Recommended Posts

 

4 hours ago, Telemantros said:

Even if we take Kimball's own words and inner logic with a grain of salt, he is still quoting the standard works to make his points. We can't just ignore these. "Perfection is not required," it is noted here in this forum, but he quotes, "... be perfect as your heavenly father is perfect." "It's a process," it is suggested in this forum, but Kimball quotes, "And now, verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, will not lay any sin to your charge; go your ways and sin no more; but unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return, saith the Lord your God." I appreciate your interpretations of Kimball, and your responses, but as far as I can tell no one has dealt with the actual logic and scriptural support in the book. And Kimball notes, “The Lord’s program is unchangeable. His laws are immutable. They will not be modified. Your opinion or mine does not alter the laws

Part of logic is statement of background assumptions/framework. So, where you ask this question, what are you background assumptions/framework?

Are you asking it with the assumption that you need to do everything by yourself and perfection has to be completely achieved now?

Or are you asking it with the assumption that Christ lifts you every step of the way and perfection is achieved in the eternities?

Those are two VERY different questions.  The second is LDS doctrine, the first is not.  Again, Kimball never denies Christ helping throughout the entire thing-- in fact Christ's miracle is the center point of the book.  The problem is when readers who lack that foundational understanding read it, they can come off with the wrong impression.   The book's intended audience is those LDS folks that have that solid foundational background.  The book's intended audience was never non-LDS seekers who may completely lack that foundation.  

4 hours ago, Telemantros said:

What is a seeker to do?

Ask questions and listen to the answers, to get the correct picture.  You seem to be well on track in that regard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/30/2018 at 7:42 PM, Jane_Doe said:

*It occurs to me that there's an important base question to be asked here first*

@Telemantros, tell us about yourself: what faith background are you coming from?  Are you coming from a background where salvation is thought to be an event that once-and-done? (like Evangelicals for example).   Or are you coming from a background where salvation and sanctification are thought to be a lifelong+ process?

That's a critical piece of background.  For LDS, we don't believe salvation is a once-and-done event (like we don't go around saying "I was saved on July 25, 1993").  Rather, salvation and sanctification/exaltation are thought to be a process where we are continually washed in the blood of the Lamb, continually renewing our covenants with the Lord, and continually becoming more and more like Him.  ALL of this continues through this life AND the next (it's not done at any mortal time point), and it's ALL done with Christ every step of the way.Kimball, assumes his reader is LDS, and understands this and understands Christ's continual role in everything, etc.  A salvation-is-once-and-done reader will inventaably completely misunderstand the entire novel because of this.

 

(I'm going to hold off responding more, because if the miscommunicate is on page 0 in the form of background assumings, we got to talk about that first)

*bump*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You mean like:

"For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance;"

That kind of wholesale condemnation of sinners?

Thanks.

Nope, statements like these ones.  But those are just two tiny passages from a giant book.  The whole arc of the book though is one which, in my opinion, would leave most of the people who read it feeling a kind of hopelessly devastated self loathing that would prevent the person feeling like they are redeemable.

i've witnessed a tiny portion of the destruction sentiments like these leave in their wake.  Anyways, that's just my opinion. Not every person sees or feels the same thing reading the same words.  

 

"Your virtue is worth more than your life. Please, young folk, preserve your virtue even if you lose 
your lives."

"Also far-reaching is the effect of loss of chastity. Once given or taken or stolen it can never be regained. 
Even in a forced contact such as rape or incest, the injured one is greatly outraged. If she has not 
cooperated and contributed to the foul deed, she is of course in a more favorable position. There is no 
condemnation where there is no voluntary participation. It is better to die in defending one's virtue than 
to live having lost it without a struggle."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Telemantros said:

I'm at a loss though, for this interpretation stands against the four main points Kimball outlined above ... with book citation ... with scriptural support!

Even if we take Kimball's own words and inner logic with a grain of salt, he is still quoting the standard works to make his points.

