Forgiveness vs Remission of Sins

[laronius]

In the LDS faith do we make a distinction between forgiveness of sins and remission of sins?

The AI generated response to the question of what's the difference (not specifically LDS) says this:

While often used interchangeably, "forgiveness" generally refers to the act of letting go of resentment or anger towards someone who has wronged you, while "remission of sins" implies a more legalistic concept, signifying the complete removal or cancellation of one's sins, often used in a religious context to describe the act of God "wiping away" sins through Jesus Christ's sacrifice; essentially, "remission" denotes a more absolute and final release from the consequences of sin, whereas "forgiveness" can involve a personal emotional process of letting go of negative feelings towards someone who has offended you. 

If we look up Remission of Sins in the LDS guide to the scriptures it kind of just equates it with forgiveness:

Forgiveness for wrongdoing upon condition of repentance.

But it seems like from our viewpoint we do make a distinction between simply saying that the consequences of our sins are removed vs the sin itself is in essence removed.

Is there really a distinction to be made here? Are they just different ways of describing the same thing? Or is there a distinction but different terms need to be used?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, laronius said:

In the LDS faith do we make a distinction between forgiveness of sins and remission of sins?

The AI generated response to the question of what's the difference (not specifically LDS) says this:

While often used interchangeably, "forgiveness" generally refers to the act of letting go of resentment or anger towards someone who has wronged you, while "remission of sins" implies a more legalistic concept, signifying the complete removal or cancellation of one's sins, often used in a religious context to describe the act of God "wiping away" sins through Jesus Christ's sacrifice; essentially, "remission" denotes a more absolute and final release from the consequences of sin, whereas "forgiveness" can involve a personal emotional process of letting go of negative feelings towards someone who has offended you. 

If we look up Remission of Sins in the LDS guide to the scriptures it kind of just equates it with forgiveness:

Forgiveness for wrongdoing upon condition of repentance.

But it seems like from our viewpoint we do make a distinction between simply saying that the consequences of our sins are removed vs the sin itself is in essence removed.

Is there really a distinction to be made here? Are they just different ways of describing the same thing? Or is there a distinction but different terms need to be used?

My take is that the ultimate remission of sins comes when the Lord first forgives them and remembers them no more. This can only happen once it is established that the former sins do not return after they have been forgiven (D&C 58: 42 and 82:7). The repentance mentioned in the "Remission of Sins" in the Guide to the Scriptures has to involve the ordinances (which are intended to lead one on the path to the Holy Spirit of Promise): https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/remission-of-sins?lang=eng

Remission of Sins

"Forgiveness for wrongdoing upon condition of repentance. Remission of sins is made possible by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. A person obtains a remission of his sins if he has faith in Christ, repents of his sins, receives the ordinances of baptism and laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost, and obeys God’s commandments (A of F 1:3–4)."

Of course there is a stepwise process to this, and divine grace involved, so we can taste a bit and have a more excellent hope as we head toward that final state of perfection.

 

[Carborendum]

REMIS'SION, noun [Latin remissio, from remitto, to send back.]

• Release; discharge or relinquishment of a claim or right; as the remission of a tax or duty.
• Forgiveness; pardon; that is, the giving up of the punishment due to a crime; as the remission of sins. Matthew 26:28. Hebrews 9:22.

 

 

[Vort]

3 hours ago, laronius said:

In the LDS faith do we make a distinction between forgiveness of sins and remission of sins?

This is one (or both) of two separate questions:

• Do we as Latter-day Saints distinguish between the forgiveness and the remission of sins?
• Is there a difference between the forgiveness and the remission of sins?

The answer to the first question is, I believe, no. To have our sins remitted is to gain divine forgiveness. I don't recall any teachings that explicitly distinguish between the two.

