Church discipline

[Murcielaguita]

Grateful for anonymity here. I don't post often, but lurk sometimes. Now I turn to you guys, because I have a question that it's difficult to ask or find answers to elsewhere.

To make a very long and depressing story short, I am a young married woman currently in the midst of the Church disciplinary system. Several months ago, I was briefly unfaithful to my husband. I deeply regret my actions and have been doing everything I can to make it right. My husband has been somehow incredibly forgiving and we are working through things. My bishop has also been very kind and helpful so far. And though I'm not yet certain what the outcome will be, I'm willing to accept disciplinary consequences.

The man with whom I cheated (we'll call him Tom) was a friend of ours. He is not a member of my ward or even stake (though he is LDS) and I am almost positive that he has neither told his wife nor his own bishop - and from his own words when this all happened, I highly doubt he ever will. Whatever, that's not my business or place to make judgment. It's his choice to deal with it/come clean/whatever, though I hope he eventually does. And therein is the crux of my question. My bishop today suggested that he might want to contact Tom's bishop and bring it up. He asked me what I thought and I very quickly requested that he did not. He did not press the issue, but he still has to talk to my stake president about the whole matter overall and I'm afraid that I will be pressed eventually. I want to move on from this. I feel very uncomfortable forcing Tom into confession or creating "drama." I'm struggling enough with the weight of my own sins and consequences. But, having so little experience with disciplinary matters, I have this raging fear that I will be excommunicated - not because of my sin itself or because I'm not penitent, but because I refuse to report. I'm already feeling backed into a corner.

Is it customary in adultery cases within church discipline that one party is required to name the other? Is it required for us to appear together? Would it be wrong or would I be within my "rights" to refuse to do so?

[Genuine Article]

This doesn't really answer the heart of your question (someone with Handbook 1 (ch.6) will know more about what to expect), but I don't think naming Tom is forcing him to confess; it's the natural outcome of his actions coming to bear. We always get to choose our actions, we never get to choose the consequences, that's how it works. One of the steps of repentance is to make amends, and I think that involves Tom's wife knowing the truth, because she's been wronged in this situation. And if Tom is implicated in the process, well, that's his business. In my opinion, allowing Tom to hide from the consequences of his actions shows a lack of respect for sacred covenants.

If a bishop knows someone is violating temple covenants he has an obligation to do something about it. I had a friend from high school voluntarily come home from his mission and confess that he had lied about being worthy to go. He'd been into drugs, but he covered it up because it was the era of "raising the bar" for missionaries. His bishop asked him who else was involved, and he named several young men from our stake who were currently serving missions. Calls were made, and those young men came home. I know it caused a lot of grief for them and their families, but it was absolutely the right thing to do. And I know it was difficult for him to implicate his friends, but if you're really penitent you're more concerned with what is true and what is right than what makes you uncomfortable.

(The obvious exception being the BYU Honor Code Office, because they're the Gestapo incarnate.)

I know that's not what you asked, and I swear I'm not trying to lecture or make a difficult situation worse, but that's how I feel. There's a question in the inbox right now about a woman who was raped by someone she knows, and that man went on to get married in the temple a few weeks later. And when I read that I thought the sheer injustice of it was going to make my heart explode.

Truth matters, and God never chastises us but it's for our good.

[Marduk]

Do you have any right to refuse? No, you don't. Bishops are in no way obligated to keep something between the two of you. Within the bounds of the handbook, he can consult with other leaders up the chain from himself, he can contact the man's bishop or anyone up the chain from him, and bishops in cases like this have even contacted spouses (although I think that one is frowned upon.)

Most disciplinary cases involving adultery that I've known of have required naming the other party. Disciplinary cases, as we've been told time and again, are "local matters" meaning that any disciplinary case brought against Tom would be done through his bishop (or more likely stake president assuming he is an elder or high priest.)

And I have to strongly disagree with GA on this one. Your repentance process is your own. I don't think that you are obligated to implicate anyone else. There may be a bit more reason to do so in this case, not for Tom but for his wife, but without knowing the details, I think you are the best one to decide. I wouldn't tell you one way or the other.

Best of luck. I can't imagine the strain this situation has caused and I hope you find peace in whatever decision is made.

[Zedability]

I think one important thing to remember is it's always Tom's choice to repent, but if he's not taking action on his own, having his bishop reach out could be helpful for his own spiritual well-being.