thebeliever
-
Posts
41 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by thebeliever
-
-
I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that there are things that you lose and cannot regain back when a major sin is committed HOWEVER, doesn't mean that we have to see them as "eternal sinners" because they committed a mistake.
I think everyone agrees that they are not "eternal sinners". But dealing with the initial question,
Obviously never sinning is ideal, but none of us are perfect. I hope this makes sense. But say you know of a friend of yours, who had in the past stolen something, and repented of it. Would that affect whether or not you trust the person, either with your things, or to be honest in general? Or a more serious issue, if you found out the person you were dating had in the past committed adultery or violated the law of chastity, and then fully repented of it, how would that affect your relationship?
My answer is yes, it does affect my opinion of them. If I understood correctly, yours and Pam's answer is that it doesn't or shouldn't. (Correct me if I'm wrong...)
-
Peace.
Take it easy.
-
That's very contradictory. How can you say you forgive someone and then take action as if you don't?
It's like forgiving someone for murdering someone you love. You can forgive them in your heart, but they should still go to jail.
-
But can they be forgiven by you? According to your past posts..they can not.
Forgiveness is not the same as regaining what someone lost. I can forgive someone for cheating on me, but does it mean that I should stay with them? Is staying with them the same thing as forgiveness?
-
"Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow" (Isaiah 1:18). That's what happens when we truly repent, in your view it seems like you will always see the person "tainted" no matter what they do.
That's quite sad.
You don't have to look down upon me because I have a different opinion.
We can have compassion on people who have committed major sins; they can be examples too. They can be completely forgiven by god. But they won't magically regain what they lost in this life.
-
Right. The prodigal son got a fantastic party and nothing else, while the son who never left inherited everything that his father had.
That is, at the end of their lives they were probably about equal to each other, but at those points in time and for some time after, the son who had never left was much better off.
-
It sounds like the brother of the prodigal son who is angry at the fact that his father is welcoming the repentant son back. In his mind, he was better than his brother because he worked very hard during all those years and never wasted his life like his brother did YET, the father knew the prodigal son's heart and forgave him. Let's not forget that the father represents Heavenly Father and the prodigal son is each one of us.
Right. The prodigal son got a fantastic party and nothing else, while the son who never left inherited everything that his father had.
-
Sorry I still disagree.
Fair enough.
-
I'm sorry I just disagree. That is the whole concept and precept of forgiveness and the ability to repent. We all make mistakes in our lives. There is not one of us that hasn't sinned. Why have repentance and forgiveness if one would never be considered to be as good as the person who might not have committed that particular sin. That to me just goes against Heavenly Father's plan and the entire reason behind the atonement.
I meant to say, in this life they are worse off. In the eternities, it probably doesn't matter.
-
Since Christ is the only man that has lived on this earth that has NEVER sinned..you are right in that aspect. But thank goodness for the atonement that was made possible to us by Christ that we can be forgiven of the sins we do commit.
Fine. Replace my phrase with a particular sin.
The person who lies and repents is worse off than the person who never lies.
The person who is unchaste and repents is worse off than the person who is never unchaste.
The person who steals and repents is worse off than the person who never steals.
The person who murders and repents is worse off than the person who never murders.
-
Yup
There are many different types of pride: Ego-centric, ethno-centric, anthro-centric, etc.
Levels?
I was thinking about people who will yell and scream at you compared to people who someone who will ignore you compared to someone who may firmly believe they are right but still listen. Certainly the reactions different - levels of pride. Maybe you wouldn't call that pride? Then it's just an issue of etymology.
-
The Great King David fell from his exaltation because he had sinned. No amount of repentance, regardless of how sincere he was, could make up for that fact. He had lost his exaltation. D&C 132:39
If I sin all my life and repent when I'm older, I would have lost out on all that I could have had. Perhaps I might have prophet or saved many souls? The person who sins and repents is not on the same ground as someone who never sins in the first place.
