The decline of declaring repentance

[The Folk Prophet]

Reproof against you or contention with you is not my intent. That would be one of the ways in which you and I simply don't seem to be communicating.

 

"I'm not arguing with you," he argues.

 

Your words have indicated that you prefer to respond as though your companion is lazy until proven otherwise.

 

No words of mine indicate this.

 

My statement was to demonstrate your apparently cynical view.

 

I am not "believing that people are motivated by self-interest; distrustful of human sincerity or integrity:" 

 

By this I infer that you assume that I am not listening to, following, or obeying ALL of the teachings God has given us.

 

No.

 

Your assertion is that the current official stance of the church does not qualify as "declaring repentance" because it does not meet your standards for harshness, clarity, bluntness, or sharpness.

 

No.

 

Everything else is just you and I bickering over semantics on provincial topics because we can't agree on that single point.

 

Since you have stated my position inaccurately, this is also invalid.

 

Because you have determined what my position is and refuse to consider that I think or believe anything else, it's become apparent to me that further discussion on the matter with you is a waste of time.

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

The topic of the thread:

"The decline of declaring repentance"

 

Your OP:

"What happened to declaring repentance?"

 

If you have to ask the question, then you clearly feel that "declaring repentance" is not happening, and therefore church websites, church literature, talks by general authorities, etc. do not qualify as "declaring repentance".

 

If you feel that "declaring repentance" is happening, then these things do qualify as "declaring repentance" and your question is irrelevant and I move that the case be dismissed.

 

If you still feel that repentance is not being declared, yet agree that the media and publications of the church are declaring repentance, then I have no way to resolve your cognitive dissonance and I wish you luck.

 

If you feel that repentance is not being declared, and affirm that the media and publications of the church are not (adequately?) declaring repentance, then I restate my original comment: The media and publications of the church are declaring repentance, but in a manner consistent with persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness and meekness, and love unfeigned rather than reproving with sharpness.

 

If I've missed your point entirely... well, like I said, we don't seem to be able to communicate very effectively with each other.

[The Folk Prophet]

And...moving on...

 

This may be a bit of thread jack (I can do that on my own thread without too many complaints, right?), but it certainly plays into the overall idea. Here is a quote from the Standard of Liberty blog:

 

No, the Atonement doesn't "heal" us like some miracle medicine. Christ takes away the guilt of our sins and pays the price of justice only if and when we repent and trust in him. He cannot take away our sins against our wills. We have to get humble, admit our fallen state, confess our sins, give up these sinful pleasures to Christ, emotional, mental, physical, sacrifice them on the altar of a broken heart and contrite spirit, and only then is the sin remitted through Christ's sacrifice, which takes faith. He said: go thy way and sin no more. Not: go thy way and in my own time I'll get around to changing your weak wicked selfish filthy heart. Alma was doing terrible things until he realized how bad he was. And boy did he! He was wretched, miserable, incapacitated unto death at the realization of his sinfulness, that is, until his mind caught hold of a thought. That thought was Christ as Redeemer, as Savior, as Deliverer, as Alma's way out of his great guilt and sin. He chose Christ and went his way repentant, changed, rejoicing. The Lord is there to make us clean and forgiven but it's all our choice. It's a conscious sacrifice, not a waiting game.

 

Discuss.

[Traveler]

The topic of the thread:

"The decline of declaring repentance"

 

Your OP:

"What happened to declaring repentance?"

 

If you have to ask the question, then you clearly feel that "declaring repentance" is not happening, and therefore church websites, church literature, talks by general authorities, etc. do not qualify as "declaring repentance".

 

If you feel that "declaring repentance" is happening, then these things do qualify as "declaring repentance" and your question is irrelevant and I move that the case be dismissed.

 

If you still feel that repentance is not being declared, yet agree that the media and publications of the church are declaring repentance, then I have no way to resolve your cognitive dissonance and I wish you luck.

 

If you feel that repentance is not being declared, and affirm that the media and publications of the church are not (adequately?) declaring repentance, then I restate my original comment: The media and publications of the church are declaring repentance, but in a manner consistent with persuasion, long-suffering, gentleness and meekness, and love unfeigned rather than reproving with sharpness.

 

If I've missed your point entirely... well, like I said, we don't seem to be able to communicate very effectively with each other.

 

Let me step in this if I may.  As a teenager (very different time) I did not have lots of money to spend on gifts - many gifts were from my own efforts.  One Christmas I decided to take my Father's prized hunting rifle and refinish the stock with his name engraved, blue the barrel and freshen the bore for accuracy.  All the equipment I needed was available through my shop class at high school.  I did not ask anyone - I just took my father's rifle to school but discovered it would not fit in my locker.  So I took the rifle to all my classes - carefully placing the weapon on the floor near my feet.

 

No one panicked - no one even asked what I was doing.  In the society I lived no one teenager ever thought of trying to shoot someone at school and no one thought or believed a teenage boy would even try of think of such a thing.  So prevalent was peer pressure among my chums that even kidding about such a thing would not be tolerated - I would be forever ostracized and unfriended by everyone - in essence such matters there was a known call to repentance.  If I ever mishandled a weapon I would be immediately called to repentance of weapon safety.  Likewise I would not hesitate chastising any silly or foolish use of a weapon.  No one asked me but I am sure many checked the rifle at my feet and noted that the bolt and magazine were removed for safety. 

