Thoughts on daily repentance

[Mamabear]

The fact that some people would contradict themselves in their own sentences leads me to believe that they dont understand what they are saying.

You can think whatever you want about me. I meant those that don’t sin every day don’t need to repent.

Pres Nelson said to repent daily...whats wrong with that? You just said that some people sin daily proving Pres Nelsons statement correct.
If you don't sin daily then disregard his statement as not being applicable for you but still applies to others.

The natural man is an enemy to God, every day you wake up you are in sin, how you decide to translate that into your own spiritual progression is up to you. Repent daily is great advice.

“Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day. Daily transgression and daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God.”
Joseph Smith, History of the Church 3:379; from a discourse given on June 27, 1839; Reported by Willard Richards

Proponents of daily repentance seem to deny the kind of "mighty change of heart"ideal found in the Book of Mormon.

A Hebrews passage comes to mind:
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Hebrews 6:4-6

Amen. Thank you.
A mighty change of heart comes and then sin can happen less frequently.
However, this doctrine is not taught and that is why there is confusion on the subject….we constantly hear messages that don’t match what the scriptures say.

[nvr]

The fact that some people would contradict themselves in their own sentences leads me to believe that they dont understand what they are saying.

You can think whatever you want about me. I meant those that don’t sin every day don’t need to repent.

Pres Nelson said to repent daily...whats wrong with that? You just said that some people sin daily proving Pres Nelsons statement correct.
If you don't sin daily then disregard his statement as not being applicable for you but still applies to others.

The natural man is an enemy to God, every day you wake up you are in sin, how you decide to translate that into your own spiritual progression is up to you. Repent daily is great advice.

“Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day. Daily transgression and daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God.”
Joseph Smith, History of the Church 3:379; from a discourse given on June 27, 1839; Reported by Willard Richards

Proponents of daily repentance seem to deny the kind of "mighty change of heart"ideal found in the Book of Mormon.

A Hebrews passage comes to mind:
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,
6 If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.
Hebrews 6:4-6

Puts things into perspective to what it means to repent. A scenario comes to mind of offending someone and then apologizing for it, only to do it again and apologize again the next day. Ask any wife how that goes - does she think you're sincere when making the sixth apology?
Perhaps Pres. Nelson's alluding to the scenario of repenting for one issue then moving on to another issue the next day. Repenting day after day for the same issue may mean something's not right in the person's recognize - remorse - resolve - reform - restitution process.

[Luke]

Perfect = justified and sanctified by and through the grace of Christ

[TheDuke]

Thanks Luke: that says what exactly about the OP?

It is "daily" is like comparing continual to continuous. It means regular. Do you think we need sacrament every week? or just once in a blue moon, when you finally sin? Jesus commanded both. My point is simply it is a commandment (to regularly repent) and to regularly take sacrament as part of the repentance process. Anyone who thinks they are perfect on any given day needs to reread King Ben's speech from his tower. Not saying we commit big sins, but we do fall into the transgression and infirmities area every single day, as we live here. It may not be necessary to acknowledge that EVERY day as you say but it is "picking nits" to say that when the current prophet says it, he is wrong. It is what has been said since Jesus' day. Perhaps wording is different and "daily" is more "regularly". But again, the entire thread pointed at RMN is an unnecessary attack IMO. It may be well to talk about how to take repentance more seriously. But, then the tone would be more about validity and requirements for repentance not an attack or claiming some don't sin on a given day, which is obvious.

[heliocentr1c]

Repentance is for everyone, anytime. But I have had to reteach myself and family that repentance is not needed daily if you don’t sin every day. Some of us do, some of us don’t. So when the leaders like Nelson said in the past to repent daily, they do not understand the doctrine.

“And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.
32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Luke 5:31-32

Also, some can achieve perfection in this life. Noah and others did. This enables us to come into the presence of the Father and the Son in this life.

“And thus Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord; for Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation; and he walked with God, as did also his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.“ Moses 8:27

“Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect.“ 3 Nephi 48

“All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and they to whom the Son will reveal himself; they shall see the Father also.“ Matthew 11:27

There’s far too much wrong with this to go through it step by step, but if you’re tempted to entertain this false doctrine as plausible, just know that OP didn’t even take the time to understand the differences between the Hebrew and Greek understanding and usage of the idea of “perfect”. Sloppy, sloppy analysis… terrifying conclusion.

Exactly! Im not the sharpest tool in the shed to be judging others analysis but for the OP to say "RMN doesnt understand doctrine" yet her own understanding of scripture is way off while contradicting her own words, wow!!

Looks like JS disagrees w you:

“Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day. Daily transgression and daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 73).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... t?lang=eng

It’s actually posted on the LDS church’s website. So if JS is advocating against daily repentance, and Nelson is for it and you’re also for it…. Who’s contradicting who?

Whose analysis is “sloppy”? Whose conclusion is terrifying?

Is it embarrassing to be contradicted by JS? Wow!!

[OPMissionary]

Repentance is for everyone, anytime. But I have had to reteach myself and family that repentance is not needed daily if you don’t sin every day. Some of us do, some of us don’t. So when the leaders like Nelson said in the past to repent daily, they do not understand the doctrine.

“And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.
32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Luke 5:31-32

Also, some can achieve perfection in this life. Noah and others did. This enables us to come into the presence of the Father and the Son in this life.

“And thus Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord; for Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation; and he walked with God, as did also his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.“ Moses 8:27

“Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect.“ 3 Nephi 48

“All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and they to whom the Son will reveal himself; they shall see the Father also.“ Matthew 11:27

There’s far too much wrong with this to go through it step by step, but if you’re tempted to entertain this false doctrine as plausible, just know that OP didn’t even take the time to understand the differences between the Hebrew and Greek understanding and usage of the idea of “perfect”. Sloppy, sloppy analysis… terrifying conclusion.

Exactly! Im not the sharpest tool in the shed to be judging others analysis but for the OP to say "RMN doesnt understand doctrine" yet her own understanding of scripture is way off while contradicting her own words, wow!!

Looks like JS disagrees w you:

“Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day. Daily transgression and daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 73).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... t?lang=eng

It’s actually posted on the LDS church’s website. So if JS is advocating against daily repentance, and Nelson is for it and you’re also for it…. Who’s contradicting who?

Whose analysis is “sloppy”? Whose conclusion is terrifying?

Is it embarrassing to be contradicted by JS? Wow!!

I agree with Joseph and disagree with Nelson here. Repentance is no small thing. If you've had yourself a good, wholesome day and haven't transgressed against the law, what in the world are you supposed to be repenting of?

Glad to see brother Joseph coming in as the voice of reason once again.