-
As far as comparing sin + full repentance versus never sinned, I don't think we will be able to tell the difference 100,000 years from now.
The thread is dealing with now in this life, not 100,000 years from now. We all agree with you on this statement.. I think.
-
lol
I know, I was being sarcastic because of the comment of being a "little" proud.
So someone is either proud or they aren't? Aren't there levels of pride ? and most people are only proud with certain topics.
-
I see no reason to think less of someone who has sinned in the past if he/she has sincerely repented. If they have changed, what does it matter? What good does it do to think they will slip up again and constantly live in that fear? This being said, I would still protect myself, but what if there is nothing reasonable to protect myself from?
But how do you know that they've really changed? I don't think I'd let a person who has been convicted of pedophilia around my children. The difference between pride and murder is the large cost if someone commits it. I might be proud now and lose a friend temporarily, but if I murder someone than I've lost a friend permanently.
There is also the "what if" thing I always wonder about: If someone never gets an opportunity to sin but wants to, does that make them better than someone who has sinned and repented?
If you murder someone or get pregnant and repent versus only wanting to do it, you still have to deal with the consequences.
-
I have never talked about addiction... And the idea that all sins are an addiction is just flat out wrong.
As for your position you have stated that Sinners are always weak in whatever the sin, whenever committed.
I never said that. I implied that they are more likely to be weak in that particular sin than someone who hasn't done it in the past. But enough of this.. I'm going to go do something else.
-
In October 1976 general conference, Spencer W. Kimball said:
After reading this, I am still interested in an answer to my question. Thanks.
Why would they repudiate what Brigham Young said? It doesn't make any sense. Looks like I have something to research.
-
In October 1976 general conference, Spencer W. Kimball said:
After reading this, I am still interested in an answer to my question. Thanks.
I don't have an answer for you. I've always thought that the Adam-God theory works really well symbolically. Occasionally a teacher will insinuate that it's a higher doctrine that not all might believe. There might be some literal elements of it. Without discussing the temple too much, I've always considered Adam as ourself and that we are part of God, a symbolic meaning to it.
Maybe Adam-God contradicts, maybe it doesn't. I don't know.
-
Right but being a bit behind is worlds different then your claim that they will always be weak to that sin. The absolute positioning you make on weakness is contrary to the idea of Christ showing people their weakness so that he can make them strong.
But is making them strong referring to this life or the next? Even if someone gives up an addiction and repents of it, do you think you can trust them around that addiction in the future?
The initial question was, "what do you think of people who have fully repented of a sin, versus someone who never committed it in the first place?" I've stated my position clearly.
-
Just because probably you never committed a sin that could be considered "serious" doesn't mean you are different than any other brother or sister who have committed a serious sin or struggling in some way or the other.
A person who murders is not on the same level as someone who is sometimes a little too proud. Sure, neither of us can be in the presence of God unless we repent (but contrary to popular belief, you can be in the presence of god while being a sinner - see devil visiting with God in Job). But, even if neither of us ever repents, the murderer will go to the terrestial kingdom and the other person will go to the telestial kingdom.
-
As far as I know (and please correct me) you are a sinner like the rest of us,
Bwahaha. I like you Suzie. Of course I'm a sinner.
-
That statement is completely contradictory to the way Christ sees it...
Maybe in the grand eternities it all ends up being the same, but you lose something in this life by sinning, even if you do repent. You can't regain what you lost.
-
Because I was talking about how you appeared to present it.
Thank you for clarifying.
-
Ah, so I assume you are a firm believer in the Adam-God theory that he personally taught? (and later on, repudiated as false by the Church). I would love to know.
When did the church repudiate it?
Repentance vs Never Sinned
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
An interesting question is what does it mean for them to repent of something? I cannot know if someone else has fully repented of something. I can know if the Church (read: Bishop) has forgiven them. I can know if they've prayed to God for forgiveness. I can know that they have not repeated that particular action. But I don't know what they are really thinking. I don't know how sincere they were. How would I know if they repented of something?