The second question resembles a question that I heard bandied about in my childhood: Is there a difference between the unforgivable sin and the unpardonable sin? One speculation was that there was a difference, in the sense that a man adjudged guilty of a crime might nevertheless be paroled, perhaps even pardoned by the governor. He would remain a convicted felon, but the weight of penalty for his crime would have been lifted. By analogy, one might propose that a forgiveness of sin and a remission of sin each represent a specific way of dealing with the stain of sin, different somehow from the other.

Looking back as a nearing-geriatric-age adult, I think I reject this distinction. I'll cast my lot in with the "no difference" folks.

[NeuroTypical]

I also think about the notion of sanctification, which is the act of taking something that isn't holy, and making it holy.  We sanctify bread and water for the sacrament.  It doesn't really matter what we start with - MRE cracker, any type of bread, gluten free cracker for folks with dietary needs.  When we sanctify it, it is now a worthy symbol of the flesh of Christ.

When we sanctify ourselves or our actions, we show up fallen sinful humans.  We go through the process of sanctification, whatever it might be, and we or our actions become sanctified, holy, worthy.  Closely related to having our garments washed white through the blood of the lamb.  We engage in intentional acts or behavior or thoughts, and the absolving/removing power is provided by the atonement.

Still a fan of this painting, called "sanctification".  It seems to really capture the notion of becoming holy and pure as a process, even though some consequences or scars or character traits may remain.  

https://history.churchofjesuschrist.org/media/jan-fisher?lang=eng&fbclid=IwY2xjawHJUZhleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHQMQyHLhZpWDWZwQDI7UmOYpvTW8wRa-pAEuLKVyqYRW3uGJXsAj9dZZGg_aem_R2GwS18fWkk5DPplFBRCmw#1

 

 

Edited December 13, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[mikbone]

Forgiveness is something that mortals do.

Remission of sins is done by the Holy Ghost via the power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ. 

"The ordinance of the sacrament is a holy and repeated invitation to repent sincerely and to be renewed spiritually. The act of partaking of the sacrament, in and of itself, does not remit sins. But as we prepare conscientiously and participate in this holy ordinance with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, then the promise is that we may always have the Spirit of the Lord to be with us. And by the sanctifying power of the Holy Ghost as our constant companion, we can always retain a remission of our sins."  Always Retain a Remission of Your Sins, David A. Bednar, April 2016 conference.

The Atonement allows Jesus to essentially expunge our sins.

Expungement is a legal process that removes or seals criminal records, making them unavailable to the public.  If you have a criminal record that gets expunged, and you are applying for a job you can legally state that you have never had a criminal record.  Legally, the offense never occurred.  

Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ will not forget our sins.  They know everything.  But for all intents and purposes, they will act as if no sin occurred.  We will be allowed to enter into the Celestial Kingdom completely clean - if we receive a remission of our sins.

 

I hated the explanation I was given during a youth conference: Sin is like getting blood on a wedding dress. Repentance allows us to send the wedding dress to the best dry cleaner in town and have it cleaned so that no one can tell the difference.

That is not true.  The atonement essentially gives you a brand-new dress.  

The commonly recited LDS steps of repentance - do not have any basis in scripture.

Recognize your sins

Feel sorrow for your sins

Forsake your sins

Confess your sins

Make restitution

Forgive others

Keep the commandments / Endure to the end

Somehow it became a commonly recited process probably because some do-gooder wanted to break it down and make it into a business-type process. 

Try to find it in the scriptures.  It ain't there.  You can repent immediately from your sins.  You do not need a 12-step process. 

Sometimes ideas / policy enters into the LDS vernacular / policy due to a misunderstanding or hope to do good.

 

Take for example recycling.  Recycling is a good thing right?

 

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, mikbone said:

The commonly recited LDS steps of repentance - do not have any basis in scripture.

Recognize your sins
Feel sorrow for your sins
Forsake your sins
Confess your sins
Make restitution
Forgive others
Keep the commandments / Endure to the end

Somehow it became a commonly recited process probably because some do-gooder wanted to break it down and make it into a business-type process. 