[Artaxerxes]

Repentance is for everyone, anytime. But I have had to reteach myself and family that repentance is not needed daily if you don’t sin every day. Some of us do, some of us don’t. So when the leaders like Nelson said in the past to repent daily, they do not understand the doctrine.

“And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.
32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Luke 5:31-32

Also, some can achieve perfection in this life. Noah and others did. This enables us to come into the presence of the Father and the Son in this life.

“And thus Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord; for Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation; and he walked with God, as did also his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.“ Moses 8:27

“Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect.“ 3 Nephi 48

“All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and they to whom the Son will reveal himself; they shall see the Father also.“ Matthew 11:27

There’s far too much wrong with this to go through it step by step, but if you’re tempted to entertain this false doctrine as plausible, just know that OP didn’t even take the time to understand the differences between the Hebrew and Greek understanding and usage of the idea of “perfect”. Sloppy, sloppy analysis… terrifying conclusion.

Exactly! Im not the sharpest tool in the shed to be judging others analysis but for the OP to say "RMN doesnt understand doctrine" yet her own understanding of scripture is way off while contradicting her own words, wow!!

Looks like JS disagrees w you:

“Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day. Daily transgression and daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 73).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... t?lang=eng

It’s actually posted on the LDS church’s website. So if JS is advocating against daily repentance, and Nelson is for it and you’re also for it…. Who’s contradicting who?

Whose analysis is “sloppy”? Whose conclusion is terrifying?

Is it embarrassing to be contradicted by JS? Wow!!

He very obviously is not teaching against daily repentance. He was speaking against daily sinning, even if they repent.

To repent means to change. You don't think that people should change every day?

[heliocentr1c]

There’s far too much wrong with this to go through it step by step, but if you’re tempted to entertain this false doctrine as plausible, just know that OP didn’t even take the time to understand the differences between the Hebrew and Greek understanding and usage of the idea of “perfect”. Sloppy, sloppy analysis… terrifying conclusion.

Exactly! Im not the sharpest tool in the shed to be judging others analysis but for the OP to say "RMN doesnt understand doctrine" yet her own understanding of scripture is way off while contradicting her own words, wow!!

Looks like JS disagrees w you:

“Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day. Daily transgression and daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 73).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... t?lang=eng

It’s actually posted on the LDS church’s website. So if JS is advocating against daily repentance, and Nelson is for it and you’re also for it…. Who’s contradicting who?

Whose analysis is “sloppy”? Whose conclusion is terrifying?

Is it embarrassing to be contradicted by JS? Wow!!

He very obviously is not teaching against daily repentance. He was speaking against daily sinning, even if they repent.

To repent means to change. You don't think that people should change every day?

Honestly don’t mean to be rude, just want to double check- Are you sure you know how to read critically?

I’m just taking JS at his word dude. The quote literally says:

“daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God“

When JS says “daily repentance isn’t pleasing”, I just assume that’s what he means.

Are you trying to argue that when he says, point blank in his exact words (which are literally quoted on the LDS website itself):

“Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day. Daily transgression and daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 73)

He means something other than “repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with everyday”?

Do you need reading glasses or something?

Are you trying to do one of those things like the Mormon progressives do, where they read into the text a bunch of stuff they just made up, like how the entire BoM is just an “allegory” and all the stuff written in it is just “metaphorical”? How much plainer do you need JS to be?

I’m not even sure why I’m taking the time to respond to this frankly…..do you honestly needed it spelled out for you? He literally says it verbatim dude.

If you wanna say the word repentance is being used in a different sense, that’s fine, but then how do you know the OP wasn’t using it in the same sense JS was in this quote?

It’s like trying to get blood from a turnip sometimes around here.

[Artaxerxes]

Exactly! Im not the sharpest tool in the shed to be judging others analysis but for the OP to say "RMN doesnt understand doctrine" yet her own understanding of scripture is way off while contradicting her own words, wow!!

Looks like JS disagrees w you:

“Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day. Daily transgression and daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 73).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... t?lang=eng

It’s actually posted on the LDS church’s website. So if JS is advocating against daily repentance, and Nelson is for it and you’re also for it…. Who’s contradicting who?

Whose analysis is “sloppy”? Whose conclusion is terrifying?

Is it embarrassing to be contradicted by JS? Wow!!

He very obviously is not teaching against daily repentance. He was speaking against daily sinning, even if they repent.

To repent means to change. You don't think that people should change every day?

Honestly don’t mean to be rude, just want to double check- Are you sure you know how to read critically?

I’m just taking JS at his word dude. The quote literally says:

“daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God“

When JS says “daily repentance isn’t pleasing”, I just assume that’s what he means.

Are you trying to argue that when he says, point blank in his exact words (which are literally quoted on the LDS website itself):

“Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day. Daily transgression and daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 73)

He means something other than “repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with everyday”?

Do you need reading glasses or something?

Are you trying to do one of those things like the Mormon progressives do, where they read into the text a bunch of stuff they just made up, like how the entire BoM is just an “allegory” and all the stuff written in it is just “metaphorical”? How much plainer do you need JS to be?

I’m not even sure why I’m taking the time to respond to this frankly…..do you honestly needed it spelled out for you? He literally says it verbatim dude.

If you wanna say the word repentance is being used in a different sense, that’s fine, but then how do you know the OP wasn’t using it in the same sense JS was in this quote?

It’s like trying to get blood from a turnip sometimes around here.

I mean, if you cut off half of a sentence, you can make it mean anything you want.

I don't mean to be ride, but are you sure you know what conjunctions are? Do you need reading glasses? Do you need it spelled out for you?

[endlessQuestions]

Repentance is for everyone, anytime. But I have had to reteach myself and family that repentance is not needed daily if you don’t sin every day. Some of us do, some of us don’t. So when the leaders like Nelson said in the past to repent daily, they do not understand the doctrine.

“And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.
32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Luke 5:31-32

Also, some can achieve perfection in this life. Noah and others did. This enables us to come into the presence of the Father and the Son in this life.

“And thus Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord; for Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation; and he walked with God, as did also his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.“ Moses 8:27

“Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect.“ 3 Nephi 48

“All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and they to whom the Son will reveal himself; they shall see the Father also.“ Matthew 11:27

There’s far too much wrong with this to go through it step by step, but if you’re tempted to entertain this false doctrine as plausible, just know that OP didn’t even take the time to understand the differences between the Hebrew and Greek understanding and usage of the idea of “perfect”. Sloppy, sloppy analysis… terrifying conclusion.

Exactly! Im not the sharpest tool in the shed to be judging others analysis but for the OP to say "RMN doesnt understand doctrine" yet her own understanding of scripture is way off while contradicting her own words, wow!!