 

If someone had brought a similar weapon to school and I noted the bolt engaged and not removed - I would have called them an idiot along with many of my peers to insure the took proper precautions.

 

And this went far beyond weapon safety.  It include respect for teachers, authority figures and adults in general.  It included respect for others - and in the society I grew up in - it was very prevalent among the guys and how they treated girls.  I remember picking up a girl for a date and requesting that she change to a more modest dress (BTW - that was a home run hit with the parents)

 

I kind of agree with TFP - it is currently considered a greater sin to expect and communicate high moral values among our peers than for them to treat others void of morals and respect.  We tend to respect the rebel without respect - which is so strange and backward to me.  Of course we all want to help others - but to help others to have high standards - not to enable disrespect of standards and discipline. 

[puf_the_majic_dragon]

If someone had brought a similar weapon to school and I noted the bolt engaged and not removed - I would have called them an idiot along with many of my peers to insure the took proper precautions.

I'd be inclined to call them an idiot as well. But don't you think there might be a way to convey the message of firearm safety without getting offensive?

 

I don't think the conversation is about whether or not to communicate high moral values, but rather it's about how to communicate those values. The leaders of the church have chosen to take a softer, gentler approach to communicating those values. Some people feel this approach is ineffective or misses the entire point of "declaring repentance". Having personally experienced the difference, both in my own repentance and in that of others, I find the gentler approach to be far more effective.

[Traveler]

I'd be inclined to call them an idiot as well. But don't you think there might be a way to convey the message of firearm safety without getting offensive?

 

I don't think the conversation is about whether or not to communicate high moral values, but rather it's about how to communicate those values. The leaders of the church have chosen to take a softer, gentler approach to communicating those values. Some people feel this approach is ineffective or misses the entire point of "declaring repentance". Having personally experienced the difference, both in my own repentance and in that of others, I find the gentler approach to be far more effective.

 

I am so glad you asked this question.  I hope you do not mind some thoughts on this matter.  Sometimes I believe our culture has a great deal to do with how we should go about having input into others behavior.   Experience with a threat has a profound affect on how we deal with things.  I was present when a friend accidentally discharged a 12 gauge shot gun in his home.  For me that was a life changing event - at the age of 11 I was determined to never again sit quietly while anybody disrespected (deliberately or out of stupidity or inexperience) weapon safety protocol.  When it comes to guns - I personally have difficulty with a nice approach.  I have offended some parents concerning their children and play activity with toy weapons.

 

On the other hand I have read several of your posts and I realize that you have important points.  Many individuals have suffered abuses at the hands of angry individuals and do not respond well to what they perceive as anger.  Their conditioning is to either run away or fight against their perceptions of anger.  Some have the notion that all criticism is generated from anger so they react accordingly.  Just as I have no tolerance, because of my experience with weapon safety and the harm it can bring -- others have no tolerance for criticism and the harm they see in that.

 

What do I take from all this?  There is another element to be considered that few think about and seldom bring up in discussions.  This is the feedback individuals seek out and require from friends.  What I am talking about is a difficult thing to understand and sometimes circumstance is perceived to change things.  But peers and friends tend to do one of two things:

 

First - the most likely is to console and enable a "chastised" individual - is essence saying, "There, there, everything is okay - that person is just a jerk and has no right or reason to treat you like that.  They are wrong and we can work together to get by this and someday get even with them for their obnoxious behavior - in essence we can return the favor and call them to repentance for being so harsh.  Harshness is a great evil that we must rid the world of."

 

Now this is very counter productive because the idea is that harshness is evil so therefore we must react to the evil even if we must be harsh or do other things we know are evil because that is the lessor of two evils.   But what it does is propitiate the problem and make it worse.

 

The second and least likely thing is for friends to say something like, "Lets think about this.  If they are right then their harshness is perhaps justified.  You may need to change some things in your life (like be more careful with weapons for the safety of all) - how can I help you change? 

 

Or they may be full of it - if they are, then likely a conformation is not going to turn out well.  So - unless they are causing harm - it is perhaps best to back off and forget this.  If they are wrong and causing a problem you (we) need to decide if this is a battle we want to fight.  What begins to happen here is that if we decide to fight or confront the issue we began to expand our influence and if we continue to get feed back that we have a just or good cause we will gain momentum - if we get feed back that this is not a just cause we will lose momentum.

 

In essence we all begin to "take sides" with any issue.  It appears to me that as issues build there will be a confrontation that no one really wins - it is just that some will lose more than others.

 

For myself I try to take emotions out of it - if I can.  Generally I believe emotions mess things - others have other thoughts and think love is an emotion - I think love is a discipline that must be learned and mastered to be "real", lasting and have purpose. Anyway I try to think it through and seek out empirical evidences and then as a final measure - present all I think I have discovered and seek divine wisdom and influence. 

 

This process of discipline has served me very well - But if others have more reliable methods - I would try to understand and consider.

[The Folk Prophet]

Very interesting thoughts Traveler.

 

If someone is handling a weapon irresponsibly, the last thing I'd be concerned with is their feelings about being reprimanded. Sure, that might come into play if they were doing so in a vacuum. But irresponsible weapon handling isn't about how people feel about it. It's about safety. And that is the primary concern. It makes a good deal of sense that the feelings of the weapon handler lose out to the primary concern. 

