Repentance vs Never Sinned

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

I had a thought from reading another thread, and not wanting to hijack it, I wanted to bring it here. I also need to say that I don't mean that repentance is any less necessary or important, but to look at it from a more realistic perspective.

The question is, what do you think of people who have fully repented of a sin, versus someone who never committed it in the first place?

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? (Note: I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing even if you do personally judge them for it, as there is some logic behind that reasoning.)

Of course, once you've sinned, you should repent, that's not the point of this question. I'm just trying to figure out if there are still implications of sin, even beyond repentance, when you're said to be completely free, pure, and everything's supposed to be forgiven and forgotten (not including the obvious consequences of the action itself; if you were to say, murder someone, there are naturally going to be numerous effects of that, even long after you've repented).

[bytebear]

Both people are sinless in the eyes of God, but committing sin still has lasting ramifications. Just like watching a movie, you can never remove the images from your mind once they are there. Also, some sinful actions may cause others to see you differently than if you had not committed such a sin. Just because you are sinless in the eyes of God, there are still plenty of Earthly reasons to avoid the sin in the first place.

[tubaloth]

I think in itself that could be another. If you always hold past sins against people, then you haven't fully forgiven them. If somebody had committed adultery and repented fully, but you still hold that against them. Who has the greater sin? You have to faith not only in the person, but also in the process of Repentance.

[Dravin]

I think in itself that could be another. If you always hold past sins against people, then you haven't fully forgiven them. If somebody had committed adultery and repented fully, but you still hold that against them. Who has the greater sin? You have to faith not only in the person, but also in the process of Repentance.

On the other hand people need to be wary of the imperfect nature of others, even the Church won't let pedophiles work with children even if they'll give them a temple recommend. It is an error to assume that to not trust someone or to exercise caution is to not forgive them, else anyone who locks their house is under condemnation (remember you need to forgive regardless of if someone repents). And you generate a mindset that to forgive an abusive person means you can't distance them from your life, that you must pretend they've never hurt you and that they are now incapable of hurting you, this is false.

Though we may have a different idea of what holding a sin against someone means. Take the pedophile example, not letting him babysit your children? Not holding a sin against them but exercising caution, but if you refuse to Home Teach him, or say refuse to visit the auto-parts store he works at because he works there, then you are running into a problem.

[Blackmarch]

I had a thought from reading another thread, and not wanting to hijack it, I wanted to bring it here. I also need to say that I don't mean that repentance is any less necessary or important, but to look at it from a more realistic perspective.

The question is, what do you think of people who have fully repented of a sin, versus someone who never committed it in the first place?

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? (Note: I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing even if you do personally judge them for it, as there is some logic behind that reasoning.)

Of course, once you've sinned, you should repent, that's not the point of this question. I'm just trying to figure out if there are still implications of sin, even beyond repentance, when you're said to be completely free, pure, and everything's supposed to be forgiven and forgotten (not including the obvious consequences of the action itself; if you were to say, murder someone, there are naturally going to be numerous effects of that, even long after you've repented).

no if i really cared for that person, thme having a past relationship and have repented of it should not have a bearing in the current relationship.

sometimes there are copnsequences that cannot be undone, and that can have an effect in the physical world, but it should not be able to affect ones standing with god in most cases.

[NeuroTypical]

A few thoughts:

* Forgiveness is wonderful. Repentace is wonderful. One of them can exist without the other.

* Although both bless many, forgiveness mainly blesses the sinned-against, and repentance mainly blesses the sinner.

* Just because someone has fully repented, and the whole world forgives him, doesn't always make everything all better. Sometimes there are scars or burdens that remain throughout life, that will not be fully healed until the next life.

* That last point probably doesn't apply to 99% of the things we want it to.

LM

[skippy740]

Some sins are addictive in nature. Even with full repentance and forgiveness, the images, the cravings and the temptations may never truly leave us. That is part of the human experience. Be careful with what you allow yourself to experience because once it is experienced, it may never leave you if you ever wanted it to.

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

Thanks for your thoughts. I was hoping I wasn't sounding judgemental by thinking that someone who committed a sin would be more likely to do it again given their weakness, though I'm sure they are fully intent on not doing it again. If anyone else has anything to add, I'd like to hear it too.

[estradling75]

Just remember that every sinner... had a first time. A time they went from Never sinned to sin. And it happens across all age ranges.

As for sinners being weaker that is going to be full of so many different variables that could make it go either way

[RescueMom]

I guess I don't understand the question. Everyone except Christ who is over 8 has sinned, Joseph Smith, Mary the Mother of Jesus, Thomas S. Monson...me...you. everyone. I think, IMHO, that having sinned gives us compassion for others. Had one had not sinned how would they know what it was like to show compassion to other sinners?