It's my favorite chapter in the Gospel Principles book.   And the scriptural citations for each point are perhaps not too obvious, but they are there:

Recognize: Alma 42:29–30, Luke 16:15–16
Feel Sorrow: D&C 20:37, 2 Corinthians 7:9–10, Mormon 2:10–14
Forsake: D&C 58:43
Confess: D&C 61:2
Make Restitution: Ezekiel 33:15–16
Forgive Others: Nephi 13:14–15, D&C 64:9
Keep the Commandments:  D&C 1:32

 

I hear from lots of people that they don't like reducing repentance down to a checklist.  Some folks feel it cheapens or ignores or distracts from the atonement.   

I hear from other people, about how they have struggled mightily under the crushing burden of sin, and following this roadmap was what actually allowed them to avail themselves of the atonement.  That's me.  I'm "other people".

Plus, the first three steps are easy to memorize - you just have to know the country/western song by Tracy Bird called The Truth About Men. A case study on the unrepentant soul.  Just sing the chorus and do the opposite, and you're on your way to avail yourself of the atonement of Christ. 

And no matter what line we hand you, when we come dragging in,
We ain't wrong, we ain't sorry, and it's probably gonna happen again.

 

Edited December 13, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[mikbone]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

It's my favorite chapter in the Gospel Principles book.   And the scriptural citations for each point are perhaps not too obvious, but they are there:

Recognize: Alma 42:29–30, Luke 16:15–16
Feel Sorrow: D&C 20:37, 2 Corinthians 7:9–10, Mormon 2:10–14
Forsake: D&C 58:43
Confess: D&C 61:2
Make Restitution: Ezekiel 33:15–16
Forgive Others: Nephi 13:14–15, D&C 64:9
Keep the Commandments:  D&C 1:32

I hear from lots of people that they don't like reducing repentance down to a checklist.  Some folks feel it cheapens or ignores or distracts from the atonement.   

It's ok to have a favorite chapter.  And more power to you if you like a checklist and can make it work.   

I doubt that God wants us to dig through the Standard Works as you listed above to figure out how to repent.  It's not a hidden gem that needs to be uncovered.  

It's basic.  The Holy Ghost will guide us.

 

Edited December 13, 2024 by mikbone

[laronius]

4 hours ago, mikbone said:

 

The Atonement allows Jesus to essentially expunge our sins.

Expungement is a legal process that removes or seals criminal records, making them unavailable to the public.  If you have a criminal record that gets expunged, and you are applying for a job you can legally state that you have never had a criminal record.  Legally, the offense never occurred.  

Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ will not forget our sins.  They know everything.  But for all intents and purposes, they will act as if no sin occurred.  We will be allowed to enter into the Celestial Kingdom completely clean - if we receive a remission of our sins.

 

This is essentially what I had in mind when posing the question. This is more than just a removal of the eternal consequence of our sin. I think your criminal analogy is an apt one. A felon may have paid his debt to society but is forever a felon. This is why we are born again and become a new creature in Christ. The old us, the one who committed the sin, no longer exists. 

And yet the scriptures generally use the word forgiveness. Perhaps they are two sides of the same coin, one describing the initial payment of our debt because it must be paid (justification) and the other describing our rebirth (sanctification).

[laronius]

3 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

It's my favorite chapter in the Gospel Principles book.   And the scriptural citations for each point are perhaps not too obvious, but they are there:

Recognize: Alma 42:29–30, Luke 16:15–16
Feel Sorrow: D&C 20:37, 2 Corinthians 7:9–10, Mormon 2:10–14
Forsake: D&C 58:43
Confess: D&C 61:2
Make Restitution: Ezekiel 33:15–16
Forgive Others: Nephi 13:14–15, D&C 64:9
Keep the Commandments:  D&C 1:32

 

I hear from lots of people that they don't like reducing repentance down to a checklist.  Some folks feel it cheapens or ignores or distracts from the atonement.   