Looks like JS disagrees w you:

“Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day. Daily transgression and daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 73).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... t?lang=eng

It’s actually posted on the LDS church’s website. So if JS is advocating against daily repentance, and Nelson is for it and you’re also for it…. Who’s contradicting who?

Whose analysis is “sloppy”? Whose conclusion is terrifying?

Is it embarrassing to be contradicted by JS? Wow!!

If y’all don’t understand what that quote means, I’m not sure how to help you. Try reading it more slowly, I guess?

[heliocentr1c]

Looks like JS disagrees w you:

“Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day. Daily transgression and daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 73).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... t?lang=eng

It’s actually posted on the LDS church’s website. So if JS is advocating against daily repentance, and Nelson is for it and you’re also for it…. Who’s contradicting who?

Whose analysis is “sloppy”? Whose conclusion is terrifying?

Is it embarrassing to be contradicted by JS? Wow!!

He very obviously is not teaching against daily repentance. He was speaking against daily sinning, even if they repent.

To repent means to change. You don't think that people should change every day?

Honestly don’t mean to be rude, just want to double check- Are you sure you know how to read critically?

I’m just taking JS at his word dude. The quote literally says:

“daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God“

When JS says “daily repentance isn’t pleasing”, I just assume that’s what he means.

Are you trying to argue that when he says, point blank in his exact words (which are literally quoted on the LDS website itself):

“Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day. Daily transgression and daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 73)

He means something other than “repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with everyday”?

Do you need reading glasses or something?

Are you trying to do one of those things like the Mormon progressives do, where they read into the text a bunch of stuff they just made up, like how the entire BoM is just an “allegory” and all the stuff written in it is just “metaphorical”? How much plainer do you need JS to be?

I’m not even sure why I’m taking the time to respond to this frankly…..do you honestly needed it spelled out for you? He literally says it verbatim dude.

If you wanna say the word repentance is being used in a different sense, that’s fine, but then how do you know the OP wasn’t using it in the same sense JS was in this quote?

It’s like trying to get blood from a turnip sometimes around here.

I mean, if you cut off half of a sentence, you can make it mean anything you want.

I don't mean to be ride, but are you sure you know what conjunctions are? Do you need reading glasses? Do you need it spelled out for you?

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

All you really have to do is read the quote. He literally says, verbatim “daily repentance is not pleasing…” so in some sense that must be true or else he was wrong.

If it’s between your personal, private interpretation of what repentance means and JS’s teaching, think I’m going to give JS a little more weight than some random poster who says

He very obviously is not teaching against daily repentance

When the direct quote literally says:

“Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day. Daily transgression and daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 73).

That’s the entirety of the quote as quoted on the church’s own website. So if I’m taking it out of context or cutting him off, then the LDS church is too. That entire quote was posted in my initial reply.

If you want to read something into it, that’s on you my friend.

[heliocentr1c]

There’s far too much wrong with this to go through it step by step, but if you’re tempted to entertain this false doctrine as plausible, just know that OP didn’t even take the time to understand the differences between the Hebrew and Greek understanding and usage of the idea of “perfect”. Sloppy, sloppy analysis… terrifying conclusion.

Exactly! Im not the sharpest tool in the shed to be judging others analysis but for the OP to say "RMN doesnt understand doctrine" yet her own understanding of scripture is way off while contradicting her own words, wow!!

Looks like JS disagrees w you:

“Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day. Daily transgression and daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 73).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... t?lang=eng

It’s actually posted on the LDS church’s website. So if JS is advocating against daily repentance, and Nelson is for it and you’re also for it…. Who’s contradicting who?

Whose analysis is “sloppy”? Whose conclusion is terrifying?

Is it embarrassing to be contradicted by JS? Wow!!

If y’all don’t understand what that quote means, I’m not sure how to help you. Try reading it more slowly, I guess?

I’m thinking it probably means:

“Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day.”

That’s literally the first sentence of the quote.

Seems pretty self evident to me.

[Artaxerxes]

He very obviously is not teaching against daily repentance. He was speaking against daily sinning, even if they repent.

To repent means to change. You don't think that people should change every day?

Honestly don’t mean to be rude, just want to double check- Are you sure you know how to read critically?

I’m just taking JS at his word dude. The quote literally says:

“daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God“

When JS says “daily repentance isn’t pleasing”, I just assume that’s what he means.

Are you trying to argue that when he says, point blank in his exact words (which are literally quoted on the LDS website itself):

“Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day. Daily transgression and daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 73)

He means something other than “repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with everyday”?

Do you need reading glasses or something?

Are you trying to do one of those things like the Mormon progressives do, where they read into the text a bunch of stuff they just made up, like how the entire BoM is just an “allegory” and all the stuff written in it is just “metaphorical”? How much plainer do you need JS to be?

I’m not even sure why I’m taking the time to respond to this frankly…..do you honestly needed it spelled out for you? He literally says it verbatim dude.

If you wanna say the word repentance is being used in a different sense, that’s fine, but then how do you know the OP wasn’t using it in the same sense JS was in this quote?

It’s like trying to get blood from a turnip sometimes around here.

I mean, if you cut off half of a sentence, you can make it mean anything you want.

I don't mean to be ride, but are you sure you know what conjunctions are? Do you need reading glasses? Do you need it spelled out for you?

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

All you really have to do is read the quote. He literally says, verbatim “daily repentance is not pleasing…” so in some sense that must be true or else he was wrong.

If it’s between your personal, private interpretation of what repentance means and JS’s teaching, think I’m going to give JS a little more weight than some random poster who says

He very obviously is not teaching against daily repentance

When the direct quote literally says:

“Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day. Daily transgression and daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 73).

That’s the entirety of the quote as quoted on the church’s own website. So if I’m taking it out of context or cutting him off, then the LDS church is too. That entire quote was posted in my initial reply.

If you want to read something into it, that’s on you my friend.

Yes, if you cut out half of the sentence, you can make things day all kinds of things.

You're not taking it out of context when you quote the whole paragraph, who's meaning is very plain. You do take it out of context when you only quote half of the sentence, which yo infrequently do.

I'm not reading anything into it. I'm just not taking half of the sentence out of it.

[Artaxerxes]

Exactly! Im not the sharpest tool in the shed to be judging others analysis but for the OP to say "RMN doesnt understand doctrine" yet her own understanding of scripture is way off while contradicting her own words, wow!!

Looks like JS disagrees w you:

“Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day. Daily transgression and daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 73).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... t?lang=eng

It’s actually posted on the LDS church’s website. So if JS is advocating against daily repentance, and Nelson is for it and you’re also for it…. Who’s contradicting who?

Whose analysis is “sloppy”? Whose conclusion is terrifying?

Is it embarrassing to be contradicted by JS? Wow!!

If y’all don’t understand what that quote means, I’m not sure how to help you. Try reading it more slowly, I guess?