And if one had not sinned how would one come to know how absolutely amazing the grace of the Atonement was? How would one know that God loved us so much that he sent his son to save us, to buy back our souls from sin? Is that a lesson we do not wish to learn? I sure don't. I forsake my sins but they have made me stronger, more compassionate and brought me a greater understanding of the Atonement of Christ. If all we are hear for is to gain a resurrected body and to live forever, then why did we do all of this. Did we not come here to learn, to grow....and sometimes the greatest wisdom comes from the greatest mistakes, we have to learn to rely on God and his justice and mercy through the Atonement, you can't learn that from being perfect. We all fall short, that's part of the process, we have to have faith, even after all the works we can do, without faith in the Atonement it's all for naught.

As for sinners verse perfect people...if that was so we would not have any thing from Paul, Alma or a good deal of those sinners who changed and did repent. Paul was a murderer, Alma led people away from the church, Mary Magdelene was caught in adultry (yet she was the first person to see the resurected Christ). It's just my opinion that even if we do sin there is forgiveness, and if the Lord remembers it no more but we judge people after he has forgiven them then we are also sinners. If it's good enough for Christ, it's really good for me and for me to say other wise is IMHO insulting to Christ and the Atonement.

Edited April 4, 2011 by RescueMom

[jayanna]

I don't think I would have trouble trusting...it would be more like, it would be wrong to tempt them further. Even the temple has locks on the lockers. We lock our car doors while we are in church, why?

It is not a sin to be tempted. Even Jesus was tempted. It is a sin to temp others.

It would be a sin for me to make coffee when I know that someone in the proximity is trying to stop drinking it. It would be a sin for me to dress immodestly when I know I'm going to run into someone who is trying to overcome an adulterous nature.

So, basically what I guess I am trying to say is that it wouldn't change how I feel about them, but I would try to be more considerate of their challenges.

This reminds me of a lesson the Savior taught the apostles in Luke 7

Link: Luke 7 

[estradling75]

I guess I don't understand the question. Everyone except Christ who is over 8 has sinned, Joseph Smith, Mary the Mother of Jesus, Thomas S. Monson...me...you. everyone. I think, IMHO, that having sinned gives us compassion for others. Had one had not sinned how would they know what it was like to show compassion to other sinners?

I believe xforeverxmetalx is talking about a singular sin versus the more general sinful nature.

For example it is possible for a person to never commit a particular sin. Lets use adultery as an example. One person and go their entire life and never commit adultery. Were as someone else will fall into that sin. xforeverxmetalx is then asking if the second person then repented and you compared the two. Would the reformed sinner be weaker and more prone to relapsing in to that sin? At least that was my understanding and what I based my answer on.

[RescueMom]

I believe xforeverxmetalx is talking about a singular sin versus the more general sinful nature.

For example it is possible for a person to never commit a particular sin. Lets use adultery as an example. One person and go their entire life and never commit adultery. Were as someone else will fall into that sin. xforeverxmetalx is then asking if the second person then repented and you compared the two. Would the reformed sinner be weaker and more prone to relapsing in to that sin? At least that was my understanding and what I based my answer on.

Oh ok. I would think if they had truly repented, went to Christ and the appro. authorities, then the promise of making 'weak things strong' would happen. The reformed sinner would probably have more compassion for those struggling with the issue and most likely have a better understanding on how to help that person. I am not saying that the not sinner would not understand, but merely the reformed sinner would probably be able to suggest ways to avoid the sin. That probably doesn' make sense and I am sure plenty here will disagree and say just because someone who hasn't committed a sin doesn't mean they don't understand it. I guess the way I look at it is this...King David probably understands the brutal consquences of adultry and murder a whole lot more than someone who has never committed those sins, even though both people know they are sins.

[Jennarator]

This whole discussion seems simple at first:

Best not to sin, because once you do sin, it's easier to repeat. But if you do sin, and repent, it's as if you never did, as far as making it to the Celestrail ( I know I spell it wrong.) Kingdom and all.

Here is the thing. We are NOT perfect, so once there is a major sin commited, it is really hard to earn the trust of others, again. We are taught to forgive, and that is important, but it is really hard to forget.

So that being said, I would say better not to sin, at all. (I am talking about the big sins. We all sin and need to repent. We all also need to work on forgivness, not forgiving, can also be a sin.)

[Guest xforeverxmetalx]

As far as learning from your sins, that's very true, it helps us to grow. But I don't think any of us would intentionally break a commandment just to say "well I'm going to learn from it" or "if I do this, I'll be more empathetic of those who have also done this". Of course that's not the case, we're all doing what we can do avoid sin.