 

I mention this because I see it, in a lot of ways, the same when it comes to discussions of moral issues. I'm typically concerned less about the one I'm "debating" with as I am about the message being taught and the influence it might have on others. I'm worried about the safety of my children, friends, family, and the well being of the church first.

 

It's interesting. It comes down to that ravenous wolf vs. lost sheep idea. As I see it, if one is struggling with something they're a lost sheep. When they post that struggle/thought/etc. publicly in a way that might influence others they can become a ravenous wolf very quickly. And so it is with those defending the lost sheep/ravenous wolves. Personally, succor them. Publicly, don't defend wrong/sin/evil.

[Finrock]

Our default position is to be empathetic, kind, gentle, understanding, encouraging, uplifting, loving, giving, etc. When we reprove it will be motivated by the aforementioned ideas and it will be because it is the right thing to do. It will not be to gratify our vanity or our pride. It is easy to justify abusive behavior in the name of religion or in the name of righteousness so I think it is wise to hold close to empathy and tenderness. Most of us, most of the time, want and desire and even need unconditional love. It is our job as sons and daugthers of God to be stern and firm in principle but to be kind, gentle, and loving in our conduct towards others. When we are living right we will know the time to be firm and sharp, showing always afterwards an increase in love towards those reproved.

 

-Finrock

Edited August 11, 2015 by Finrock

[Traveler]

Very interesting thoughts Traveler.

 

If someone is handling a weapon irresponsibly, the last thing I'd be concerned with is their feelings about being reprimanded. Sure, that might come into play if they were doing so in a vacuum. But irresponsible weapon handling isn't about how people feel about it. It's about safety. And that is the primary concern. It makes a good deal of sense that the feelings of the weapon handler lose out to the primary concern. 

 

I mention this because I see it, in a lot of ways, the same when it comes to discussions of moral issues. I'm typically concerned less about the one I'm "debating" with as I am about the message being taught and the influence it might have on others. I'm worried about the safety of my children, friends, family, and the well being of the church first.

 

It's interesting. It comes down to that ravenous wolf vs. lost sheep idea. As I see it, if one is struggling with something they're a lost sheep. When they post that struggle/thought/etc. publicly in a way that might influence others they can become a ravenous wolf very quickly. And so it is with those defending the lost sheep/ravenous wolves. Personally, succor them. Publicly, don't defend wrong/sin/evil.

 

Sometimes life throws curves and what looks obvious at the time may not be the best answer.  A few years back I was at a baseball game of my son.  The players were young and the ump was a teenager and he was making a lot of bad calls.  One of the dads on the other team started to stand behind home plate and criticize the teenage ump.  The ump responded by making worse calls ticking off the dad big time.  Finely the dad lost it and went on the to field and began to threaten the boy ump and physically pushing the kid around. 

 

That was enough for me and I stepped in trying to talk some reason into the dad who decided to turn on me.  He took a couple of swings but I easily avoided.  When this happened my wife called the police and several other dads (both teams) became involved and we succeed in restraining the guy til the police got there.  Thinking that things would cool down I did not think much about all this until a month later that nut-so dad took a shot gun over to a doctor's office in the Alta View hospital complex and shot and killed a nurse and took some hostages.  The whole thing ended up on the national news. 

 

I really like the idea of encouraging gun safety as an example of calling to repentance.  But when do you tell someone overtaken with anger that they are acting like a idiot with a firearm?

 

I tend to put less value on what I call the Sunday School class answers and go more with Ecclesiastes and the idea that there is a "season" for all things.  I try to put out more ideas - not as a devil's advocate but to have faith to rely on one's ability to receive revelation.  Perhaps we ought to rely less on our impressions of certain scriptures to "Cry Repentance" and more on the influence of the Holy Ghost - that may inspire a lessor call in some circumstances.

 

It is interesting to me that the L-rd did command his prophets to end warning and calls to repentance in the Book of Mormon when the Nephite society has become too corrupt.   There are times that I have thought that telling others of certain spiritual experiences would greatly help in making important points - but the spirit has forbade it.  I am not sure why - it could be that what I think to be an important point just is not the important point of the moment.

Edited August 11, 2015 by Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

I really like the idea of encouraging gun safety as an example of calling to repentance.  But when do you tell someone overtaken with anger that they are acting like a idiot with a firearm?

 

Hmm. You moved from someone being irresponsible with a gun (not carrying it with the safety on or the like) to someone going on a murderous rampage. I'm not sure the analogy carries. You're, or course, right -- when the mugger pulls a gun on you in the dark alley, you don't call him to repentance, kindly or harshly. Because stupid is stupid. Just give him your wallet.

[Vort]

The word "repent" is considered by many a mistranslation of the original Greek word Metanoia.

 

see the wiki article for instance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metanoia_(theology)

 

The meaning of the Greek metanoia/μετάνοια is very different from the meaning of the English repentance, and the meaning of the Greek metanoeō/μετανοέω is very different from the meaning of the English repent. Therefore, Walden describes the translation of metanoia as repentance as "an extraordinary mistranslation."

 

A wonderful example of why Wikipedia is a poor substitute for actual thought or analysis. The meaning "change of heart" is, of course, exactly the meaning of the English word "repentance".

[The Folk Prophet]

Yeah, I took a look at the wiki article and had the same thought as Vort. That is what repent means. I also cannot quite gather what changed's point is supposed to be. Even if we were to accept, point blank, that the Bible had the word "repent" as a mistranslation, we can't apply the same to the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants or POGP.