I’m thinking it probably means:

“Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day.”

That’s literally the first sentence of the quote.

Seems pretty self evident to me.

Yes. It shouldn't be trifled with. Great point! Pres
Nelson certainly wasn't saying that it should be trifled with, either every day, or every year, or ever.

[heliocentr1c]

Honestly don’t mean to be rude, just want to double check- Are you sure you know how to read critically?

I’m just taking JS at his word dude. The quote literally says:

“daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God“

When JS says “daily repentance isn’t pleasing”, I just assume that’s what he means.

Are you trying to argue that when he says, point blank in his exact words (which are literally quoted on the LDS website itself):

“Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day. Daily transgression and daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 73)

He means something other than “repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with everyday”?

Do you need reading glasses or something?

Are you trying to do one of those things like the Mormon progressives do, where they read into the text a bunch of stuff they just made up, like how the entire BoM is just an “allegory” and all the stuff written in it is just “metaphorical”? How much plainer do you need JS to be?

I’m not even sure why I’m taking the time to respond to this frankly…..do you honestly needed it spelled out for you? He literally says it verbatim dude.

If you wanna say the word repentance is being used in a different sense, that’s fine, but then how do you know the OP wasn’t using it in the same sense JS was in this quote?

It’s like trying to get blood from a turnip sometimes around here.

I mean, if you cut off half of a sentence, you can make it mean anything you want.

I don't mean to be ride, but are you sure you know what conjunctions are? Do you need reading glasses? Do you need it spelled out for you?

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

All you really have to do is read the quote. He literally says, verbatim “daily repentance is not pleasing…” so in some sense that must be true or else he was wrong.

If it’s between your personal, private interpretation of what repentance means and JS’s teaching, think I’m going to give JS a little more weight than some random poster who says

He very obviously is not teaching against daily repentance

When the direct quote literally says:

“Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day. Daily transgression and daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 73).

That’s the entirety of the quote as quoted on the church’s own website. So if I’m taking it out of context or cutting him off, then the LDS church is too. That entire quote was posted in my initial reply.

If you want to read something into it, that’s on you my friend.

Yes, if you cut out half of the sentence, you can make things day all kinds of things.

You're not taking it out of context when you quote the whole paragraph, who's meaning is very plain. You do take it out of context when you only quote half of the sentence, which yo infrequently do.

I'm not reading anything into it. I'm just not taking half of the sentence out of it.

Just read my fist response. It’s quoted in its entirety.

If I “infrequently” do this, it can’t be that bad right? Bc I’m only doing it infrequently?

I’ve quotes the entire quote I think 3 times now.

[heliocentr1c]

Looks like JS disagrees w you:

“Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day. Daily transgression and daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 73).

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... t?lang=eng

It’s actually posted on the LDS church’s website. So if JS is advocating against daily repentance, and Nelson is for it and you’re also for it…. Who’s contradicting who?

Whose analysis is “sloppy”? Whose conclusion is terrifying?

Is it embarrassing to be contradicted by JS? Wow!!

If y’all don’t understand what that quote means, I’m not sure how to help you. Try reading it more slowly, I guess?

I’m thinking it probably means:

“Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day.”

That’s literally the first sentence of the quote.

Seems pretty self evident to me.

Yes. It shouldn't be trifled with. Great point! Pres
Nelson certainly wasn't saying that it should be trifled with, either every day, or every year, or ever.

Just go ahead and make up your mind man. No need to keep jumping around the issue.

[Artaxerxes]

I mean, if you cut off half of a sentence, you can make it mean anything you want.

I don't mean to be ride, but are you sure you know what conjunctions are? Do you need reading glasses? Do you need it spelled out for you?

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

All you really have to do is read the quote. He literally says, verbatim “daily repentance is not pleasing…” so in some sense that must be true or else he was wrong.

If it’s between your personal, private interpretation of what repentance means and JS’s teaching, think I’m going to give JS a little more weight than some random poster who says

He very obviously is not teaching against daily repentance

When the direct quote literally says:

“Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day. Daily transgression and daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 73).

That’s the entirety of the quote as quoted on the church’s own website. So if I’m taking it out of context or cutting him off, then the LDS church is too. That entire quote was posted in my initial reply.

If you want to read something into it, that’s on you my friend.

Yes, if you cut out half of the sentence, you can make things day all kinds of things.

You're not taking it out of context when you quote the whole paragraph, who's meaning is very plain. You do take it out of context when you only quote half of the sentence, which yo infrequently do.

I'm not reading anything into it. I'm just not taking half of the sentence out of it.

Just read my fist response. It’s quoted in its entirety.

If I “infrequently” do this, it can’t be that bad right? Bc I’m only doing it infrequently?

I’ve quotes the entire quote I think 3 times now.

Yeah, the autocorrect got me again.

You did quote it correctly, then frequently took it out of context as if that were its true meaning. His meaning is extremely clear. People shouldn't trifle with repentance by thinking they can sin and just repent every day.

People should repent (which has always meant to change) every day. So again, do you not think that people people should try to change every day?

[OPMissionary]

What Joseph clearly said was that you should not be repenting every day, because you should not be sinning every day.

This, of course, implies that you should only repent when you have sinned.

In other words, if you have not sinned, then there is no reason to repent.

That's why he said you should not repent every day, and yes, it contradicts what Nelson has taught, which is that you should repent even when you haven't sinned.

[heliocentr1c]

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

All you really have to do is read the quote. He literally says, verbatim “daily repentance is not pleasing…” so in some sense that must be true or else he was wrong.

If it’s between your personal, private interpretation of what repentance means and JS’s teaching, think I’m going to give JS a little more weight than some random poster who says



When the direct quote literally says:

“Repentance is a thing that cannot be trifled with every day. Daily transgression and daily repentance is not that which is pleasing in the sight of God” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph Smith [2007], 73).

That’s the entirety of the quote as quoted on the church’s own website. So if I’m taking it out of context or cutting him off, then the LDS church is too. That entire quote was posted in my initial reply.

If you want to read something into it, that’s on you my friend.

Yes, if you cut out half of the sentence, you can make things day all kinds of things.

You're not taking it out of context when you quote the whole paragraph, who's meaning is very plain. You do take it out of context when you only quote half of the sentence, which yo infrequently do.

I'm not reading anything into it. I'm just not taking half of the sentence out of it.

Just read my fist response. It’s quoted in its entirety.

If I “infrequently” do this, it can’t be that bad right? Bc I’m only doing it infrequently?

I’ve quotes the entire quote I think 3 times now.

Yeah, the autocorrect got me again.

You did quote it correctly, then frequently took it out of context as if that were its true meaning. His meaning is extremely clear. People shouldn't trifle with repentance by thinking they can sin and just repent every day.