People have used scripture to defend and promote things that, to me, are obviously wrong. 19th century Americans used scripture to defend and promote slavery, and Answers in Genesis and Joseph Fielding Smith used scripture to defend and promote young earth creationism, for examples. If "clearly" incorrect teachings can be supported by scripture, then it should come as no surprise that one can use scripture to defend and promote teachings that fall more in the middle of classical Christian debates. Here's my hypothesis around TMoF (and other LDS teachings of that era).

To oversimplify: Throughout Christian history, there has been kind of tug of war between "faith/grace" and "obedience/repentance/works". The Jews of Christ's day put a great deal of emphasis on obedience/repentance/works and at best only poorly understood the work of the Messiah to provide grace through faith. St. Paul, speaking into this environment, felt he needed to emphasize (overemphasize??) faith and grace. At the other extreme is a concept I heard on the radio from a Christian (Calvinist??) pastor this morning. The idea is that man contributes nothing to salvation, but God chooses whom He will save (to whom He will give the gift of saving faith). This leaves me personally (and maybe other non-Protestant non-Sola Fide Christians) with an image of me sitting on my laurels waiting to see if God will save me, because nothing I do can possibly change God's will/choice in this matter. Or there is the "cheap grace" "I can pray my sinner's pray and resume my hedonistic lifestyle" attitude that I sometimes see. I hypothesize that Kimball was hoping to address this "cheap grace" kind of thinking by emphasizing (overemphasizing??) the need for repentance and obedience. I may not agree with Pres. Kimball in every detail, but I do see value in the reminder that God expects and demands repentance and obedience from me. I admit that sometimes that leaves me teetering on the high wire trying to balance between "it's all up to me and my obedience" and "it's all up to God's choices", and that I don't think I always capture that balance (and I am not sure that Pres. Kimball fully captured that balance).

I don't know if that helps, but it makes sense to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Nope, statements like these ones.  But those are just two tiny passages from a giant book.  The whole arc of the book though is one which, in my opinion, would leave most of the people who read it feeling a kind of hopelessly devastated self loathing that would prevent the person feeling like they are redeemable.

My point is that the scriptures are a lot harsher on sin. People tend to, conveniently leave that out -- jumping straight to the "mercy" and ignoring the "repent" parts. The Miracle of Forgiveness only leads to self loathing and the like if one actively and intentionally ignores the "mercy" part.

13 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

i've witnessed a tiny portion of the destruction sentiments like these leave in their wake

Actually it's sin that leaves destruction in it's wake. Sentiment that sin leaves destruction in its wake is irrelevant.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

Not really.  

(@lostinwater is ex-LDS).

Thanks for providing that context.  i try to do that in most threads.  

You don't feel like this was a go-to for bishops counseling people about sexual sin before it was taken out of print?  

 

i know people here don't much like this newspaper, but everything i've heard/read indicates this statement is accurate.

"The book, which now has sold at least 1.6 million copies, was routinely distributed to departing Mormon missionaries, engaged LDS couples and members disciplined for "sexual sin.""

http://archive.sltrib.com/article.php?id=2762815&itype=CMSID

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add to @zil and @The Folk Prophet's response I give two scriptures and verses that President Kimball was also well aware of:

1) Moroni 10: 29 - 34

Quote

 

29 And God shall show unto you, that that which I have written is true.

30 And again I would exhort you that ye would come unto Christ, and lay hold upon every good gift, and touch not the evil gift, nor the unclean thing.

31 And awake, and arise from the dust, O Jerusalem; yea, and put on thy beautiful garments, O daughter of Zion; and strengthen thy stakes and enlarge thy borders forever, that thou mayest no more be confounded, that the covenants of the Eternal Father which he hath made unto thee, O house of Israel, may be fulfilled.

32 Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love God with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.