Edited August 17, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Josiah]

A few thoughts:

 

#1: You can cry repentance with boldness and sharpness, but you can also do it with gentleness and meekness. Both can be effective, both encourage people to turn to Christ and change, and therefore both qualify as crying repentance.

#2: Sometimes people need it given to them straight to snap them out of their sense of carnal security, and other times people have simply lost hope, and need comfort and peace rather than confrontation. The Savior used both methods, according to the individual needs of those He taught. There's no sense trying to discuss which is the "better" method of crying repentance.

#3: As Christ did, we are to rely on the Spirit to know what method to use at what time (see D&C 121:41-43).

#4: Love is a prerequisite to crying repentance in either form. Whether you choose to be direct or to give support and understanding, it won't work if charity isn't behind it.

 

Why the decline of declaring repentance (in the more direct way)? Perhaps the Lord feels that right now, we as a church need the softer method, and so He has directed our leaders accordingly. But they're still crying repentance. Alma needed both to recognize his failings and to find the hope to turn to the Savior as part of his repentance process. I wonder if we sometimes place too much emphasis on the former, and not enough on the latter.

 

Regarding homosexuality and the OP links - I'll admit I fail to see how someone necessarily must eliminate the temptation of homosexuality in order to repent. I'm not saying it's impossible to do this or that it shouldn't be a goal, but what does someone really need to do to repent? Stop sinful actions? Absolutely. Change thought patterns? Of course. Align the true desires of their hearts with God's will? Crucial. But end temptation? I thought that being tempted by something, in and of itself, isn't sin, and our temptations and weaknesses may not always change in this life. If that's the case, isn't it appropriate to focus primarily on ending the behavior, coming unto Christ, and changing the heart instead? Or am I mistaken here?

Edited August 17, 2015 by Josiah

[The Folk Prophet]

The point is, you can "declare repentance" by calling someone a sinner, telling them they are horrible, trying to humiliate and condemn... 

 

This view of what repentance means, I believe, is in the eye of the sinner only (or, perhaps, in the eye of the millennial "defender" of the sinner). There is (or rather should be) no implication that this is the command. Yet there is this constant argument from people that this needs to be done away with -- like it's actually happening. Like members of the church believe that it is their duty to humiliate and condemn others. It's like there's this weird idea out there that righteous LDS members are secretly archaic pulpit-pounding, hellfire and damnation protestant ministers.

 

or, you can "declare repentance" by showing someone a better way to live, by showing them joy, peace, love, comforting them. 

 

Why are these the only two options? You can either be an absolute perfect jerk -or- say nothing and just set a good example, give hugs, and everybody just gets along? That's it? No other options?

 

This is an overly simplistic, and totally unrealistic, view of what calling others to repentance can and should mean, in my opinion.

[The Folk Prophet]

Josiah, good post. I'm not replying to it by way of contending -- just using your thoughts as springboards for some of mine. I'm preambling my reply so you won't read it as if I'm attacking your thoughts or something.

 

#4: Love is a prerequisite to crying repentance in either form. Whether you choose to be direct or to give support and understanding, it won't work if charity isn't behind it.

 

But there seems to be this prevailing idea out there that all us LDS folk who are interested in actually declaring repentance are doing it with no sense of love -- like it's driven by -- I have no idea. Why would I or anyone like me be driven to try and motivate people to repentance by something other than love? Some sick sense of domination or... I just don't get it. I mean, I'm sure there are some who are like that. But this idea that we, as a people, are like the Pharisees is just sort of silly. The times are not equivalent. The Pharisees were a political and social power that held respect and great influence. They were motivated by this. Going out and crying repentance to people in our times hardly brings the same. Mostly all it brings is revulsion. For the most part, I have a hard time seeing people as willing to put up with the result of declaring repentance unless they're truly motivated by love and humility. Because all you really get, socially speaking, from doing so is a whole lot of people telling you how horrible, mean, judgmental, hateful and intolerant you are. Nobody thinks you're "cool" for doing so.

 

Why the decline of declaring repentance (in the more direct way)? 

 

In the more direct way is a mislead to the discussion. I entirely agree that there are means of calling to repentance that are not direct. And there was never any intention behind the thread that these didn't count or that they indicate a problem, or that that is the decline I am speaking of.  It is not. I am talking about a literal decline that I have witnessed. Literally, there seems to be a great deal of simply letting people be (meaning sin) with the only response being "love" (which translates to doing nothing but just exuding some ethereal sense of "I love you" out there into the cosmos) and "support" (which translates to all sorts of things that are about as from from declaring repentance as you can get).

 

Alma needed both to recognize his failings and to find the hope to turn to the Savior as part of his repentance process. I wonder if we sometimes place too much emphasis on the former, and not enough on the latter.

 

But what about the third part? Actually...you know...changing? The meaning of repentance?

 

Regarding homosexuality and the OP links - I'll admit I fail to see how someone necessarily must eliminate the temptation of homosexuality in order to repent. I'm not saying it's impossible to do this or that it shouldn't be a goal, but what does someone really need to do to repent? Stop sinful actions? Absolutely. Change thought patterns? Of course. Align the true desires of their hearts with God's will? Crucial. But end temptation? I thought that being tempted by something, in and of itself, isn't sin, and our temptations and weaknesses may not always change in this life. If that's the case, isn't it appropriate to focus primarily on ending the behavior, coming unto Christ, and changing the heart instead? Or am I mistaken here?

