters trying to come down on one side or another of yes/no of whether this is a confessable sin is that: no external party can tell! For some circumstances it may be, for other it might not be. Depending on where we each are in our spiritual progression, depending on individual psyche, and a whole lot of other factors we can't feel or sense, we simply can’t tell another person whether they need to or not on one-time slipups. I for one wouldn’t want to be responsible for assuring someone “no, you don’t need to talk to your B” when in fact what is right for that particular circumstance is for the person to see their Bishop!

Eric needs to listen to the promptings of the Spirit and his conscious, and make a choice therewith. Choices like this are not by popular opinion.

[Suzanne627]

The Bishop doesn't tell you that you are forgiven. Your post suggests that we really don't need to confess sins to our Bishop. You are wrong and that is a dangerous attitude.

I am sorry if my comment could have been interpreted that we do not need to confess sins to our bishop. I understand that we do, certainly if the sins could affect our temple or sacrament worthiness. On top of that, the bishop offers excellent council and we need him in the repentance process. But, unlike other churches, not every single sin needs to be uttered to our bishop confessional style.

I was speaking in regards to the OP's slip-up, I see it as equivalent of me accidently yelling a curse word if my smoke detectors start going off. I do nt have a habit of swearing regularly, I am not going to begin swearing because I accidently slipped up. Would I go confess that to bishop? No. But I am still ingrained with confession guilt that every single thing warrants me to ask, "forgive me father..." in a confessional.

[pam]

I am sorry if my comment could have been interpreted that we do not need to confess sins to our bishop. I understand that we do, certainly if the sins could affect our temple or sacrament worthiness

Again, as ryanh already mentioned, none of on this site can make that determination. The Bishop has stewardship and only he can make the determination if further repentance or action is needed.

We need to get away from advising people that they don't need to go to their Bishop. Whether we think it is of little importance or not, we can't make that determination. I will say this again, if someone was concerned enough to pose the question on the site, the question really should be asked of the Bishop not of random people on the internet.

[bytor2112]

I am sorry if my comment could have been interpreted that we do not need to confess sins to our bishop. I understand that we do, certainly if the sins could affect our temple or sacrament worthiness. On top of that, the bishop offers excellent council and we need him in the repentance process. But, unlike other churches, not every single sin needs to be uttered to our bishop confessional style.

I was speaking in regards to the OP's slip-up, I see it as equivalent of me accidently yelling a curse word if my smoke detectors start going off. I do nt have a habit of swearing regularly, I am not going to begin swearing because I accidently slipped up. Would I go confess that to bishop? No. But I am still ingrained with confession guilt that every single thing warrants me to ask, "forgive me father..." in a confessional.

Your right ....not all sins must be confessed to the Bishop. However, masturbation is a whole lot different than swearing....don't you think?

“Masturbation … is not approved of the Lord nor of his church, regardless of what may be said by others whose ‘norms’ are lower” - Spencer W Kimball

[pam]

“Masturbation … is not approved of the Lord nor of his church, regardless of what may be said by others whose ‘norms’ are lower” - Spencer W Kimball

Didn't I already say that?

It's a good quote and worth repeating.

[Kurt]

Hmmm.

I still don't think a one-time pass with masturbation is that big of a deal. I was raised in an LDS household that taught me to look at the more important sins that often go overlooked. An example is the sin of being prideful and the importance of being humble and kind to all.

I have always thought we here in the LDS church are much too hard on ourselves when we mess up. I have known friends who become depressed over sinning. All of us slip up sometimes.

The Lord asks us to TRY to be our best. He doesn't ask us to be perfect, because being perfect is impossible. All we need to do here on earth is to strive to be the best we can be, and Christ will take care of the rest. :)

Edited December 23, 2010 by Kurt

[slamjet]

I was raised in an LDS household that taught me to look at the more important sins that often go overlooked. An example is the sin of being prideful and the importance of being humble and kind to all.

How does one classify a sin being more important than the other when God said he cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance let alone who classifies their degree of awfulness? And who is the one to tell you that you're being humble? Yourself? And isn't declaring yourself as humble being prideful? And what's wrong with being a bit depressed over sinning? Isn't that ones conscience saying that the act was wrong? Is that not a start to a change in behavior?

I agree with PAM that to say to not worry about it because it's a small sin is a HUGE disservice and, in my opinion, not in accordance with the Gospel.

Justification and rationalization is akin to a HUGE chunk of rotting, stinking beef, with a pink bow on it. While I can have a sense of humor about myself and consider myself to be pretty level headed, I would NEVER tell someone to not worry about it because it was a "little sin." Sin is sin and needs to be repented for.

[Kurt]

How does one classify a sin being more important than the other when God said he cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance let alone who classifies their degree of awfulness? And who is the one to tell you that you're being humble? Yourself? And isn't declaring yourself as humble being prideful? And what's wrong with being a bit depressed over sinning? Isn't that ones conscience saying that the act was wrong? Is that not a start to a change in behavior?

I agree with PAM that to say to not worry about it because it's a small sin is a HUGE disservice and, in my opinion, not in accordance with the Gospel.

Justification and rationalization is akin to a HUGE chunk of rotting, stinking beef, with a pink bow on it. While I can have a sense of humor about myself and consider myself to be pretty level headed, I would NEVER tell someone to not worry about it because it was a "little sin." Sin is sin and needs to be repented for.

*sigh*

I just felt bad for the OP feeling terrible about masturbating. I was trying to express to him that there are much worse things out there and not to feel too bad about it. He's a better man than I, and you are too. Your points are valid.