33 And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.

34 And now I bid unto all, farewell. I soon go to rest in the paradise of God, until my spirit and body shall again reunite, and I am brought forth triumphant through the air, to meet you before the pleasing bar of the great Jehovah, the Eternal Judge of both quick and dead. Amen.

 

2) Doctrine and Covenants 45: 3-5:

Quote

 

2 And again I say, hearken unto my voice, lest death shall overtake you; in an hour when ye think not the summer shall be past, and the harvest ended, and your souls not saved.

3 Listen to him who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him—

4 Saying: Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed, the blood of him whom thou gavest that thyself might be glorified;

5 Wherefore, Father, spare these my brethren that believe on my name, that they may come unto me and have everlasting life.

 

The last scripture verses I totally love! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Oh, and i forgot to mention.  This is a book that bishops handed out like candy - for years - to anyone coming in admitting sexual indiscretions.  

My experience, this is accurate regarding bishops handing this out to people struggling with sin and addictions. I would however specify the "like candy" is over-embellished. I received more "candy" from my bishops, not so much this book. First time I heard of this book was my mission.

The Miracle of Forgiveness is a refiners fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@zil 

A few points of clarification to my questions. My expression of exasperation "what is a seeker to do," is my general confusion as to how truth is achieved in LDS view; I'm very much trying to follow but I'm used to a more linear, point-by-point approach. I was expressing, perhaps not well enough, my confusion as to the impact of this book I just read. I asked if this book was trustworthy or not and how to know, and people say that it is in part. They say that the prophet wrote things about forgiveness that where perhaps "too harsh" or "true in part," and then point me to other writings of the same prophet. Ok I track, but then some have cited other statements from Kimball that seem to directly contradict what I just read in Miracle of Forgiveness. This is my point, how am I supposed to conclude? Some say they hate the book (e.g. @lostinwater), others don't' comment on what they think, and still others, you are correct, think its overall positive. The problem is I don't know which impression is true, I'm new to all of this. I get the sense that people are saying, listen to the prophet his words are true ... unless they aren't.

You note salvation has always been taught as a process with God's help. But my problem, again as a newbie, is that I didn't see that in the Miracle of Forgiveness, which leads me back to the ambiguity of the above paragraph. You try to help me by asking me how to reconcile some biblical passages. Well, this is a great question. How does one reconcile them? I have no idea, this is why I'm asking questions!

Lastly, you state nowhere does it say you cannot repent a second, third, fourth time. Well, Kimball says it in his book (I provided the page numbers) and he quotes scriptures to boot. Again, hence my confusion.

i.e. True repentance does not allow for repeated sin but forsaking that sin; that is, if a sin must be forsaken again (a second, third, fourth time) then the sin by definition was never utterly forsaken in the first place. True repentance means not repeating the sin. 

Kimball quotes John 8:11, “… go, and sin no more,” D&C 82:7, “7 And now, verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, will not lay any sin to your charge; go your ways and sin no more; but unto that soul who sinneth shall the former sins return, saith the Lord your God,” and, D&C 58:43, “43 By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them.” Kimball notes, “In other words, it is not real repentance until one has abandoned the error of his way and started on a new path,” (p. 163). He continues, “Old sins return, says the Lord in his modern revelations. Many people either do not know this or they conveniently forget it … Each previously forgiven sin is added to the new one and the whole gets to be a heavy load. Thus when a man has made up his mind to change his life, there must be no turning back. Any reversal, even in a small degree, is greatly to his detriment,” (p. 169, 170). He insists, “Discontinuance of sin must be permanent. The will to do must be strong and kept strengthened,” (p. 176). Remember, “Being perfect means to triumph over sin. This is a mandate from the Lord. He is just and wise and kind. HE would never require anything from his children which was not fro their benefit and which was not attainable. Perfection therefore is an achievable goal,” (p. 209). Finally, “’Yes,’ I said, ‘but we are commanded to be supermen. Said the Lord, ‘Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.’ (Matt. 5:48) We are gods in embryo, and the Lord demands perfection of us,’” (p. 286).