 

This is a much broader discussion (and, honestly, where I kind of hoped the thread would go a bit), and I want to address it, but don't have the time right now. Look for a detailed response later.

[Josiah]

But there seems to be this prevailing idea out there that all us LDS folk who are interested in actually declaring repentance are doing it with no sense of love -- like it's driven by -- I have no idea. Why would I or anyone like me be driven to try and motivate people to repentance by something other than love? Some sick sense of domination or... I just don't get it. I mean, I'm sure there are some who are like that. But this idea that we, as a people, are like the Pharisees is just sort of silly. The times are not equivalent. The Pharisees were a political and social power that held respect and great influence. They were motivated by this. Going out and crying repentance to people in our times hardly brings the same. Mostly all it brings is revulsion. For the most part, I have a hard time seeing people as willing to put up with the result of declaring repentance unless they're truly motivated by love and humility. Because all you really get, socially speaking, from doing so is a whole lot of people telling you how horrible, mean, judgmental, hateful and intolerant you are. Nobody thinks you're "cool" for doing so.

 

 

That might be the recent mission talking in my case. It's a minority, but there are definitely missionaries who are driven to declare repentance by other stuff. I suppose I'm just used to making the point. Anyway, I do agree that the perception is out there, and applied to members as a whole it doesn't make sense. Still, when someone tells me for my own good that I should change, I admit that my knee-jerk reaction isn't to think, "Wow, they really care about me!" I tend to get a little annoyed instead. Illogical as it is, it's the natural man in action. Maybe a more relevant comment would be that we should generally try to make sure our love is very clearly shown both before and after an invitation to change, as per the instruction given in section 121.

 

In the more direct way is a mislead to the discussion. I entirely agree that there are means of calling to repentance that are not direct. And there was never any intention behind the thread that these didn't count or that they indicate a problem, or that that is the decline I am speaking of.  It is not. I am talking about a literal decline that I have witnessed. Literally, there seems to be a great deal of simply letting people be (meaning sin) with the only response being "love" (which translates to doing nothing but just exuding some ethereal sense of "I love you" out there into the cosmos) and "support" (which translates to all sorts of things that are about as from from declaring repentance as you can get).

 

 

That clarifies your meaning a bit for me. I do see that tendency in the membership as a whole, and also very often in myself when someone close to me needs a firm nudge in the right direction. In that context, the reason for the decline might be our fear, which has been nurtured by the recent cultural atmosphere promoting tolerance and acceptance of sin (bad) in addition to the sinner (not so bad). I would tend to disagree with the idea that the same thing is happening with our church leaders on a large scale, and I don't view most* of what you've shared as evidence that it is (*a few tidbits do catch my interest, and for now I have a vague sense that it does signify something, but that's for another post).

 

But what about the third part? Actually...you know...changing? The meaning of repentance? 

 

TFP, always focusing on insignificant details. That doesn't help, you know. 

 

Alright, you got me. But my point was that parts 1 and 2 are both necessary for part 3 to happen in a meaningful way. Do we tend to focus on part 1 (make absolutely sure they/we recognize the problem) to the extent that we forget part 2? Particularly when we're emotionally invested somehow in the issue at hand, I think we do. Of course, as you said, we also tend to do the opposite - probably when we're emotionally invested in the relationship, or just downright afraid.

 

This is a much broader discussion (and, honestly, where I kind of hoped the thread would go a bit), and I want to address it, but don't have the time right now. Look for a detailed response later.

 

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!

Edited August 17, 2015 by Josiah

[The Folk Prophet]

I would tend to disagree with the idea that the same thing is happening with our church leaders on a large scale, and I don't view most* of what you've shared as evidence that it is (*a few tidbits do catch my interest, and for now I have a vague sense that it does signify something, but that's for another post).

 

I don't believe this is happening with our church leaders at all. I hoped that I had made that clear. I believe it's happening in the membership. The leader's message is the same as it has always been, although, fairly, spoken with a different tone and wording(s). Therefore, I would think that the evidence I've shared wouldn't support that, as I don't think it, and therefore wouldn't provide evidence to support it.*

 

* I will grant that I am slightly befuddled by the current message surrounding homosexuality -- but mentioning such is more for the discussion rather than meant as evidence that the leadership, en masse, has stopped calling for repentance. But this is more towards the larger discussion I said I didn't have time for right now. Perhaps tonight.

[Josiah]

I don't believe this is happening with our church leaders at all. I hoped that I had made that clear.

 

In the general sense, it was clear enough for me to tell.  You did seem to be hinting that they were holding back on homosexuality, but you also plainly said that you weren't criticizing their methods, and that the relevant issue there was the perception the rest of us have on their approach. You also made it obvious that you didn't fully endorse what the articles said. My post was not meant to imply that you disagreed - just to clarify where I saw the problem and where I did not. This was done in light of previous discussion on the thread rather than directed at you. I apologize if it came across as meaning anything else.

 

Also, no rush on responding. I could use the time to think this one over anyway. 

[The Folk Prophet]

Regarding homosexuality and the OP links - I'll admit I fail to see how someone necessarily must eliminate the temptation of homosexuality in order to repent. 