I hear from other people, about how they have struggled mightily under the crushing burden of sin, and following this roadmap was what actually allowed them to avail themselves of the atonement.  That's me.  I'm "other people".

Plus, the first three steps are easy to memorize - you just have to know the country/western song by Tracy Bird called The Truth About Men. A case study on the unrepentant soul.  Just sing the chorus and do the opposite, and you're on your way to avail yourself of the atonement of Christ. 

And no matter what line we hand you, when we come dragging in,
We ain't wrong, we ain't sorry, and it's probably gonna happen again.

 

I have zero problem breaking it down into these elements. I actually like doing this with many aspects of the gospel. The problem though is we can lose sight of the big picture if we aren't careful. 

[Still_Small_Voice]

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints teaches about repentance and Christ with the Holy Ghost cleansing our sins in a way I have heard no other religion teach about it.  The transformation that happens in one's life with the journey with Christ and Holy Ghost is life long and it is miraculous. 

I love the truth that the Gospel teaches that we participate with the Godhead in our own salvation.  Believing in Christ and accepting Him is the beginning.

The greatest miracle in the world is a person converting to Christ in my opinion.  The transformation of people in Christ is amazing.

Edited December 14, 2024 by Still_Small_Voice

[NeuroTypical]

16 hours ago, mikbone said:

I doubt that God wants us to dig through the Standard Works as you listed above to figure out how to repent.  It's not a hidden gem that needs to be uncovered.  

It's basic.  The Holy Ghost will guide us.

As a self-appointed spokesperson for the plethora of people who heard that stuff and exited the church over how little help such things were, lemme just opine that perhaps God has numerous paths his unique and diverse children can take to avail themselves of the simple miracle of the atonement.

I recognized the holy ghost for the first time when I was 25.  By that time I had already been inactive for years, leaving at 18 after being buried under the shameful insufficiency revealed in myself through such opinions.  It sucks to be surrounded by people who all nod their head in agreement at such things, then look at you like there's something wrong with you.  I've got decades of growth and maturity and testimony behind me now, but back then my response was "Fine, screw all of you then.  Enjoy the blessings that are apparently for all of you, but not for me."  May the Lord preserve his children from the good people in his church. 

Anyway, turning down the emotional tone, I had to figure out a few things.  First, I'm not as bright as the next person over.  Whatever combination of nature and nurture brought me here, I'm thick-skulled, not a good student, often struggling and failing to hear or read things and comprehend them, much less evaluate or accept or internalize them.  That chapter gave me what I needed - small, bite sized principles that I could think about one chunk at a time. 

There was stuff I needed to be rid of in order to be a disciple of Christ, someone who brought a broken heart and contrite spirit, someone worthy and able to avail myself of the atonement and let it work in me.  At the bottom of it all, I climbed up out of it like this: 

Recognize: Do I even have a grasp on what I did wrong?  Trauma-impacted memory issues made it impossible to even think about such things.   

Feel Sorrow: I didn't learn how to actually feel my own emotions until my mid-'40's.  Before then was nothing but fear and dread. 

Forsake: Had this one nailed.  For all the people who struggle with addictions and habits and whatnot, I found it the easiest thing in the world to just stand there with a dumb look on my face and not commit sin.  It was hard to do anything or take a risk, out of fear that I'd somehow screw things up out of sheer stupidity.

Confess: It took years before I could even say the words out loud, much less pray them out or confess them to a human.  Years.  Years of effort.   

Make Restitution: Had to deeply delve into this one over time.  Maybe a dozen specific individuals.  Half of them I couldn't even remember their names, much less know where they lived.  

Forgive Others: Had to fight for a healthy perspective here.  It's not about forgiving others when you deeply believe you are a net evil to humanity, and deserve whatever bad treatment you get.

