another repentance thread

[Guest mysticmorini]

“A True Penitent should not worry that, as a result of his sins, he is a long way from the exalted status of the righteous. The truth is that he is loved* and treasured by the creator as if he had never committed a sin. Moreover, when he repents, his reward is enormous: he has tasted sin and departed from it, and has conquered his evil inclination. This makes him far greater than one who has never tasted sin, for he has achieved greater spiritual conquest.” - The path of the righteous gentile Chaim Clorfene, Yakov Rogalsky Pg. 35

what are your thoughts about this quote? Personally I find it very beautiful. Do you think one who has "tasted sin" and overcame it is greater than one who never tasted it?

Edited July 11, 2011 by mysticmorini
*Changed "laved" to "Loved"

[Vort]

what are your thoughts about this quote? Personally I find it very beautiful. Do you think one who has "tasted sin" and overcame it is greater than one who never tasted it?

Bunk. The Lord never tasted sin; does that make him less than the sinners around him?

[Guest mysticmorini]

He took on himself the sins of the entire world and triumphed, I'd say that makes him greater than all of us.

[Vort]

He took on himself the sins of the entire world and triumphed, I'd say that makes him greater than all of us.

Taking on sin is far different from tasting sin in the sense the author describes. What the author says is false on its face. Sinning is never better than not sinning. Sinning and repenting is not superior to refusing to sin in the first place.

[Guest mysticmorini]

I'd say that depends on what sense you take it. Eve said it was better that she sinned than that she hadn't, so not sinning isn't always better than sinning. I'm surprised you even claimed that being LDS.

[Vort]

Eve said it was better that she sinned than that she hadn't

No. She said it was better to pass through sorrow to know good from evil. If you are referring to Moses 5:11, many Church leaders have suggested that Eve's transgression was not "sin" in the strict sense. I don't necessarily agree, but what I am sure of is that we have only the haziest idea of what occurred in the Garden of Eden and what it means.

To suggest that Eve sinned and was glad, and so therefore it's great for us to sin and repent, is not merely absurd, it is dangerous.

so not sinning isn't always better than sinning. I'm surprised you even claimed that being LDS.

Yes, I'm just full of surprises. And one of my most surprising aspects is that I think sin is evil. I even go so far as to teach my children that it is better that they not sin than that they sin.

[JudoMinja]

It is far better to not sin! Vort is right. HOWEVER, I believe this quote is simply trying to point out that those who sin AND repent will not be seen as lesser than someone who never sinned. It is like the story of the prodigal son. When he returned home, he was welcomed back with open arms and given a feast. He learned something from his experience that the faithful son could not have learned... and in that sense he gained something more. But would he not have been better off if he had never sinned in the first place? What of his spent and lost inheritance? If he had remained faithful, as the other son had, that inheritance would not have been lost and he would have been able to increase on it.

Not sinning is the goal. It IS better than sinning. BUT we can learn from our mistakes and repent. We can gain knowledge and wisdom from our experiences with adversity that some may find "better" than a lack of that same understanding. To a degree, that is exactly why God sent us here- He knew we would sin, and He wanted us to learn from our mistakes, humble ourselves, and turn back to Him. But just because we know we are going to fall victim to our weaknesses does not mean we are "better" for it. When we fall, we have to pick ourselves back up and work harder to get back on the path. If we had never fallen, we would be able to acheive much more with our time.

The ONLY way I can think of that a sinner who repented might be better than someone who never sinned, is in that they have a better understanding of the atonement and more humbly accept their Savior... but in that sense the one who "never" sinned would be prideful... which is a sin. The point is that neither the sinner or the person who doesn't sin is better than the other. We are all equal IF we accept Christ and the atonement. Our experiences and accomplishments will just be different. Not better or worse. Just Different.

[sixpacktr]

The idea that that somehow sinning and repenting makes someone 'better off' than not doing it is, quite frankly, an apostate belief (not saying you are you, mind you, but the teaching itself). Never, in any circumstance, is it better for us to subject ourselves to Satan and be in his power than to stay on the Lord's side.

[Guest mysticmorini]

I dont think the author is trying to say sinning makes you better off, infact if you read the rest of the chapter they talk about how sinning seperates us from God. The point is that someone who sins and returns to God has more of a spiritual triump than someone who never sinned and never struggled to give up a sin.

[sixpacktr]

And to add to that, I would have to say that those that RESIST evil and stay true are much stronger than those that give in and then learn not to do it. I was listening to some of the roundtable discussions on BYU TV (either D&C or BoM, can't remember which now) and it was brought up that only the person that resists evil to the end, never succumbing, actually knows how tough it actually is to do that. If you give in, then you don't know how tough it was to resist because eventually you DIDN'T resist.

