The
LDS practice of male Church leaders holding interviews with youth has been in
the news this week, prompting a statement by the Church in an attempt to give a
rationale for this practice and to clarify how these interviews should be
conducted.1 With the Me Too movement gaining momentum across the
nation, uncomfortable questions inevitably arise about male authority figures meeting
privately with youth, especially young women, and discussing personal sexual matters.2
Anyone
who can remember these priesthood interviews from their own youth will likely
remember how awkward and embarrassing the experience can be. Part of the
awkwardness, I believe, results from a misunderstanding and, consequently, an
overapplication of the principle of confession in the Church. Because of this situation,
there is, I believe, a high degree of unnecessary guilt that our young people
bear. So let’s consider the principle of confession and how it should work in
the Church.
The
Why of Confession
Before
we can understand the ins and outs of confessing sins, we must address the
question of why we are supposed to
confess. What purpose is served by confession? We confess all sins to the Lord
because we have broken his commandments and must acknowledge our accountability
before him. In essence, it is impossible to ask for forgiveness for a
particular sin without admitting that we have sinned. We confess because we are
acknowledging a sin and are asking the Lord to forgive us. He is the one who
grants forgiveness through his Atonement. He paid the penalty that we would
otherwise suffer. What he requires instead is that we confess our sins to him
and forsake them, so that his Atonement and his forgiveness can become
effective in our lives. This is the basic rationale in Mormonism for repentance
and forgiveness, which involves confession.
The
Who of Confession
When
our sin injures another individual, we are to confess to that person also. Why?
Because we must at least try to set things right with the individual we have
injured. We may not be able to restore what we have either damaged or stolen,
but we are required to acknowledge to that person our fault and ask for
forgiveness so that our relationship with that person is one of harmony and
peace and good feeling. The injured individual may refuse to forgive us, but if
we have confessed, attempted restitution, and sought that person’s forgiveness,
we have done all the Lord requires.
In
some instances, our sin may be of a nature that either reflects badly on the
Church— because our bad behavior taints the Church in some way—or that places
our membership or standing in the Church in jeopardy. The Church, for instance,
has an obligation to not fill its ranks with adulterers or murderers or
thieves. Certain morally reprehensible behaviors disqualify us for either
membership or full fellowship in the Church. Because these behaviors place in
jeopardy our standing in the Church, they must be confessed to a priesthood
leader, generally a bishop. It is then up to the bishop to discern what action
is to be taken, not only to cleanse the Church, but also to help the sinner
reform his or her life. Sometimes a severe penalty, such as excommunication, is
the only way to satisfy both of these goals. In other instances, a restriction
on certain privileges of membership—such as partaking of the sacrament or giving
public prayers or speeches—is sufficient. Then, when the priesthood leader has
determined that our repentance is sufficient, restrictions will be lifted or
membership restored.
President
Marion G. Romney, Second Counselor in the First Presidency, explained these
principles in the October 1980 general conference:
As to the nature of repentance, the Lord has said, “By
this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them
and forsake them” (D&C 58:43).
There doesn’t seem to be much uncertainty about the
meaning of forsake. However, the requirement to confess is not so universally
understood. As a matter of fact, there is considerable confusion in the world
about the confessing of sins, and a lot of false doctrine. By way of an assist
in clearing up the confusion, I repeat some comments heretofore made on this
subject.
We are to confess all our sins to the Lord. For
transgressions which are wholly personal, affecting none but ourselves and the
Lord, confession to ourselves and him would seem to be sufficient.
As a matter of fact, no good can come from
confessing to anyone else. President Brigham Young once said, “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” (Discourses of Brigham Young, sel. John A. Widtsoe, Salt Lake City:
Deseret Book Co., 1941, 158).
For misconduct which affects another, confession
should also be made to the offended one and his forgiveness sought.
Finally, where one’s transgressions are of such a
nature as would, unrepented of, put in jeopardy his right to membership or
fellowship in the Church of Christ, full and effective confession requires
confession by the repentant sinner to his bishop or other proper presiding
Church officer—not that the Church officer could forgive him the sin (for this
power rests in the Lord himself and those only to whom he specifically
delegates the power), but rather that the Church, acting through its duly
appointed officers (the power is not in the officer but in the Church), might
with full knowledge of the facts take such action with respect to Church
discipline as the circumstances require and merit.