People should repent (which has always meant to change) every day. So again, do you not think that people people should try to change every day?

Yes, people should be trying to make a net positive change toward spiritual enlightenment/obedience in their life over time. This is reasonably obvious - grace for grace.

There’s nothing in the OP arguing against this.

Christ did this, yet he also never sinned. So already we’ve disproven your premise. If Christ could go an entire lifetime progressing or going from grace for grace (in this life and before and therefore changing since he had grace added upon him and therefore didn’t have it before) but never sinning, why couldn’t the OP’s daughter do it for a day or week?

If repentance is simply “change” as you put it, then Christ sinned, since He changed (e.g. He received the gift of the HG after he was baptized and therefore changed “spiritually”), but repentance obviously isn’t just change.

If you want to define repentance in that sense, that’s fine. But I disagree it’s fair to just assume it’s always meant that way or that the OP’s conclusion was contradictory.

The Bible speaks of God “repenting”, yet God obviously can’t sin or progress/change in the sense that He isn’t all-knowing and perfectly righteous. He can change his mind imo though:

“It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed by commandments.”
-1 Sam 15

Those beyond the veil still need to progress further according to the King Follet discourse (which would imply change), yet they are certainly free from all sin and transgression if they’re in Heaven.

Equating repentance with progression or change is fine, but it’s not typically the way that word is used in LDS culture in my experience. The quote from JS is proof of that.

History of the Church records a period of time in which members of the church were free from temptation from the Devil. This was short lived apparently but still claimed all the same.

This means no one sinned during this period of time bc if they weren’t tempted how could they sin? Yet they were still progressing spiritually during this time or else de-progressing. There’s no reason the OP’s daughter couldn’t experience the same effect.

Repentance is not necessarily synonymous with change itself but it does obviously involve changing and looking to God.

[Artaxerxes]

Yes, if you cut out half of the sentence, you can make things day all kinds of things.

You're not taking it out of context when you quote the whole paragraph, who's meaning is very plain. You do take it out of context when you only quote half of the sentence, which yo infrequently do.

I'm not reading anything into it. I'm just not taking half of the sentence out of it.

Just read my fist response. It’s quoted in its entirety.

If I “infrequently” do this, it can’t be that bad right? Bc I’m only doing it infrequently?

I’ve quotes the entire quote I think 3 times now.

Yeah, the autocorrect got me again.

You did quote it correctly, then frequently took it out of context as if that were its true meaning. His meaning is extremely clear. People shouldn't trifle with repentance by thinking they can sin and just repent every day.

People should repent (which has always meant to change) every day. So again, do you not think that people people should try to change every day?

Yes, people should be trying to make a net positive change toward spiritual enlightenment/obedience in their life over time. This is reasonably obvious - grace for grace.

There’s nothing in the OP arguing against this.

Christ did this, yet he also never sinned. So already we’ve disproven your premise. If Christ could go an entire lifetime progressing or going from grace for grace (in this life and before and therefore changing since he had grace added upon him and therefore didn’t have it before) but never sinning, why couldn’t the OP’s daughter do it for a day or week?

If repentance is simply “change” as you put it, then Christ sinned, since He changed (e.g. He received the gift of the HG after he was baptized and therefore changed “spiritually”), but repentance obviously isn’t just change.

If you want to define repentance in that sense, that’s fine. But I disagree it’s fair to just assume it’s always meant that way or that the OP’s conclusion was contradictory.

The Bible speaks of God “repenting”, yet God obviously can’t sin or progress/change in the sense that He isn’t all-knowing and perfectly righteous. He can change his mind imo though:

“It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed by commandments.”
-1 Sam 15

Those beyond the veil still need to progress further according to the King Follet discourse (which would imply change), yet they are certainly free from all sin and transgression if they’re in Heaven.

Equating repentance with progression or change is fine, but it’s not typically the way that word is used in LDS culture in my experience. The quote from JS is proof of that.

History of the Church records a period of time in which members of the church were free from temptation from the Devil. This was short lived apparently but still claimed all the same.

This means no one sinned during this period of time bc if they weren’t tempted how could they sin? Yet they were still progressing spiritually during this time or else de-progressing. There’s no reason the OP’s daughter couldn’t experience the same effect.

Repentance is not necessarily synonymous with change itself but it does obviously involve changing and looking to God.

You're all over the map. Change doesn't require sin. It most often does mean that, but you're just swapping around words willy nilly to make a silly point.

But yes, repentance means to change. The Greek word "Metanoia" means to change your mind or your heart. Unless we're perfect, meaning that we have the mind of God or will of God completely, then we should be trying every day to get that.

I don't understand this constant effort to find fault with Pres. Nelson, to the point that people are upset that he's saying we should try to change for the better every day.

[heliocentr1c]

Just read my fist response. It’s quoted in its entirety.

If I “infrequently” do this, it can’t be that bad right? Bc I’m only doing it infrequently?

I’ve quotes the entire quote I think 3 times now.

Yeah, the autocorrect got me again.

You did quote it correctly, then frequently took it out of context as if that were its true meaning. His meaning is extremely clear. People shouldn't trifle with repentance by thinking they can sin and just repent every day.

People should repent (which has always meant to change) every day. So again, do you not think that people people should try to change every day?

Yes, people should be trying to make a net positive change toward spiritual enlightenment/obedience in their life over time. This is reasonably obvious - grace for grace.

There’s nothing in the OP arguing against this.

Christ did this, yet he also never sinned. So already we’ve disproven your premise. If Christ could go an entire lifetime progressing or going from grace for grace (in this life and before and therefore changing since he had grace added upon him and therefore didn’t have it before) but never sinning, why couldn’t the OP’s daughter do it for a day or week?

If repentance is simply “change” as you put it, then Christ sinned, since He changed (e.g. He received the gift of the HG after he was baptized and therefore changed “spiritually”), but repentance obviously isn’t just change.

If you want to define repentance in that sense, that’s fine. But I disagree it’s fair to just assume it’s always meant that way or that the OP’s conclusion was contradictory.

The Bible speaks of God “repenting”, yet God obviously can’t sin or progress/change in the sense that He isn’t all-knowing and perfectly righteous. He can change his mind imo though:

“It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed by commandments.”
-1 Sam 15

Those beyond the veil still need to progress further according to the King Follet discourse (which would imply change), yet they are certainly free from all sin and transgression if they’re in Heaven.

Equating repentance with progression or change is fine, but it’s not typically the way that word is used in LDS culture in my experience. The quote from JS is proof of that.

History of the Church records a period of time in which members of the church were free from temptation from the Devil. This was short lived apparently but still claimed all the same.