This type of heresy was what led to some thinking they could sow their wild oats before a mission (IOW, willfully rebel) and then repent for 4-6 months and either serve a mission or get married in the temple. The Prophet Joseph taught that to willfully rebel, thinking that you'll repent later, makes the sin that much worse (paraphrasing a lot here).

Yes, we can be forgiven, but to not do the sin is always, always much better than to do it.

[sixpacktr]

Sorry to keep throwing things in here, but I seem to remember that President Kimball also taught that since sin moves us backwards, it is wrong to think you can sin and then expect to be on the same level as those that didn't sin. Doesn't mean you will never reach where they WERE, but by the time you get there, they will have progressed further yet. So in effect, though you repent and are forgiven, you have damned yourself for either a long or short period of time, and those that didn't subject themselves to sin have progressed further on....

[Guest mysticmorini]

Sixpaktr, i think you are misreading the author's statement, They are not saying it is ok to sin or that one should sin and repent later. In fact in another part it says that repentance shouldn't be put off because one doesn't know when they will die.

As for Pres. Kimball, if that is the context that he ment that sentament, I'd have to disagree. From personnal experiance I have known many sinners who have repented and became much more spiritual than those who didn't.

[NeuroTypical]

This makes him far greater than one who has never tasted sin, for he has achieved greater spiritual conquest.

Think for a minute on what the word "greater" means. What does it mean to be great? It doesn't mean better. It doesn't even mean right or good. Satan is a great deciever. Hitler was one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century. All 'greatness' means, is that whatever you've done, you've done it bigger or to a greater extent than someone who is less-great.

So yeah, I guess by that measure, someone who has travelled a long hard road sucesfully has achieved a certain greatness that someone else who hasn't travelled such a road. But that isn't really saying anything about the worth of a person.

LM

[Vort]

From personnal experiance I have known many sinners who have repented and became much more spiritual than those who didn't.

It appears that you have an axe to grind, and that your call for opinions about the quote was really a request for people to agree that it's better to sin and repent than never to sin in the first place.

[JudoMinja]

As for Pres. Kimball, if that is the context that he ment that sentament, I'd have to disagree. From personnal experiance I have known many sinners who have repented and became much more spiritual than those who didn't.

That is probably because those who sin and TRULY repent typically end up putting much more effort into their spirituality. Many people who "never" sin have a tendancy to be "lazy" about their faith. It doesn't mean as much to them because they have not had to rely on the Savior to "save" them from anything serious, so they just kind of do it without thinking about it. But if those people who "never" sinned put just as much effort into their faith, imagine what they could accomplish? The greatest example that comes to my mind is Joan of Arc...

Of course there are great examples that make your point too- for instance Alma the Younger, or Saul/Paul. But just think... if they had put the same effort into their faith and spirituality from the start that they did after they repented, how much MORE might they have accomplished? Yes, sin humbles us and draws us closer to Christ. Those who do not go through such a humbling experience will often not be as spiritually minded as those who have. But one does not HAVE to sin to be humbled and come unto Christ, and there are many MANY examples of people who sin and NEVER repent.

So, sinning is not what makes people more spiritual. We see the growth in the examples of those who repented and became much more spiritual and overextend the connection. The real key in what makes someone a very spiritual person is their HUMILITY and their DEVOTION to the Spirit. Sin can be a catalyst that brings this about, but only in as much as the heart of the sinner is changed. We do not have to commit any serious sins to experience that transformation of the soul, and serious sins do not always bring that transformation about.

[Connie]

“Another error into which some transgressors fall is the illusion that they are somehow stronger for having committed sin and then lived through the period of repentance. This simply is not true. That man who resists temptation and lives without sin is far better off than the man who has fallen, no matter how repentant the latter may be. God will forgive—of that, we are sure. How satisfying to be cleansed from filthiness, but how much better it is never to have committed the sin!" -Pres. Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness, p. 357

"A silly idea is current that good people do not know what temptation means. This is an obvious lie. Only those who try to resist temptation know how strong it is. After all, you find out the strength of the German army by fighting against it, not by giving in. You find out the strength of a wind by trying to talk against it, not by lying down. A man who gives in to temptation after five minutes simply does not know what it would have been like an hour later. That is why bad people, in one sense, know very little about badness. They have lived a sheltered life by always giving in. We never find out the strength of the evil impulse inside us until we try to fight it..." -C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

[Seminarysnoozer]

Sixpaktr, i think you are misreading the author's statement, They are not saying it is ok to sin or that one should sin and repent later. In fact in another part it says that repentance shouldn't be put off because one doesn't know when they will die.

As for Pres. Kimball, if that is the context that he ment that sentament, I'd have to disagree. From personnal experiance I have known many sinners who have repented and became much more spiritual than those who didn't.

They are more spiritual than one who is born with down syndrome? Or die before the age of 8?

I think to make such a statement requires the ability to judge the desires of one's heart. How could anyone know who is "more spiritual" than anyone else?