 

Let's say this is accurate, that the temptation itself is absolutely fine (more on this later). The trend I am seeing is beyond this, however. Openly declaring oneself homosexual but "faithful" is, in my thinking, hardly in line with the spirit of what true repentance is. Do I go about declaring myself an adulterer even though I have never committed adultery, but, admittedly, have had a variety of temptations in my life that are related to such?* The fact that I am still sexually attracted to all sorts of other women does not, nor will it every define who I am, and the fact that such a temptation exists doesn't need to be openly declared as what or who I am.**

 

* To be clear, I have never had the "opportunity" for literal adultery (having never even come close to putting myself into such a situation). I am speaking about the lust/viewing/etc., type activities of which I have been guilty -- or the "adultery in my heart", as it were.

 

** I get the irony of my openly declaring it here. It's to make a point. As a general rule, I do not.

 

Do we hear the idea being presented: It's okay to be an adulterer, as long as you don't act on it. ?? It's okay to be a thief, just long you don't act on it. Etc., etc.

 

Now, as pointed out, this isn't what the brethren have actually said. They have said that the feelings (temptations) are not a sin. But this gets translated to -- it's okay to "be" such and such, and hence, any implication that we should not "be" such in such is wrong, so don't even imply it because...how dare you?! And, hence, it leads to the failure to "call to repentance", as in, exhorting others (albeit kindly and with compassion and all that) to not "be" something, in spite of temptations.

 

I also tend to think the brethren have put it as they have with this particular subject as a milk before meat sort of response. Because the simple fact is that as a man thinketh, so is he, we will be judged by the desires of our hearts, and "being" anything less than perfect is a breaching of the commandments for which we must all repent continually.

 

I'm not saying it's impossible to do this or that it shouldn't be a goal, but what does someone really need to do to repent? Stop sinful actions? Absolutely. Change thought patterns? Of course. Align the true desires of their hearts with God's will? Crucial. But end temptation?

 

I don't know what sort of life experience you have, or what your level of maturity is in these matters or the like, but it strikes me from my own experience (and hopeful maturity) that one cannot do the first part without the latter diminishing. To be more clear: the efforts I have made in my life to stop sinful actions, change thought patterns, and align the desires of my heart with God's will absolutely and without question lead towards the end of temptation. No, it is not all at once. Yes, there will be some that stay with me for a good while, perhaps to the end of my life. But even these diminish over time, and I feel quite confident that with enough time living they would, absolutely, end. (Assuming I kept working on it).

 

There are temptations I had in my younger years that I no longer have whatsoever. Nada. Not a stitch. Nothing. No desire at all! And we're not talking about just little kid vs. grown up things (when I say "my younger years", I'm meaning well into my 30s). There are things that tempted me (rather strongly) as little as ten years back that I cannot even imagine having any desire towards now. This has not come about naturally. I have worked and worked to change who I am in these regards -- with the primary method being to draw closer to my Father in Heaven and to have His Spirit with me, but also with a good healthy understanding that my own efforts and practices play into it a great deal.

 

My sense of the matter is that having temptations is not a sin, but accepting that one just "has" temptations without a constant effort to remove, diminish and change these is. If we are not working to improve ourselves, we are sinning.

 

If that's the case, isn't it appropriate to focus primarily on ending the behavior, coming unto Christ, and changing the heart instead? Or am I mistaken here?

 

How can one change the heart (desire) if one does not admit that the heart (desire) can change, and/or work on that change, and/or actually change?

 

Also, what of "no more desire to do evil"? (https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/alma/19.33?lang=eng#32) How do you reconcile your thinking with that? What it secretly means is that we do desire evil, we just don't act on it? I mean, if I'm off based on this, then help me understand how we can desire evil -- but not, and have our hearts changed -- but not really.

Edited August 18, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Vort]

 

Everyone has a conscience.  The light of Christ is given to everyone.  There is no need to call anyone a sinner, or explain to them what sin is, because they already know through their own conscience.

 

Yet the scriptures and the prophets, ancient and modern, are unanimous in requiring that we preach repentance and identify sin. How would you explain the discrepancy between God's word and your teachings?

 

Free will is huge in Mormon theology. Consider what the best scenario is:

 

1) someone "repents" because they were caught red-handed, yelled at, forced to pay retribution etc.

2) someone "repents" of their own free will and choice - from the dictates of their own conscience.

 

#2 is the only real repentance out there, and #2 can only happen if they are given the freedom to go through the process on their own without being shoved into it. 

 

No good comes from #1.

 

Yet the Alma 30:13 clearly teaches that sometimes, when people are compelled to be humble, they repent. How does this square with your thesis above?

 

 

Consider this:  Satan's plan was to control everyone so that no one would ever make a mistake.... God's plan was to let everyone have free will, which included letting everyone sin.  God's plan was to allow everyone to experience good and evil, and then choose, on their own, with very little interference on His part.

 

Can you point to the scriptural teaching that establishes that Satan had a plan to control everyone so that no one would ever make a mistake? Because I do not believe that doctrine is taught anywhere in scripture, ancient or modern.

[The Folk Prophet]

 

There is no need to call anyone a sinner

 

Seriously...where do you guys get that this is a point of argument that needs to be corrected? Who, may I ask, is contending that we need to go out and call people sinners?

 

Satan's plan was to control everyone so that no one would ever make a mistake.

 

You see this kind of baloney a lot from people who've determined to never discipline their children and the like. The problem is, as Vort has pointed out, it's nonsense.

 

Satan's plan was to remove our agency. People who believe this means that he was going to control everyone through force severely misunderstand what agency is.

 

Punishment for sin IS agency.