This means no one sinned during this period of time bc if they weren’t tempted how could they sin? Yet they were still progressing spiritually during this time or else de-progressing. There’s no reason the OP’s daughter couldn’t experience the same effect.

Repentance is not necessarily synonymous with change itself but it does obviously involve changing and looking to God.

You're all over the map. Change doesn't require sin. It most often does mean that, but you're just swapping around words willy nilly to make a silly point.

But yes, repentance means to change. The Greek word "Metanoia" means to change your mind or your heart. Unless we're perfect, meaning that we have the mind of God or will of God completely, then we should be trying every day to get that.

I don't understand this constant effort to find fault with Pres. Nelson, to the point that people are upset that he's saying we should try to change for the better every day.

Change doesn't require sin. It most often does mean that, but you're just swapping around words willy nilly to make a silly point.

I know change doesn’t require sin, I’m not sure when I said it did? The premise of my previous post was literally that. Are you just going to repeat things that I’ve already stated?

Just bc you find the point silly doesn’t mean everyone else necessarily does. Why not focus on using scriptures to show how your point has traction instead of just calling mine “silly”?

But yes, repentance means to change. The Greek word "Metanoia" means to change your mind or your heart. Unless we're perfect, meaning that we have the mind of God or will of God completely, then we should be trying every day to get that.

I understand that repentance requires change but Nelson didn’t ask people to change everyday, he asked them to repent daily. That word “repentance” generally carries a different connotation with it then simply changing. As someone who “identifies” as a prophet of God, we should pay attention to his words VERY closely. It’s the least we can do to determine whether his authority claims are true or not.

I am actually doing something good - I am closely listening to his words and doing my best to determine whether they make any sense or not and whether they are backed by the scriptures or not. This is a good thing. Just bc we’ve reached different conclusions doesn’t mean you need to start calling my points “silly”. I don’t recall doing that to you.

I don't understand this constant effort to find fault with Pres. Nelson, to the point that people are upset that he's saying we should try to change for the better every day.

I’m not finding fault w/ anybody nor am I upset - that’s just you projecting onto me your own frustration imo. What have I done or said that would lead you to believe I’m upset or that anyone is? Name one thing.

I have no faults w/ Nelson currently, I just respectfully disagree with some of his conclusions. I’ve attempted to use the scriptures, quotes from JS, and from church history to show that.

Just bc you disagree w someone doesn’t mean you’ve “faulted” them. That’s you accusing me of finding “fault” w/ someone, yet I haven’t accused you of finding fault w/ anyone. Why are you accusing me, yet I’ve never accused you?

Who is the “accuser of the brethren” according to the scriptures? Are you trying to have a reasonable conversation or just looking for ways to accuse others when you have no meaningful response?

It seems more likely to me that you’re projecting your own frustration onto me, and trying to simply needlessly debase me to gain traction in the discussion, than that I’ve found fault with anyone. I’ve just respectfully disagreed is all.

Nelson clearly called for daily repentance:

“Daily repentance is the pathway to purity, and purity brings power.”

JS disagrees w this notion. The history of the church contradicts it. And the scriptures themselves to do too at times. How could Noah “walk perfectly” before God if he needed to repent daily?

He also contradicts the Savior in the sermon on the mount. The savior commands us to “be ye therefore perfect”.

Nelson says:

“The Lord does not expect perfection from us at this point in our eternal progress”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... n?lang=env

Why would the Savior give us a commandment while in mortality that He doesn’t expect us to achieve and that squarely contradicts Nelson’s advice?

It’s not me that’s all over the map, so much as Nelson in my view. He once gave a talk on God’s conditional love. His wife prefers to talk about the “not even once club”. Yet here he says:

“Too many people consider repentance as punishment”

But if Gods love is conditioned on our repentance, then it is punishment bc what else could a withdrawal of God’s love and direction be but punishment?

Why do you keep projecting onto me the very things that Nelson is doing when he finds fault with those who have not repented fully enough to merit Gods love?

[Artaxerxes]

Yeah, the autocorrect got me again.

You did quote it correctly, then frequently took it out of context as if that were its true meaning. His meaning is extremely clear. People shouldn't trifle with repentance by thinking they can sin and just repent every day.

People should repent (which has always meant to change) every day. So again, do you not think that people people should try to change every day?

Yes, people should be trying to make a net positive change toward spiritual enlightenment/obedience in their life over time. This is reasonably obvious - grace for grace.

There’s nothing in the OP arguing against this.

Christ did this, yet he also never sinned. So already we’ve disproven your premise. If Christ could go an entire lifetime progressing or going from grace for grace (in this life and before and therefore changing since he had grace added upon him and therefore didn’t have it before) but never sinning, why couldn’t the OP’s daughter do it for a day or week?

If repentance is simply “change” as you put it, then Christ sinned, since He changed (e.g. He received the gift of the HG after he was baptized and therefore changed “spiritually”), but repentance obviously isn’t just change.

If you want to define repentance in that sense, that’s fine. But I disagree it’s fair to just assume it’s always meant that way or that the OP’s conclusion was contradictory.

The Bible speaks of God “repenting”, yet God obviously can’t sin or progress/change in the sense that He isn’t all-knowing and perfectly righteous. He can change his mind imo though:

“It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed by commandments.”
-1 Sam 15

Those beyond the veil still need to progress further according to the King Follet discourse (which would imply change), yet they are certainly free from all sin and transgression if they’re in Heaven.

Equating repentance with progression or change is fine, but it’s not typically the way that word is used in LDS culture in my experience. The quote from JS is proof of that.

History of the Church records a period of time in which members of the church were free from temptation from the Devil. This was short lived apparently but still claimed all the same.

This means no one sinned during this period of time bc if they weren’t tempted how could they sin? Yet they were still progressing spiritually during this time or else de-progressing. There’s no reason the OP’s daughter couldn’t experience the same effect.

Repentance is not necessarily synonymous with change itself but it does obviously involve changing and looking to God.

You're all over the map. Change doesn't require sin. It most often does mean that, but you're just swapping around words willy nilly to make a silly point.

But yes, repentance means to change. The Greek word "Metanoia" means to change your mind or your heart. Unless we're perfect, meaning that we have the mind of God or will of God completely, then we should be trying every day to get that.

I don't understand this constant effort to find fault with Pres. Nelson, to the point that people are upset that he's saying we should try to change for the better every day.

Change doesn't require sin. It most often does mean that, but you're just swapping around words willy nilly to make a silly point.

I know change doesn’t require sin, I’m not sure when I said it did? The premise of my previous post was literally that. Are you just going to repeat things that I’ve already stated?

Just bc you find the point silly doesn’t mean everyone else necessarily does. Why not focus on using scriptures to show how your point has traction instead of just calling mine “silly”?