If this is just a comparison to the same person, i.e. - where would they be if they sinned and didn't repent versus sin and then repent? Of course, it is better to repent.

I have yet to master the skill of judging 'more spirituality' versus less in this life (not that I am trying) and I know few that do have that skill outside what judgements they are commanded to make as a function of their callings.

Anyone who is a mortal in this life is covered in a carnal body that obscures their true spirituality. I would say, occasionally, the immediate punishment of sin sometimes serves as a wake up call for the sinner and forces them to reconsider their path in life, therefore giving the appearance of being more interested in spiritual matters for a while. It may make them hold onto the iron rod a little tighter. But way more often sin leads to the spacious building and being lost in the mist.

[Guest mysticmorini]

It appears that you have an axe to grind, and that your call for opinions about the quote was really a request for people to agree that it's better to sin and repent than never to sin in the first place.

Wow! I'm sorry you interpreted it like that. That wasn't my intention at all. It seems that you have somehow been offended.

[Vort]

Wow! I'm sorry you interpreted it like that. That wasn't my intention at all. It seems that you have somehow been offended.

Not offended. But when you invite opinions on a quote and then immediately take issue with anything people write that disagrees with your own opinion, the obvious explanation is that you didn't really want other opinions. You just wanted other people to validate your own.

[Guest mysticmorini]

So if I ask for opinions I must agree with the opinions given or I have an "axe to grind"

[Vort]

So if I ask for opinions I must agree with the opinions given or I have an "axe to grind"

Let us examine your responses in this thread.

He took on himself the sins of the entire world and triumphed, I'd say that makes him greater than all of us.

Attempt to defend the statement.

I'd say that depends on what sense you take it. Eve said it was better that she sinned than that she hadn't, so not sinning isn't always better than sinning. I'm surprised you even claimed that being LDS.

Another attempt to defend the statement, combined with implicit criticism of someone for violating what you think to be LDS teachings.

I dont think the author is trying to say sinning makes you better off, infact if you read the rest of the chapter they talk about how sinning seperates us from God. The point is that someone who sins and returns to God has more of a spiritual triump than someone who never sinned and never struggled to give up a sin.

Another attempt to defend the statement.

Sixpaktr, i think you are misreading the author's statement, They are not saying it is ok to sin or that one should sin and repent later. In fact in another part it says that repentance shouldn't be put off because one doesn't know when they will die.

As for Pres. Kimball, if that is the context that he ment that sentament, I'd have to disagree. From personnal experiance I have known many sinners who have repented and became much more spiritual than those who didn't.

Another attempt to defend the statement, combined with disputing the teachings of a leader based on your own beliefs.

So no, you do not have to agree with opinions, and your disagreement does not mean you have an axe to grind. Grinding an axe suggests you have an axe to grind.

[Just_A_Guy]

You know, I think there's a kernal of truth in what Mysticmorini is getting at--you'll rarely hear a better testimony meeting than in a well-run LDS Addiction Recovery group. We understand the Atonement when we use it, and sometimes we can get a bit complacent about the repentance process until we get into something that's big enough to put our church membership in jeopardy.

On the other hand--this is one of those "true" doctrines that isn't very "useful", and perhaps can become spiritually fatal if promulgated with any degree of frequency. And it isn't even always "true". My testimony of the Atonement was molded and refined in part by my own experience with some pretty severe sins. And yet, my testimony doesn't begin to compare with my wife's testimony--and she never did any of the crap that I did.

So . . . take that for whatever it's worth.

Edited July 11, 2011 by Just_A_Guy

[Seminarysnoozer]

If it was better to have sinned and repented than to never have sinned at all then repentance, the way we understand it, would not serve a purpose. True repentance includes washing away the sin as if it was never there, the effect of the sin is gone. If the repented sin has no further effect, then it would be so in the positive or negative sense. So, if sin itself serves some strengthening purpose, don't you think there would be some 'scar' left over. True repentance includes never going back to that thing as if one has never been there in the first place. To know Jesus and believe in Him is to realize that He does have the power to wash away sins completely and make them white as snow. His atonement is not temporary or partial.

[Traveler]

The advantage to those that sin and repent is that those that think they need not repentance do not understand repentance. Repentance is that state of spiritual mindedness that is one with G-d and things eternal. Therefore to a natural man repentance is putting off the natural man and becoming a saint of G-d. For a saint of G-d or the Son of man repentance is submitting their will to G-d by covenant (which includes being loyal through trial). Thus Jesus was baptized not for remission of his sin but to fulfill repentance according to covenant - or according to scripture to fulfill all righteousness and make a (infinite) remittance for sin.

The Traveler

[AGStacker]

Bunk. The Lord never tasted sin; does that make him less than the sinners around him?

He tasted all of our sins by suffering the consequences of them.