Keep the Commandments: The Mikbones of the world yelling about how simple things are, and the fretful handwringers who show up to their talk with a 30 page stack of papers listing all the commandments, and everyone in between.  Every one of them convinced of their own correctness.  I doubt I would have survived in the church were it not for the Gospel Principles manual, and a bishop who figured I could learn best by giving the calling of instructor. 

 

Anyway, that checklist, coupled with soul searching, scripture reading, some counseling, learning lessons on how to human years after everyone else, coupled with intentional effort across a lot of years, and eventually it finally got as simple as Mikbone said it always was.  Hindsight tends to be 20/20, and I still see no shorter path I could have taken to transformation in Christ that I love as much as Still_Small_Voice.  

 

If it's ok with 'yall, I'll remain a fan of that chapter. 

Edited December 14, 2024 by NeuroTypical

[zil2]

2 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

As a self-appointed spokesperson for the plethora of people who heard that stuff and exited the church over how little help such things were, lemme just opine that perhaps God has numerous paths his unique and diverse children can take to avail themselves of the simple miracle of the atonement.

I recognized the holy ghost for the first time when I was 25.  By that time I had already been inactive for years, leaving at 18 after being buried under the shameful insufficiency revealed in myself through such opinions.  It sucks to be surrounded by people who all nod their head in agreement at such things, then look at you like there's something wrong with you.  I've got decades of growth and maturity and testimony behind me now, but back then my response was "Fine, screw all of you then.  Enjoy the blessings that are apparently for all of you, but not for me."  May the Lord preserve his children from the good people in his church. 

Anyway, turning down the emotional tone, I had to figure out a few things.  First, I'm not as bright as the next person over.  Whatever combination of nature and nurture brought me here, I'm thick-skulled, not a good student, often struggling and failing to hear or read things and comprehend them, much less evaluate or accept or internalize them.

Triple amen, and hallelujah!

From this forum, I learned that "trials" and "temptations" can be more than the usual mortal / temporal things I grew up hearing about, like financial, marriage, family, work problems; death, disease, illness, injury problems; addiction and sin problems; etc.  In addition to all that, I learned that there are spiritual trials: not getting the Sunday School Promises® despite doing all the Sunday School Answers®.  I used to be one of those ignorant, unrighteously-judging souls who thought that if you weren't getting the Promises®, you weren't really, sincerely doing the Answers®.  I have long since come to the conclusion I was wrong.  If one person's mortal trial can be the loss of a child, and another's can be struggling with addiction, then a third's can be struggling to receive answers to prayers.

From this forum and elsewhere, as well as my own very personal experiences, I have learned that we are so different from one another in terms of how we perceive and learn and think, that it's a wonder we can understand each other at all.  Truly, it's a miracle when two people understand each other well enough to work together toward the same goal.  And part of this means that what is "obvious" to one person is truly invisible to another - until someone finds a way to present the obvious so that the other person is able to understand.  (Don't go telling me one or the other of these people doesn't have / isn't following / isn't listening to the Spirit - that's an excuse not to put forth more effort.  God lets us struggle in our trials so that others have someone to help, and we learn.)

Guess who taught me how to study the scriptures.  Not my parents.  Not speakers in Sacrament or even General Conference.  Not Church instructors - not even in Seminary or Institute or BYU religion classes.  Those people taught me to study my scriptures.  They taught me why and how often.  They taught me what many of the scriptures teach.  But they didn't teach me how to study my scriptures - what to do other than read and "think".  You might be thinking, "Duh, what more is there than to read and think?"  Have you figured out who taught me? (I know you haven't.)  It wasn't the Lord or the Spirit (not directly, anyway) - probably because I didn't know I needed to ask.  I was doing what I learned from all those other people - regardless of what they intended to teach me (I can't know their intent) - it was what I learned.

And this is part of my point - sometimes, a person doesn't know there's more because people don't pursue, they dismiss with "the Spirit will teach you" and leave it at that.  Well, like NT said, some of us are dense.  We don't know what we don't know, and have no clue how to find out until we trip over our ignorance.