But yes, repentance means to change. The Greek word "Metanoia" means to change your mind or your heart. Unless we're perfect, meaning that we have the mind of God or will of God completely, then we should be trying every day to get that.

I understand that repentance requires change but Nelson didn’t ask people to change everyday, he asked them to repent daily. That word “repentance” generally carries a different connotation with it then simply changing. As someone who “identifies” as a prophet of God, we should pay attention to his words VERY closely. It’s the least we can do to determine whether his authority claims are true or not.

I am actually doing something good - I am closely listening to his words and doing my best to determine whether they make any sense or not and whether they are backed by the scriptures or not. This is a good thing. Just bc we’ve reached different conclusions doesn’t mean you need to start calling my points “silly”. I don’t recall doing that to you.

I don't understand this constant effort to find fault with Pres. Nelson, to the point that people are upset that he's saying we should try to change for the better every day.

I’m not finding fault w/ anybody nor am I upset - that’s just you projecting onto me your own frustration imo. What have I done or said that would lead you to believe I’m upset or that anyone is? Name one thing.

I have no faults w/ Nelson currently, I just respectfully disagree with some of his conclusions. I’ve attempted to use the scriptures, quotes from JS, and from church history to show that.

Just bc you disagree w someone doesn’t mean you’ve “faulted” them. That’s you accusing me of finding “fault” w/ someone, yet I haven’t accused you of finding fault w/ anyone. Why are you accusing me, yet I’ve never accused you?

Who is the “accuser of the brethren” according to the scriptures? Are you trying to have a reasonable conversation or just looking for ways to accuse others when you have no meaningful response?

It seems more likely to me that you’re projecting your own frustration onto me, and trying to simply needlessly debase me to gain traction in the discussion, than that I’ve found fault with anyone. I’ve just respectfully disagreed is all.

Nelson clearly called for daily repentance:

“Daily repentance is the pathway to purity, and purity brings power.”

JS disagrees w this notion. The history of the church contradicts it. And the scriptures themselves to do too at times. How could Noah “walk perfectly” before God if he needed to repent daily?

He also contradicts the Savior in the sermon on the mount. The savior commands us to “be ye therefore perfect”.

Nelson says:

“The Lord does not expect perfection from us at this point in our eternal progress”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... n?lang=env

Why would the Savior give us a commandment while in mortality that He doesn’t expect us to achieve and that squarely contradicts Nelson’s advice?

It’s not me that’s all over the map, so much as Nelson in my view. He once gave a talk on God’s conditional love. His wife prefers to talk about the “not even once club”. Yet here he says:

“Too many people consider repentance as punishment”

But if Gods love is conditioned on our repentance, then it is punishment bc what else could a withdrawal of God’s love and direction be but punishment?

Why do you keep projecting onto me the very things that Nelson is doing when he finds fault with those who have not repented fully enough to merit Gods love?

No, repentance doesn't require change. Repentance IS change. It literally means to change. That's what metanoia literally means. You keep attaching different things to it that aren't there.

Why should someone think of changing as punishment? He was just teaching against the false notion that you're still grasping on to.

Yes, changing every day is the path to perfection. I don't understand how you continue to argue against this point.

Pres. Nelson merely teaches what Joseph did about perfection. Joseph also taught people not to expect perfection, even from him. "He said he was but a man and they must not expect him to be perfect; if they expected perfection from him, he should expect it from them, but if they would bear with his infirmities and the infirmities of the brethren, he would likewise bear with their infirmities."

We can't be perfect in this life. That can only come after the resurrection. That's why Jesus said "And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected." Even sinless Jesus wasn't perfect until he was resurrected.

[heliocentr1c]

Yes, people should be trying to make a net positive change toward spiritual enlightenment/obedience in their life over time. This is reasonably obvious - grace for grace.

There’s nothing in the OP arguing against this.

Christ did this, yet he also never sinned. So already we’ve disproven your premise. If Christ could go an entire lifetime progressing or going from grace for grace (in this life and before and therefore changing since he had grace added upon him and therefore didn’t have it before) but never sinning, why couldn’t the OP’s daughter do it for a day or week?

If repentance is simply “change” as you put it, then Christ sinned, since He changed (e.g. He received the gift of the HG after he was baptized and therefore changed “spiritually”), but repentance obviously isn’t just change.

If you want to define repentance in that sense, that’s fine. But I disagree it’s fair to just assume it’s always meant that way or that the OP’s conclusion was contradictory.

The Bible speaks of God “repenting”, yet God obviously can’t sin or progress/change in the sense that He isn’t all-knowing and perfectly righteous. He can change his mind imo though:

“It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be king: for he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed by commandments.”
-1 Sam 15

Those beyond the veil still need to progress further according to the King Follet discourse (which would imply change), yet they are certainly free from all sin and transgression if they’re in Heaven.

Equating repentance with progression or change is fine, but it’s not typically the way that word is used in LDS culture in my experience. The quote from JS is proof of that.

History of the Church records a period of time in which members of the church were free from temptation from the Devil. This was short lived apparently but still claimed all the same.

This means no one sinned during this period of time bc if they weren’t tempted how could they sin? Yet they were still progressing spiritually during this time or else de-progressing. There’s no reason the OP’s daughter couldn’t experience the same effect.

Repentance is not necessarily synonymous with change itself but it does obviously involve changing and looking to God.

You're all over the map. Change doesn't require sin. It most often does mean that, but you're just swapping around words willy nilly to make a silly point.

But yes, repentance means to change. The Greek word "Metanoia" means to change your mind or your heart. Unless we're perfect, meaning that we have the mind of God or will of God completely, then we should be trying every day to get that.

I don't understand this constant effort to find fault with Pres. Nelson, to the point that people are upset that he's saying we should try to change for the better every day.

Change doesn't require sin. It most often does mean that, but you're just swapping around words willy nilly to make a silly point.

I know change doesn’t require sin, I’m not sure when I said it did? The premise of my previous post was literally that. Are you just going to repeat things that I’ve already stated?

Just bc you find the point silly doesn’t mean everyone else necessarily does. Why not focus on using scriptures to show how your point has traction instead of just calling mine “silly”?

But yes, repentance means to change. The Greek word "Metanoia" means to change your mind or your heart. Unless we're perfect, meaning that we have the mind of God or will of God completely, then we should be trying every day to get that.

I understand that repentance requires change but Nelson didn’t ask people to change everyday, he asked them to repent daily. That word “repentance” generally carries a different connotation with it then simply changing. As someone who “identifies” as a prophet of God, we should pay attention to his words VERY closely. It’s the least we can do to determine whether his authority claims are true or not.