That is a good point though, in comparing someone who hasn't sinned vs someone who has. There are the costs of sinning, which might be, say with adultery, that people have a difficult time trusting you to be faithful, but on the other hand, you have the benefits of having gone through the process to be clean again, and the understanding that comes from the experience to help others in similar situations.

And with forgiveness... I tend to forgive almost too easily (actually sometimes it's annoying, I swear I'll stay mad at person x for a long time to make them feel guilty about what they've done, and the next day I couldn't care less). But logically, if someone sins, it's a sign they have a weakness in that particular area, and though they're making an extra effort after repentance, they are still prone to it. So it would make sense to be more wary of that person, rather than someone without that weakness, given a situation where they could give in to temptation. Weak things are made strong, true. But that doesn't always happen the first time, or the second, or the tenth.

[RescueMom]

I agree with not going out and finding sin just to learn from it, one would have to be really messed up to do that, and those people aren't going to learn from the sin, they are just committing sin to committ sin (and I've known people who do that)

I think, however, if a person has truly repented there will not a tenth time, or hopefully even a second time. And I also think that if someone has sinned and really repented they can be trusted (to a point, I think if a person is a pedofile I wouldn't ever trust them around kids ever). But I think Christ trusted Paul fully, and Paul didn't start out the nicest guy in the universe, and if Christ trusted him so should I (even though I find some of his teaching abrasive)

[estradling75]

I agree with not going out and finding sin just to learn from it, one would have to be really messed up to do that, and those people aren't going to learn from the sin, they are just committing sin to committ sin (and I've known people who do that)

I think, however, if a person has truly repented there will not a tenth time, or hopefully even a second time. And I also think that if someone has sinned and really repented they can be trusted (to a point, I think if a person is a pedofile I wouldn't ever trust them around kids ever). But I think Christ trusted Paul fully, and Paul didn't start out the nicest guy in the universe, and if Christ trusted him so should I (even though I find some of his teaching abrasive)

Right but how can you tell of someone has truly repented? God can for sure, but the rest of us can only judge by actions and attitudes and those can all look good right up to the renewed transgression (and perhaps even after if the person covers well) Which is why I say the initial question has to many variables to call one way or another.

[thebeliever]

The question is, what do you think of people who have fully repented of a sin, versus someone who never committed it in the first place?

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? (Note: I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing even if you do personally judge them for it, as there is some logic behind that reasoning.)

I would never date someone who violated the law of chastity, even if they fully repented of it. This means that I couldn't trust them. And if I can't trust them with this big thing, then I wouldn't be able to trust them with small things. My dad tells me sometimes, "All you need to know whether you can trust someone is whether they have a temple recommend." If someone broke the law of chastity, then they could no longer go to the temple.

[estradling75]

I would never date someone who violated the law of chastity, even if they fully repented of it. This means that I couldn't trust them. And if I can't trust them with this big thing, then I wouldn't be able to trust them with small things. My dad tells me sometimes, "All you need to know whether you can trust someone is whether they have a temple recommend." If someone broke the law of chastity, then they could no longer go to the temple.

Uhmm you do realize that if some one repents of breaking the law of chastity once finished with the process they can get the Temple recommend again? You put down alot of absolutes that don't always fit together in a sensible way.

[thebeliever]

Uhmm you do realize that if some one repents of breaking the law of chastity once finished with the process they can get the Temple recommend again? You put down alot of absolutes that don't always fit together in a sensible way.

I do realize that. All I'm saying is that that person is not for me. I just don't want to take the chance. It's like dating a murderer - if they murdered someone, wouldn't you be afraid that would murder someone again? You take precaution.

[estradling75]

I do realize that. All I'm saying is that that person is not for me. I just don't want to take the chance. It's like dating a murderer - if they murdered someone, wouldn't you be afraid that would murder someone again? You take precaution.

Fair enough. It is your call after all... But for the purposes of the main question of the thread you are coming down on the weaker even after repentance side then?

[beefche]

Hmmm, thebeliever sounds like another member of this forum. Interesting.

[thebeliever]

Fair enough. It is your call after all... But for the purposes of the main question of the thread you are coming down on the weaker even after repentance side then?

Absolutely. You lose the spirit which will impair your decision making in the future. Just because someone starts saving for their retirement when they are 45 doesn't mean they'll ever catch up to the people who start saving when they are 30.

[thebeliever]

Hmmm, thebeliever sounds like another member of this forum. Interesting.

Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

[estradling75]

Absolutely. You lose the spirit which will impair your decision making in the future. Just because someone starts saving for their retirement when they are 45 doesn't mean they'll ever catch up to the people who start saving when they are 30.

So following the absolute part of that comment. So someone who wasn't a member, broke the Law of Chasity while a teenager, and then later converted and became a Recommend Holder in good standing... Would never, ever, be good enough, because you feel they would always be on the verge of breaking the Law of Chasity again?