Jordan Peterson taught me how to study the scriptures.  Not because he understands the restored gospel - he doesn't (though he's often shockingly close - surely the Spirit is guiding him in a lot of things).  No, he understands abstraction.  He understands how to pull the core meaning out of a thing and explain it in a way that dense idiots like me understand.  Having heard two examples of how he did this with Biblical stories, it finally clicked in my head.  I was ashamed that I hadn't realized it on my own, because it was the exact same thing I'd been doing professionally for a decade or so - abstracting a process out of laboratories and writing software to capture said process and its data.  I was exceptional, professionally.  And a complete idiot when it came to learning from the scriptures.  I'm still mourning all my lost time.

Guess who taught me how  to pray (a thing I still struggle with).  It sure as heck wasn't the formulaic technique formerly listed in missionary (and other Church) materials like Preach My Gospel (thank heaven they took it out), nor was it anyone in the Church (with one exception) - since all I ever saw was people implementing that formula.  Nor, again, was it my parents, who followed the formula.  Not even teachers in classes trying to hint at how to have personal prayers, but never giving a good example (apparently I need examples to learn from, not instructions; and apparently everyone feels too awkward speaking examples that aren't actually prayer, so they dance around the subject rather than demonstrating).  It was two people: first, an Institute teacher who taught that every prayer should follow the pattern taught in the temple, only with the Spirit leading our personal prayers - telling us what to say.  Holy cow is that hard for me (except when praying publicly, oddly).  The second was @prisonchaplain, who put his Sunday School classes online during COVID, which I decided to watch.  Listening to his prayers broke through that formulaic wall for me and expanded my thinking of both how to pray and what to include in prayer.  (Thanks, PC.)

The sooner we can grasp the following concepts (and all the other things I failed to learn so far), the sooner we will better be able to minister to one another in ways that make a difference:

• Spiritual trials are a thing, just like temporal trials are a thing... We should help people feel comfortable talking about their spiritual trials, rather than feeling like they're the only one...
• What you think you're teaching is very probably not what the other person is learning.  You need to find at least three very distinct ways of saying what you have to say, and include multiple concrete examples of implementation if you sincerely want the other person to learn.  You also need to not answer their questions with vague statements like "the Holy Ghost will guide you" (include that yes, but along with all the rest).  (I don't believe this is a failure on anyone's part, per se.  I think it is the curse of Babel, and a systemic problem of using the same jargon, techniques, and examples over and over, without sufficient implementation examples, and without going into the why and how.  Thankfully, we've been increasingly moving away from using the same rote methods toward exploration of the variety of ways the gospel is understood and implemented in our lives - yet another reason for us to teach one another in class discussions rather than class lectures.)
• People can do what they're taught in Church, sincerely believe they are doing it as taught, and still not get the Sunday School Promises® - whether because it's a trial the Lord is allowing them to experience, or because what they learned isn't what the teacher intended, or whatever other reason - we need to understand that this is an honest possibility, not necessarily a personal failing on the part of the one not receiving the Promises®...

Understanding those things can help us to help one another in ways that bring greater understanding rather than confusion or discouragement like NT described.  He was driven away, and I thought I had learned, only to be woefully unprepared for the past 7 or 8 years of my life because I only saw the surface of the water, not what was beneath...

These days, I have exactly one Sunday School Promise® to offer: Life is better following Christ than not following Christ - even when life following Christ seems awful, it's still better than when not following Christ.  That promise is always true for everyone (even when it may not seem like it to everyone).  The other promises may or may not be true for everyone.

Sorry if that came off as a rant.  I'm hoping it might help someone to teach or minister to another who's on the verge of being driven away or who is missing out on further light and understanding because they don't realize there was more to the story...

[Traveler]

On 12/13/2024 at 6:34 AM, laronius said:

In the LDS faith do we make a distinction between forgiveness of sins and remission of sins?