One
having forsaken his sins and, by proper confession, cleared his conduct with
the Lord, with the people he has offended, and with the Church of Jesus Christ,
where necessary, may with full confidence seek the Lord’s forgiveness and go
forth in newness of life, relying upon the merits of Christ.3
This
explanation by President Romney is particularly significant because at the time
it was given he was serving as a counselor to President Spencer W. Kimball,
whose book The Miracle of Forgiveness
took a hard-line approach to sin, creating what many feel was an excessive
amount of guilt among Church members and cultivating a culture of confession in
the Church that may have gone beyond the logical bounds articulated by
President Romney. Interestingly, President Kimball’s son Ed suggests that his
father later had some regrets about his earlier approach to the topic of sin: “The Miracle of Forgiveness set a
demanding standard, and Spencer later seemed to wish he had adopted a gentler
tone. In 1977 he invited Lyle Ward, the former bishop of his home ward, . . .
to his office. . . . Coming to a bookshelf holding the many translations of The Miracle of Forgiveness, he paused
and pulled a copy out to the edge of the shelf, saying, ‘Sometimes I think I
might have been a little too strong about some of the things I wrote in this
book.’”4
Both
the now obsolete Church Handbook of Instructions
and the new Handbook 1: Stake Presidents
and Bishops appear not only to support what President Romney taught but to
also give further guidance. The Handbook
judiciously avoids any specifics, except in the case of what it calls “serious
transgression, which should be confessed to priesthood authority and which it
defines as “a deliberate and major offense against morality. It includes (but
is not limited to) attempted murder, rape, sexual abuse, spouse abuse,
intentional serious physical injury of others, adultery, fornication,
homosexual relations, deliberate abandonment of family responsibilities,
robbery, burglary, theft, embezzlement, sale of illegal drugs, fraud, perjury,
and false swearing” (p. 56).
What
all of these specific transgressions have in common is that they involve
serious sins that harm others. Sins that President Romney defines as “wholly
personal, affecting none but ourselves and the Lord,” are not included among
this category of transgressions.
What
this suggests is that while a bishop may, for example, inquire as to our
worthiness to receive a temple recommend, many of the specific sins he asks
about in the temple recommend interview would not need to be confessed to him
in order to receive forgiveness from the Lord. The Handbook also is very specific about certain transgressions that do
not warrant the convening of a disciplinary council. Specifically mentioned are
failure to comply with the Word of Wisdom, struggles with pornography or
self-abuse (masturbation), and transgressions that “consist of omissions, such
as failure to pay tithing, inactivity in the Church, or inattention to Church
duties.” The obvious question here is why bishops need to inquire about sins
that do not need to be confessed to a priesthood leader, even in temple
recommend interviews. Simply asking if a person feels qualified to enter the
temple should suffice. Following Brigham Young’s advice, if our sins do not affect
others, they should be kept between ourselves and the Lord: “Keep your follies
that do not concern others to yourselves, and keep your private wickedness as
still as possible.”
Young
also said this: “I do not want to know anything about the sins of this people,
at least no more than I am obliged to. If persons lose confidence in
themselves, it takes away the strength, faith and confidence that others have
in them; it leaves a space that we call weakness. If you have committed a sin
that no other person on the earth knows of, and which harms no other one, you
have done a wrong and sinned against your God, but keep that within your own
bosom, and seek to God and confess there, and get pardon for your sin.”5
On another occasion, Young repeated the same sentiment: “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.”6
In
spite of this very clear and reasonable advice, many bishops and stake
presidents appear to be inclined to inquire into these personal types of sins
and require a confession. Obviously, there is a bit of confusion here between
Church practice and Church doctrine, but much of this is cultural and has taken
on a life of its own, without regard to scripture or doctrine or reason.
Reducing
Excessive Guilt
It
seems that the logical course to take in this regard is to teach more carefully
and completely the principle of confession—including the reasons for
confession, which sins need to be confessed to priesthood authority, and what
to do about personal, private sins that do not affect others or the Church.
More thorough teaching and fewer interrogations would reduce unnecessary and
excessive guilt among both youth and adults in the Church, would prevent uncomfortable
prying by priesthood leaders, and would likely lead to less stress and better
mental and spiritual health among Church members. I can see this approach also resulting
in a drastic change to temple recommend interviews. Rather than a list of
questions that feels more like an interrogation, a bishop could simply explain
the behavioral and spiritual standards expected of temple attenders, ask if the
member feels qualified, and leave it at that. In other words, if you’ve slipped
up and had a cup of coffee in the past six months, confessed to the Lord and
asked forgiveness, there is no need to mention this lapse to a priesthood
leader in a temple recommend interview.
________________
1. See “Statement from the LDS Church on
Bishops’ Interviews,” Salt Lake Tribune,
December 12, 2017, http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/12/12/statement-from-the-lds-church-on-mormon-bishops-interviews/.
2. See Peggy Fletcher Stack, “Some
Parents and Therapists Say Mormon Bishops’ Interviews with Children about
Sexual Matters Are ‘Intrusive, Inappropriate,’” Salt Lake Tribune, December 12, 2017, http://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/12/12/all-the-buzz-about-sexual-harassment-has-some-mormons-wondering-if-bishops-interviews-go-too-far-and-need-reform/.
3. Marion G. Romney, “Repentance,” Ensign, November 1980, 48.
4. Edward L. Kimball, Lengthen Your Stride—Working Draft (Provo,
Utah: BYU Studies, 2005), chapter 8, page 1, from the CD included with the
hardcover book published by Deseret Book.
5. Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 4:79 (November 9,
1856).
6. Brigham Young, in Journal of Discourses, 8:362 (March 10,
1860).