I want to emphasize, I am not trying to be combative, aggressive, or argumentative. I'm simply trying to understand what I just read. I am not an LDS. I want to understand LDS teaching but am having trouble.

Tele

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Telemantros said:

My expression of exasperation "what is a seeker to do," is my general confusion as to how truth is achieved in LDS view;

We're taught to listen, prayerfully consider, and heed our prophet.  We're also admonished, a lot, to immerse ourselves in the scriptures.  When the two conflict, here you go:

Quote

It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside. My words, and the teaching of any other member of the Church, high or low, if they do not square with the revelations, we need not accept them. Let us have this matter clear.    [...]  You cannot accept the books written by the authorities of the Church as standards in doctrine, only in so far as they accord with the revealed word in the standard works.  Every man who writes is responsible, not the Church, for what he writes. If Joseph Fielding Smith writes something which is out of harmony with the revelations, then every member of the Church is duty bound to reject it. If he writes that which is in perfect harmony with the revealed word of the Lord, then it should be accepted.
- Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, 1956, 3:203-4

If anyone, regardless of his position in the Church, were to advance a doctrine that is not substantiated by the standard Church works, meaning the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price, you may know that his statement is merely his private opinion. The only one authorized to bring forth any new doctrine is the President of the Church, who, when he does, will declare it as revelation from God, and it will be so accepted by the Council of the Twelve and sustained by the body of the Church. And if any man speak a doctrine which contradicts what is in the standard Church works, you may know by that same token that it is false and you are not bound to accept it as truth.
 - President Harold B. Lee, The First Area General Conference for Germany, Austria, Holland, Italy, Switzerland, France, Belgium, and Spain of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, held in Munich Germany, August 24-26, 1973

What a pity it would be, if we were led by one man to utter destruction! Are you afraid of this? I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him. I am fearful they settle down in a state of blind self-security, trusting their eternal destiny in the hands of their leaders with a reckless confidence that in itself would thwart the purposes of God in their salvation, and weaken the influence they could give to their leaders, did they know for themselves, by the revelations of Jesus, that they are led in the right way. Let every man and woman know, themselves, whether their leaders are walking in the path the Lord dictates, or not. This has been my exhortation continually. (JD 9:150)
 

 

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Telemantros, IMO, the entire problem here is that you decided to take Salvation 318R - Special Studies in President Kimball's Views before taking Religion 101 - The Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Put the textbook for Salvation 318R back on the shelf, and go back to the coursework for the Religion 101 class. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Telemantros said:

@zil 

A few points of clarification to my questions. My expression of exasperation "what is a seeker to do," is my general confusion as to how truth is achieved in LDS view; I'm very much trying to follow but I'm used to a more linear, point-by-point approach. I was expressing, perhaps not well enough, my confusion as to the impact of this book I just read. I asked if this book was trustworthy or not and how to know, and people say that it is in part. They say that the prophet wrote things about forgiveness that where perhaps "too harsh" or "true in part," and then point me to other writings of the same prophet. Ok I track, but then some have cited other statements from Kimball that seem to directly contradict what I just read in Miracle of Forgiveness. This is my point, how am I supposed to conclude? Some say they hate the book (e.g. @lostinwater), others don't' comment on what they think, and still others, you are correct, think its overall positive. The problem is I don't know which impression is true, I'm new to all of this. I get the sense that people are saying, listen to the prophet his words are true ... unless they aren't.

How does a person discover truth? It isn't LDS, it is the gospel of Jesus Christ and it is the same for everyone. Truth is known by the power of the Holy Ghost. We must ponder and pray. We must seek and we must knock. We must place God as the ultimate source of truth, and that he has the ability to answer our sincere prayers.

Sunday afternoon I received an answer to a prayer I asked 7 years ago initially. I have asked this question multiple times since then. By the power of the Holy Ghost, pure intelligence flowed through my heart and mind and I knew God answered this prayer (actually two prayers).