[Carl62]

That's quite an interesting reading between the lines. A second time, I will say, it would be prudent to see what inspired scholars of the scriptures say of this account. However, if you are determined to see it as a double standard despite what anyone says, than I simply hope you the best with your choice.

It's not so much that I'm trying to show a double standard, but it's that I'm trying to point out that as far as any more confessing goes, Jesus made it very clear that that part of it was completely over when she confessed to him! Yes, I agree that after she repented at Jesus feet, the next process would definitely be for her to get baptized for the complete remission of her sins and go on to lead a happy, joyous life in the gospel. No problem there. However, if what I'm picking up (and I could be wrong on this) is that she would still NEED to go and confess even yet to a bishop (or whomever) and possibly undergo even more "discipline", especially when Jesus said that the buck stopped with him on any more further judgements and/or condemnations, then IMHO, that is complete and utter lunacy! While I'm sure there has been varied thoughts and opinions on just what transpired between the woman and Jesus and subsequently after the woman went her way, I like to stay right on course with what the standard works has to say on the subject and take whatever else is said using the spirit of discernment.

[Dravin]

It's not so much that I'm trying to show a double standard, but it's that I'm trying to point out that as far as any more confessing goes, Jesus made it very clear that that part of it was completely over when she confessed to him! Yes, I agree that after she repented at Jesus feet, the next process would definitely be for her to get baptized for the complete remission of her sins and go on to lead a happy, joyous life in the gospel. No problem there.

You point out she's not a member. Other than serious crimes, murder, abortion, and homosexuality an investigator does not need to talk to any priesthood authority about their repentance process they need only certify that they have repented. So for similar circumstances (a woman who committed adultery in the past) the same standard is applied, a modern investigator would not need to confess past sins to priesthood authority to be certified for baptism and then purified by baptism.

[Carl62]

You point out she's not a member. Other than serious crimes, murder, abortion, and homosexuality an investigator does not need to talk to any priesthood authority about their repentance process they need only certify that they have repented. So for similar circumstances (a woman who committed adultery in the past) the same standard is applied, a modern investigator would not need to confess past sins to priesthood authority to be certified for baptism and then purified by baptism.

Taking away the part about further needing to get baptized, why would it still be any different for her even if she was a member, since Jesus clearly stated that again, when it came to any more confessing, judging or condemnations, with him it was completely over?

[Dravin]

Taking away the part about further needing to get baptized, why would it still be any different for her even if she was a member, since Jesus clearly stated that again, when it came to any more confessing, judging or condemnations, with him it was completely over?

I find the scriptures in the Book of Mormon dealing with excommunication and D&C 42 (and D&C 58:43) establish that confession is necessary. I realize you are probably inclined to interpret that as only confession to the Lord or to those directly wronged (for instance if you stole something) those in authority to interpret scripture for the Church disagree that such is the only extent to which confession is required in some circumstances*.

I assume there is no debate that modern Apostles and Prophets believe the Lord wants (note that it is wants it done this way, not that Christ cannot in any age and circumstance forgive sin without it being done that way) priesthood authority confessed to and counseled with in certain circumstances?

* As with most matters of interpretation that probably stonewalls discussion at this point.

Edited December 23, 2010 by Dravin

[beefche]

carl, your profile says you are LDS. Are you saying that there is never a need to confess to a bishop after one is baptized? If so, why do you believe that?

[Guest The_Real_Enigma]

In the book of alma Alma Sr. inquires of the lord about repentance and is told that who ever has commited sin and comes to him (today a bishop) and confesses his sins before him and the lord and repents in the sincerity of his heart he shall be forgiven and the Lord will forgive him also.

Take heart, you are not alone I had a friend who was ingauged in the same sin plus porn from the time he was 12 till he was 18. He cried when he went to see the bishop because he was sure he was going to be excommunicated but he decided that in the grand scheme of things it was better than eternal damnation.

I know it's hard to do the right thing sometimes but in the grand scheme of things it's better to endure the hardship of repentance in this life than to endure an eternity of sorrow for never having resolved it.

The fact that you have done all you can to resolve it shows you want to repent but as hard as it may be you have to so see the bishop.

Also if it comforts you my friend was still able to serve an honorable mission.

[Carl62]

carl, your profile says you are LDS. Are you saying that there is never a need to confess to a bishop after one is baptized? If so, why do you believe that?

No beefche, I do believe that there are times when a person needs to confess to a bishop, but I think too often members get caught up in this Catholic context of having to confess every little thing to somebody in ecclesiastcal leadership and that I don't believe. My 'rule of thumb' for confession is that I would confess if: 1) I did some harm to the church, or 2) I inflicted intentional pain or injury on to someone else. Even the latter I believe should first be resolved between God and yourself, then the party offended and yourself, then ecclesiastical leadership. If it's some kind of transgression that I caused to myself and no one else is involved, then that is something I believe I can resolve between myself and God.

[Boxcar]

For better or worse its been my experience that bishops and stake presidents have a widely varying attitude toward masturbation. Some will brush it off as a bad habit that needs to be stopped like swearing or watching R-rated movies, while other will treat it as a cardinal sins that requires one to avoid taking the sacrament for months.

The old joke is that a scientific survey showed that 95% of all men masturbated on some frequency and that the other 5% were liars. Everybody does it. That doesn't make it right. Its not an excuse. It's still a sin, and its not okay. But if every male in the Church went to see his bishop every time he masturbated bishops would be busy around the clock.

The guidance I received as a missionary from my mission president was that if it became habitual, it needed to be confessed.