The AI generated response to the question of what's the difference (not specifically LDS) says this:

While often used interchangeably, "forgiveness" generally refers to the act of letting go of resentment or anger towards someone who has wronged you, while "remission of sins" implies a more legalistic concept, signifying the complete removal or cancellation of one's sins, often used in a religious context to describe the act of God "wiping away" sins through Jesus Christ's sacrifice; essentially, "remission" denotes a more absolute and final release from the consequences of sin, whereas "forgiveness" can involve a personal emotional process of letting go of negative feelings towards someone who has offended you. 

If we look up Remission of Sins in the LDS guide to the scriptures it kind of just equates it with forgiveness:

Forgiveness for wrongdoing upon condition of repentance.

But it seems like from our viewpoint we do make a distinction between simply saying that the consequences of our sins are removed vs the sin itself is in essence removed.

Is there really a distinction to be made here? Are they just different ways of describing the same thing? Or is there a distinction but different terms need to be used?

I have pondered the difference between forgiveness and remission of sins.  I think the difference is similar to the difference between justice and mercy. 

I believe that G-d (including the Son of G-d – Jesus the Christ) forgive every sin committed by every being – including even the sins of Lucifer (Satan).  I believe that sins are forgiven through acts of mercy.  But sins are only remitted or redeemed through justice and fulfilling justice.

Justice demands that only those complicit can be punished  or suffer for sin.  It is not justice for someone that is innocent to suffer because of the sins of others.  Justice demands that such is not possible. The great question that we must ask ourselves is why or how could Christ suffer because the atonement for our sins?  In part this is related to why Jesus is the only one that could justly suffer or take upon him our sins.

Now things are going to get a bit dicey in order to understand the atonement and the redemption of our sins during our fallen state.  In our LDS scriptures of the restoration we understand that without law there cannot be sin because a sin is a transgression of the law.  In our fallen state we do not have knowledge of good and evil, but we must live by faith.   We do not have knowledge of the eternal consequences of sin.  We cannot imagine the death we suffer in eternity for even the tiniest most inconsequential sin.  Yet justice demands that those complicit suffer the full extent of the law.

I believe and have logically concluded that the reason Jesus the Christ is able to suffer and atone for our sins is because he is complicit.  He is complicit because he is the proctor of our agency.  He is also the means by which we become mortal and allowed to sin with elements of ignorance.  Because Jesus is Jehovah, he is the G-d of the fallen and the one that allows Satan to tempt us.  Because of his role he has a level of complicity though he, himself, is without sin.  Therefore, he can suffer and redeem our sins.

Never-the-less we are warned that sin can still have hold on us despite that Christ has redeemed us from our sins.  Sin will still have power over us if we do not repent.  Why?  Because that spirit that has power over us will remain with us in eternity.  We must turn from our sins and sin no more because if we continue to look upon sin with even the thoughts of our lusts we are guilty and under the power of sin.  That sin will have power over us so that because of our agency in desiring sin, the redemption of the atonement no longer has power to free us from sin in the eternities and it is like no redemption was made (as explained in the Book of Mormon).

 

The Traveler

[laronius]

On 12/14/2024 at 11:35 AM, zil2 said:

These days, I have exactly one Sunday School Promise® to offer: Life is better following Christ than not following Christ - even when life following Christ seems awful, it's still better than when not following Christ.  That promise is always true for everyone (even when it may not seem like it to everyone).  The other promises may or may not be true for everyone.

 

There are a lot of promises we can and should teach in the scriptures. Such as Moroni 10:5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.

The problem is when we add commentary. I think at times commentary can be helpful in unfolding sometimes difficult to understand scriptures. This is especially true when teaching young people or those newer to the gospel. But we need to be very clear in distinguishing between the doctrine and examples of application. And helping others learn how to be taught by the Spirit is something I don't think we put enough emphasis on at times.