19 minutes ago, Telemantros said:

You note salvation has always been taught as a process with God's help. But my problem, again as a newbie, is that I didn't see that in the Miracle of Forgiveness, which leads me back to the ambiguity of the above paragraph. You try to help me by asking me how to reconcile some biblical passages. Well, this is a great question. How does one reconcile them? I have no idea, this is why I'm asking questions!

The Miracle of Forgiveness is all about progress. You are simply allowing yourself to become fixated on a notion, rather than seeing the whole picture being described. @NeuroTypical provided you excellent quotes given as to how to reconcile.

19 minutes ago, Telemantros said:

Lastly, you state nowhere does it say you cannot repent a second, third, fourth time. Well, Kimball says it in his book (I provided the page numbers) and he quotes scriptures to boot. Again, hence my confusion.

i.e. True repentance does not allow for repeated sin but forsaking that sin; that is, if a sin must be forsaken again (a second, third, fourth time) then the sin by definition was never utterly forsaken in the first place. True repentance means not repeating the sin. 

This is evidence of your fixation regarding a statement without seeing the whole picture. President Kimball is correct. True repentance is "forsaking the sin." There is no way around this. There is also the difference between sincerely repenting (overcoming sin over time through the atonement) and what @MrShorty described as the hedonistic "I'm sorry" with no change.

If we become fixated on specific passages without seeing the whole picture, then we limit our understanding and for the Lord to reveal truth. Let me provide an example. In the scriptures it specifies, "If we ask, we shall receive." Why then do we ask and not receive? There are individuals who become fixated (including myself) that I asked, while forgetting or not knowing the other passages of scripture that specify asking with sincere hearts, asking according to the Spirit, and asking not amiss. But the person then reverts back to the fixated verse specifying, "But I asked! And no answer!" They officially ignored further light and truth as they are fixated on one phrase, while not seeing or understanding the meaning of the phrase.

Kimball did not say in his book that you "can't" repent multiple times. You are implying interpretation to his quote that is incorrect. He provided the definition of true repentance, which is to forsake a sin -- in totality. That is true repentance. He did not say, that a person is not able repent over time until they have forsaken the sin in totality. The opposite is actually true.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel like a bad mormon.  Been a member my whole life and never bothered reading the Miracle of Forgiveness.

Honestly, I looked at the book a couple of times and had this foreboding feeling that it was going to tell me what a rotten person I am.  

I think I have a copy somewhere.  Perhaps I might have to read it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Lost Boy said:

I feel like a bad mormon.  Been a member my whole life and never bothered reading the Miracle of Forgiveness.

Honestly, I looked at the book a couple of times and had this foreboding feeling that it was going to tell me what a rotten person I am.  

I think I have a copy somewhere.  Perhaps I might have to read it.

It's not like it's mandatory reading.  I think it's entirely possible for the Spirit to instruct a person not to read some book by a general authority - maybe because it would do more harm than good (not by intent, but just by learning type / where the person is in life), maybe because it's not the best thing for that person to do with that time, whatever.

I certainly wouldn't judge a person based on what GA books they have / have not read.  FWIW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the miracle of forgiveness.  It is such a wonderful and terrific book to me.

Spencer W. Kimball did express a regret about this book from what I understand.  He stated that he focused too much on the sin and condemnation part and NOT enough about the actual miracle of forgiveness itself.  I believe he stated that if he had to do it over he would have focused a lot less of the book on the sin and condemnation and much more on the forgiveness, atonement, and redemption portion.  He would have stressed how much we are saved by mercy and grace.

His point, I think, was to show that without grace, we are doomed.  We cannot be saved without it.  Even if we do all that we can do, we will not be able to make it.  A majority of the book is used to point this out.  Only at the end does it start to shed light that we can be saved, even as sinners, as long as we continue to try to be perfect and try to do what the Lord tells us.  That by repentance, baptism, and renewal of our vows regularly (sacrament, temple attendance) can we show that we trust the lord and accept his atonement and thus be saved.

