What does it mean to "confess and forsake" sin?

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by Archaea

As we are not a creedal church, those declarations by an apostle, while perhaps persuasive, are not doctrinal in the purest sense.

This is hard for religionists who come from a historical perspective, where the ancient theologians defined and define their religion, to the denigration of the present. In a living church, there will always be refinements, rejections, redefinitions and realizations that open up new meanings.

It shouldn't be too hard for AShaf to get as he can find preachers from one Christian congregation to another that will disagree on this same issue.

[aaronshaf]

I take the position that Mormonism has no real official doctrine, and therefore discussion over what constitutes official doctrine is normally fruitless and counterproductive.

http://www.mormonwiki.org/Difficulti...ormon_doctrine

Instead, we're better off approaching the issue asking: What have Mormon leaders authoritatively taught? What is generally accepted by church members as something they believe they are expected to believe?

[scottie]

Originally Posted by YOhio

Rplease Rstop Rbothering Rus Rand Rgo Rhome.

YOhio doesn't speak for all of us -- I appreciate your contributions Aaron. Everyone is welcome here.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

I take the position that Mormonism has no real official doctrine, and therefore discussion over what constitutes official doctrine is normally fruitless and counterproductive.

http://www.mormonwiki.org/Difficulti...ormon_doctrine

Instead, we're better off approaching the issue asking: What have Mormon leaders authoritatively taught? What is generally accepted by church members as something they believe they are expected to believe?

Perhaps. However, as you are not an adherent, simply looking at snapshots in time, as opposed to attending weekly meetings where the teachings grow and evolve, you would not be in a position to know what is CURRENTLY being taught by word of mouth or from the pulpit. Simply looking at isolated snapshots is interesting but probably not very useful.

[Archaea]

For example, even though some may view this as heresy, I'm not a big fan of the Miracle of Forgiveness, as it seems very punitive, dark and brooding and is counter to what many mental health professionals would counsel their clientele. It's very adolescent in its approach, and not very useful to members at large.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Archaea

For example, even though some may view this as heresy, I'm not a big fan of the Miracle of Forgiveness, as it seems very punitive, dark and brooding and is counter to what many mental health professionals would counsel their clientele. It's very adolescent in its approach, and not very useful to members at large.

Holy crap. I thought it was one of the best books written by President David O. McKay.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BYU71

Holy crap. I thought it was one of the best books written by President McKay.

Too bad Kimball wrote it.

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Archaea

Too bad Kimball wrote it.

Really

[aaronshaf]

Thanks, scottie.

Archaea,

Perhaps. However, as you are not an adherent, simply looking at snapshots in time, as opposed to attending weekly meetings where the teachings grow and evolve, you would not be in a position to know what is CURRENTLY being taught by word of mouth or from the pulpit. Simply looking at isolated snapshots is interesting but probably not very useful.

The MoF isn't irrelevant in my view for three reasons:

1. He was an apostle when he wrote it, and then became a prophet. The book has been given multiple accolades at General Conference, and is quoted by currently used, correlated church manuals (check out the latter end of chapter 39 of Gospel Principles). If a Mormon comes to disagree with some fundamental tenets (and not just the tone!) of the book regarding repentance and forgiveness, he or she needs to ask hard questions about the trustworthiness of Mormon leadership (who are supposed to be prophets, apostles, seers, and revelators!) on core issues of Christianity.

2. The book remains a strong sell at Deseret Book, and is still to this day recommended by bishops to those who fall into certain sins (especially sexual). It is still in the collective consciousness of the Mormon people. It rivals Believing Christ not only in content, but in popularity.

3. The tenets of the book are a wonderful, explicit working-out of implications of some Mormon beliefs. Kimball bluntly states some necessary (perfectionistic) implications of a Mormon definition of repentance that I think people should take seriously. I frequently encourage Mormons to read this book and then compare it to Paul's letter to the Romans.

That said, I agree that one cannot simply look at a snapshot. And that is why I also look at things like True to the Faith. Under "Repentance" (132–35; click "additional information" here), it in content leans far more to Kimball's view of repentance as a series of around five steps (which include restitution, successful abandonment of the sin, and keeping the commandments) which must be completed before forgiveness is received.

I also consider the collective experience of myself and others who do evangelical ministry to the Mormon people. And from that it's clear that Mormons tend to think that if a person is fully and completely forgiven for all sins, then that person must be perfect. Why? Because they in many ways are still hanging onto Kimball's perfectionistic definition of repentance. When I tell many Mormons that all my sins have been forgiven, a common response is, "What, do you think you're perfect, then?"

"Eternal life hangs in the balance awaiting the works of men. This process toward eternal life is a matter of achieving perfection. Living all the commandments guarantees total forgiveness of sins and assures one of exaltation through the perfection which comes by complying with the formula the Lord gave us... 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 for their benefit and which was not attainable. Perfection therefore is an achievable goal." (p. 208)

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by aaronshaf

Thanks, scottie.

Archaea,



The MoF isn't irrelevant in my view for three reasons:

1. He was an apostle when he wrote it, and then became a prophet. The book has been given multiple accolades at General Conference, and is quoted by currently used, correlated church manuals (check out the latter end of chapter 39 of Gospel Principles). If a Mormon comes to disagree with some fundamental tenets (and not just the tone!) of the book regarding repentance and forgiveness, he or she needs to ask hard questions about the trustworthiness of Mormon leadership (who are supposed to be prophets, seers, and revelators!) on core issues of Christianity.

2. The book remains a strong sell at Deseret Book, and is still to this day recommended by bishops to those who fall into certain sins (especially sexual). It is still in the collective consciousness of the Mormon people. It rivals Believing Christ not only in content, but in popularity.

3. The tenets of the book are a wonderful, explicit working-out of implications of some Mormon beliefs. Kimball bluntly states some necessary (perfectionistic) implications of a Mormon definition of repentance that I think people should take seriously. I frequently encourage Mormons to read this book and then compare it to Paul's letter to the Romans.

That said, I agree that one cannot simply look at a snapshot. And that is why I also look at things like True to the Faith. Under "Repentance" (132–35; click "additional information" here), it in content leans far more to Kimball's view of repentance as a series of around five steps (which include restitution, successful abandonment of the sin, and keeping the commandments) which must be completed before forgiveness is received.

I also consider the collective experience of myself and others who do evangelical ministry to the Mormon people. And from that it's clear that Mormons tend to think that if a person is fully and completely forgiven for all sins, then that person must be perfect. Why? Because they in many ways are still hanging onto Kimball's perfectionistic definition of repentance. When I tell many Mormons that all my sins have been forgiven, a common response is, "What, do you think you're perfect, then?"

You can't accept both Believing Christ and MoF as LDS doctrine. They're diametrically opposed at times. You also can't say that a reference quoted in general conference or in current teaching material is an endorsement of the entire book.

I appreciate your approach the last couple days, though, AShaf. If you continue with that style of dialogue, people will pay more attention to your content.