 

God's plan was to allow everyone to experience good and evil, and then choose, on their own, with very little interference on His part.

 

Hmm. How do you explain the flood then? Sodom and Gommorah? The Israelite armies destruction of entire cultures? The Lamanite hordes specifically designated by God as a means to stir up the Nephites to repentance?

 

I afraid you've got some 'splainin' to do here.

 

Nagging at someone to repent, and calling them a sinner, actually impedes their ability to repent, because now not only is "the issue" (whatever it might be) the issue, now they feel their free will is threatened too, and so they naturally try to protect their free will by refusing to be pushed around by others who are trying to control them - which means, people will naturally rebel against anything they are asked to do by another human being. 

 

As if the "natural" rebellion people feel to protect their so-called free will (by which we really mean spoiled rotten self indulgence) has any bearing on that person's actual free will.

 

"I couldn't help becoming a serial killer because my parent's kept telling me not to!"

 

So typical of our everyone's-a-victim society. It's always someone else's fault, isn't it?

 

Of course the entire philosophy is garbage, and stems from a spoiled-rotten, standing-on-other's-shoulders no-comprehension-of-freedom-because-they-actually-have-it (without having to have earned it) naivety.

 

I mean seriously? "I'm not going to do anything that anyone tells me to!! Harrumph!!" *pout* *scowl*

 

Have we really become such a bunch of big babies? Wait....I already know the answer.

 

As for the rest of your post, I believe Vort has covered it pretty well.

Edited August 18, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[Josiah]

How can one change the heart (desire) if one does not admit that the heart (desire) can change, and/or work on that change, and/or actually change?

 

Also, what of "no more desire to do evil"? (https://www.lds.org/....33?lang=eng#32) How do you reconcile your thinking with that? What it secretly means is that we do desire evil, we just don't act on it? I mean, if I'm off based on this, then help me understand how we can desire evil -- but not, and have our hearts changed -- but not really.

 

This is a great question. In my view, it's probably closer to the core of the discussion than we've been so far, so I want to talk about this point before I get to anything else you posted. I hope I can be clear.

 

I think there's a difference between someone's core desires, or desires of the heart, as opposed to the more fleeting desires that come from day to day. They are closely related and deeply influenced by one another, but I still see them as distinct (I'll admit that I could be wrong in that view - your thoughts are welcome as always). Those Lamanites found an entirely new perspective and purpose, and it is evident based on their later actions that in their hearts they loved their Father and wanted nothing more than to do His will. But I don't buy that they never faced another temptation in their lives, and temptation can't exist without desire. It's just that those relatively superficial desires were overruled by the more meaningful desires of the heart. Why? They repented.

 

So when we talk about repenting of, say, homosexuality, I would expect that the desire to submit to the will of the Father will develop and grow in the heart. I expect that, consequently, the desire to say, do, think, or be homosexual in any way will be driven out of the heart. But I also expect that the body and mind are used to doing things a certain way, and so the superficial desires will still go on for a while - even a lifetime in many cases - before they are actually removed. These desires are enough to enable temptation until they are gone. But the pain of not satisfying those sinful desires is swallowed up in the joy that is found in satisfying the righteous desires of our hearts - if repentance is complete and the temptation is ignored.

 

 

Openly declaring oneself homosexual but "faithful" is, in my thinking, hardly in line with the spirit of what true repentance is.

 

I'm with you here. I agree with the rest of this first section as well, just using this sentence as a sort of summary. Publicly declaring in detail our struggles with temptation and how we're overcoming them and still remaining faithful is pride/boasting at best, if not holding on to the sin in our hearts as part of who we are (the "I am ____" phrase).

 

I don't know what sort of life experience you have, or what your level of maturity is in these matters or the like, but it strikes me from my own experience (and hopeful maturity) that one cannot do the first part without the latter diminishing. To be more clear: the efforts I have made in my life to stop sinful actions, change thought patterns, and align the desires of my heart with God's will absolutely and without question lead towards the end of temptation. No, it is not all at once. Yes, there will be some that stay with me for a good while, perhaps to the end of my life. But even these diminish over time, and I feel quite confident that with enough time living they would, absolutely, end. (Assuming I kept working on it).

 

There are temptations I had in my younger years that I no longer have whatsoever. Nada. Not a stitch. Nothing. No desire at all! And we're not talking about just little kid vs. grown up things (when I say "my younger years", I'm meaning well into my 30s). There are things that tempted me (rather strongly) as little as ten years back that I cannot even imagine having any desire towards now. This has not come about naturally. I have worked and worked to change who I am in these regards -- with the primary method being to draw closer to my Father in Heaven and to have His Spirit with me, but also with a good healthy understanding that my own efforts and practices play into it a great deal.

 

My sense of the matter is that having temptations is not a sin, but accepting that one just "has" temptations without a constant effort to remove, diminish and change these is. If we are not working to improve ourselves, we are sinning.

 

I particularly like the last paragraph - I feel like I understand that principle a lot more fully having seen it written out this way. 

 

I just want to distinguish between the process of repentance (the things we do: controlling thoughts, focusing on positive desires rather than sinful ones, stopping unrighteous behavior, etc) and the fruits of repentance (including the change of heart itself, the reduction and eventual end of temptation, etc.) The process is within our direct control. While we certainly need the enabling power of the Atonement to do so, we are the ones responsible to make it happen. The fruits come from the Savior, and while I believe the change of heart is given to us rather quickly to the degree that we truly repent, I don't feel that the same is immediately true of eliminating temptation. This seems to me to be done on the Lord's timetable so that we may continue to learn to overcome temptation, and perhaps for other wise purposes.