I think if Spencer W. Kimball could have rewritten it he would have only spent around 1/3 of what he did on the first idea (condemnation) and far more (2/3 of the book) on the idea of salvation and the atonement. 

As it stands, a majority of the book is about how we, as sinners, are unable to save ourselves.  That, left to our own devices, we are condemned.

Only a small portion of the book at the very end addresses how we are saved by the love and mercy of the lord.  It is very easy to let the first portion overcome that of which we read in the second portion, but ironically, it is the second portion which may be the most important.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Lost Boy said:

I feel like a bad mormon.  Been a member my whole life and never bothered reading the Miracle of Forgiveness.

Honestly, I looked at the book a couple of times and had this foreboding feeling that it was going to tell me what a rotten person I am.  

I think I have a copy somewhere.  Perhaps I might have to read it.

If you choose to read it then read the last two chapters first and then read the whole book including the last two chapters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes I wonder if there aren't sort of two levels of sin.

We sin when we gossip, aren't charitable, slack on our callings, don't put the effort into our marriages we should, run red lights, don't obey the word of wisdom, cheat on our taxes a little, etc.  Stuff like this makes us feel bad about ourselves, unless we go way overboard and start internalizing shame and believing we're damned and other over-the-top things.

We sin when we abuse others physically or sexually, commit crimes, fornicate, embezzle, murder, etc.  Stuff like this weighs a sinner down with a great crippling weight of shame, unless we start denying, deflecting, ignoring, minimizing, basically believing our own crap about how it isn't that bad.

I'm about half of the opinion that this book was written mainly for folks in the second category.  It helps both the folks weighed down by their major sins, and helps them come to grips with their own denial about how serious stuff is.

Catholics talk about "venial sins" vs "mortal sins" - do we have anything like that in our church?

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Catholics talk about "veinal sins" vs "mortal sins" - do we have anything like that in our church?

I can't think of anything for "veinal sins" but for "mortal sins" I would use "worthiness sins."

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Spencer W. Kimball did express a regret about this book from what I understand. 

I enjoy his book much.  I disagree with this statement as I've yet to see an actual source for this idea which is quite common that he expressed regret.  The only actual source I've even heard about is that he supposedly said this to one of his sons at the end of his life.  Which I find quite odd, the book was published in 1969, he was alive for over a decade after it was published, he had ample opportunity to issue a revision, a statement, anything.  But he didn't.  We have no actual record of him ever expressing regret for the book. 

I think it's a way for people who dislike what the book says diminish it's teachings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/2/2018 at 3:43 PM, zil said:

It's not like it's mandatory reading.

But highly recommended. In 2007, there was a church manual (which I previously cited) that was encouraged reading “Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball,” wherein the editors for this manual referenced The Miracle of Forgiveness in the historical summary and cited the book 22 times in a chapter in forgiveness. So there is some precedent. At least you can say is that it is highly recommended as it was also recommended from the pulpit twice at your general conference (as I mentioned before).

@Lost Boy I could see how this book would make you feel worse. This is the crushed spirit I was referencing earlier, one I think that is unfounded based off what salvation really entails, a precious gift.

Edited by Telemantros
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 9/30/2018 at 4:02 PM, Telemantros said:

A Gospel that Crushes?

 

IV. Sum:

 So, now you know where I’m coming from. Maybe you feel crushed too from all of the works and requirements asked of you just to be saved. So, to sum, I ask, “Does the LDS crush your spirit?” Because I think there is a better understanding of salvation, and that is simply that Jesus paid for your sins on the cross because you couldn’t do it yourself. And that is a gift to you, and it is a gift that will transform your soul and make you want to follow Jesus like you, perhaps, you never have before.

Sincerely, 

Tele

After reading all you wrote one thing crushing me is the if/then condition of Moroni 10:32. That grace is
foreign to me from my Catholic background.

Gale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share