 

Essentially, whether the topic is homosexuality or any other sin, I don't like to see much focus placed on what's not in our direct control (the temptation).

[The Folk Prophet]

Josiah,

 

I wonder if there's a scale of "temptation" that qualifies it on the matter of "sin". When I look at a woman to whom I an not married and have a thought pass through my mind that relates to sex somehow I have always believed, and will always believe, that this was an inappropriate thought/feeling and that I need to repent. Relative to the level of allowance given to said thought, the repentance may or may not be minor. For the most part, I look, think "yeah baby", immediately think, "No no no!!", look away and move on. The "No no no!" part was the repenting. Sorrow, confession to God (in my heart) that it was a mistake, correct my path, etc. Repenting. It's quick because the infraction was minor and quick and, for the most part, natural rather than chosen*. I will also pray each night that my thoughts may be garnished with virtue and ask forgiveness for those times when they were not.

 

*this "choosing" thing is an entire different discussion -- but quickly I'll add...not chosen in the moment per se, due to habit and having not overcome the natural man, etc...but still "chosen" at another level, because we cannot not choose -- by not choosing, we choose the natural man, which is a sin....  But like I said...bigger discussion that we can engage in if you want.

 

I cannot accept that looking at another woman, thinking "yeah baby", and then writing that off as a mere temptation without any effort given whatsoever to "repent" of it is acceptable, and believe that treating it this way would surely lead to worse offenses. I can, actually, testify to that from personal experience.

 

Of course the thought itself may be deemed "acting on it". I suppose there is a level of temptation where the thought doesn't go so far as even "yeah baby" where it is, truly, no sin. But I have a hard time believing that one struggling with homosexuality has any better go of it with their thought responses than I do with my heterosexuality, and therefore, I would dare say that the "don't act upon it" is, by and large, something we men fail at more than we might like to admit.

 

The reality, I believe, is that sexuality, for most men, leads very, very ,very quickly to "acting upon it" at some level - even if that action is nothing more than, "yeah baby". And I believe that the natural man (particularly the natural sexual man) is in need of fairly constant repentance and work to turn away, overcome cross oneself, etc.

 

To simply state that because a homosexual isn't engaged in sexual activity with someone means they're not sinning is, to my thinking, woefully insufficient.

 

I sin constantly as a heterosexual male and am constantly in need of repentance. Why is it so offensive to apply the same to someone with same sex attraction? They have every bit as much need to be constantly repenting of their sins as do I, even the minor things.

 

And this is to the point. We have seemed to embrace in these times the idea that repentance is only necessary for the big things. That the call to be perfect is only theoretical, and that minor imperfections are no issue at all. But this is false. We must be striving for perfection and repenting every moment we do not attain it.

 

It's quite trendy to read "guilt" and "shame" into every little thing. To an extent I have been and will continue to be an advocate of guilt and shame. I feel that sin should bring guilt. But it should bring that guilt proportionate to the sin. If one becomes suicidal because they have "yeah baby" moments now and again, there's something messed up in their psyche. That is not a proportionate response. But a wee bit of guilt is appropriate, and repentance is needed and correct.

 

I do not, upon the "yeah baby", "no no no!", process not partake of the sacrament that Sunday or something. That would be disproportionate in the extreme. But I also know darned well what is and isn't right and wrong, even in my thoughts and feelings. And a wrong feeling is wrong -- not right. It cannot be right. Wrong is never right. Imperfect is never perfect. It is, at some level, a sin.

[The Folk Prophet]

Essentially, whether the topic is homosexuality or any other sin, I don't like to see much focus placed on what's not in our direct control (the temptation).

 

As I said earlier, however, I do believe that it is in our control...eventually. Practice makes perfect -- really. Practice patience, and you become patient. Practice kindness and you become kind. The temptations to hit, yell, swear, fume, lust, lie, etc., etc., can all be practiced away by simple good behavior. Add in the power of the atonement and, yes, absolutely, we can learn to remove temptation from our lives.

 

I find this concept obvious. I mean obviously obvious. Practice absolute honesty and eventually you'll stop being tempted to lie. Pay a perfect tithing and eventually you'll have no temptation to keep the money. Etc. Obviously, obviously, obvious.

[The Folk Prophet]

The scriptures are full of examples of appropriate and inappropriate methodologies to convert people - and that is the point of all of it, conversion, not making people feel bad about themselves. 

 

This isn't entirely accurate. Yes, conversion is the primary objective. But the scriptures give at leaste 3 reasons to declare repentance.

 

1. To bring people unto Christ.

2. So people will be accountable for their sins

3. So the sins will not be on our head for not raising our voice

 

(See, for example (D&C 88:81-82 and Ezek 3:18)

 

For those who do not have enough faith in "the light of Christ" which is our conscience, and think the light of Christ needs help, so they should tell everyone how evil they are...  I really do think you are harming the progress of the church.  Beams and motes.... 

 

You have entirely ignored Vort's excellent questions and simply restated the same thing, which holds little weight when it has been clearly pointed out that we are commanded, again and again and again, to raise a warning voice. If the Light of Christ is enough, why are we commanded to declare repentance and raise a warning voice?