I am actually doing something good - I am closely listening to his words and doing my best to determine whether they make any sense or not and whether they are backed by the scriptures or not. This is a good thing. Just bc we’ve reached different conclusions doesn’t mean you need to start calling my points “silly”. I don’t recall doing that to you.

I don't understand this constant effort to find fault with Pres. Nelson, to the point that people are upset that he's saying we should try to change for the better every day.

I’m not finding fault w/ anybody nor am I upset - that’s just you projecting onto me your own frustration imo. What have I done or said that would lead you to believe I’m upset or that anyone is? Name one thing.

I have no faults w/ Nelson currently, I just respectfully disagree with some of his conclusions. I’ve attempted to use the scriptures, quotes from JS, and from church history to show that.

Just bc you disagree w someone doesn’t mean you’ve “faulted” them. That’s you accusing me of finding “fault” w/ someone, yet I haven’t accused you of finding fault w/ anyone. Why are you accusing me, yet I’ve never accused you?

Who is the “accuser of the brethren” according to the scriptures? Are you trying to have a reasonable conversation or just looking for ways to accuse others when you have no meaningful response?

It seems more likely to me that you’re projecting your own frustration onto me, and trying to simply needlessly debase me to gain traction in the discussion, than that I’ve found fault with anyone. I’ve just respectfully disagreed is all.

Nelson clearly called for daily repentance:

“Daily repentance is the pathway to purity, and purity brings power.”

JS disagrees w this notion. The history of the church contradicts it. And the scriptures themselves to do too at times. How could Noah “walk perfectly” before God if he needed to repent daily?

He also contradicts the Savior in the sermon on the mount. The savior commands us to “be ye therefore perfect”.

Nelson says:

“The Lord does not expect perfection from us at this point in our eternal progress”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... n?lang=env

Why would the Savior give us a commandment while in mortality that He doesn’t expect us to achieve and that squarely contradicts Nelson’s advice?

It’s not me that’s all over the map, so much as Nelson in my view. He once gave a talk on God’s conditional love. His wife prefers to talk about the “not even once club”. Yet here he says:

“Too many people consider repentance as punishment”

But if Gods love is conditioned on our repentance, then it is punishment bc what else could a withdrawal of God’s love and direction be but punishment?

Why do you keep projecting onto me the very things that Nelson is doing when he finds fault with those who have not repented fully enough to merit Gods love?

No, repentance doesn't require change. Repentance IS change. It literally means to change. That's what metanoia literally means. You keep attaching different things to it that aren't there.

Why should someone think of changing as punishment? He was just teaching against the false notion that you're still grasping on to.

Yes, changing every day is the path to perfection. I don't understand how you continue to argue against this point.

Pres. Nelson merely teaches what Joseph did about perfection. Joseph also taught people not to expect perfection, even from him. "He said he was but a man and they must not expect him to be perfect; if they expected perfection from him, he should expect it from them, but if they would bear with his infirmities and the infirmities of the brethren, he would likewise bear with their infirmities."

We can't be perfect in this life. That can only come after the resurrection. That's why Jesus said "And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected." Even sinless Jesus wasn't perfect until he was resurrected.

No, repentance doesn't require change. Repentance IS change.

Repentance is not change itself, technically. We’ve gone over this ad nauseum.

A person can change for the worse and this wouldn’t be repentance. The two words are not synonymous or directly interchangeable. That’s pretty easily shown.

I agree there are imperfections associated with the flesh and in that sense we can’t be perfect. But we can have our sins completely forgiven (for example when the angel appears to JS and tells him his sins are forgiven) and therefore no repentance from sin would be necessary for a period of time. What that period of time may be, there aren’t any restrictions put on, only that all have sinned at some point. People aren’t “perfect” immediately but the scriptures still say:

“This is the genealogy of Noah.
Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God."

So it’s possible to be perfect in some sense.

If there are imperfections from the flesh, after we’ve been redeemed from the fall, these don’t constitute “sin” imo, and therefore repentance in the sense of repenting of a sin isn’t necessary imo.

If perfection in one sense equates to “wholeness” or “fullness”, then a person can be whole or “perfect” in that sense of the word at any given time. Once they have received the “fullness” of all that God is wiling to offer them here in mortality, then they’re perfect in that sense of the word. Noah was apparently perfect in his generations

But yes, I agree, they can’t be perfect necessarily in the way the world defines the word. If Nelson meant it in this way, I don’t know, bc he makes no distinction in the talk to my knowledge.

[Artaxerxes]

You're all over the map. Change doesn't require sin. It most often does mean that, but you're just swapping around words willy nilly to make a silly point.

But yes, repentance means to change. The Greek word "Metanoia" means to change your mind or your heart. Unless we're perfect, meaning that we have the mind of God or will of God completely, then we should be trying every day to get that.

I don't understand this constant effort to find fault with Pres. Nelson, to the point that people are upset that he's saying we should try to change for the better every day.

Change doesn't require sin. It most often does mean that, but you're just swapping around words willy nilly to make a silly point.

I know change doesn’t require sin, I’m not sure when I said it did? The premise of my previous post was literally that. Are you just going to repeat things that I’ve already stated?

Just bc you find the point silly doesn’t mean everyone else necessarily does. Why not focus on using scriptures to show how your point has traction instead of just calling mine “silly”?

But yes, repentance means to change. The Greek word "Metanoia" means to change your mind or your heart. Unless we're perfect, meaning that we have the mind of God or will of God completely, then we should be trying every day to get that.

I understand that repentance requires change but Nelson didn’t ask people to change everyday, he asked them to repent daily. That word “repentance” generally carries a different connotation with it then simply changing. As someone who “identifies” as a prophet of God, we should pay attention to his words VERY closely. It’s the least we can do to determine whether his authority claims are true or not.

I am actually doing something good - I am closely listening to his words and doing my best to determine whether they make any sense or not and whether they are backed by the scriptures or not. This is a good thing. Just bc we’ve reached different conclusions doesn’t mean you need to start calling my points “silly”. I don’t recall doing that to you.

I don't understand this constant effort to find fault with Pres. Nelson, to the point that people are upset that he's saying we should try to change for the better every day.

I’m not finding fault w/ anybody nor am I upset - that’s just you projecting onto me your own frustration imo. What have I done or said that would lead you to believe I’m upset or that anyone is? Name one thing.

I have no faults w/ Nelson currently, I just respectfully disagree with some of his conclusions. I’ve attempted to use the scriptures, quotes from JS, and from church history to show that.

Just bc you disagree w someone doesn’t mean you’ve “faulted” them. That’s you accusing me of finding “fault” w/ someone, yet I haven’t accused you of finding fault w/ anyone. Why are you accusing me, yet I’ve never accused you?

Who is the “accuser of the brethren” according to the scriptures? Are you trying to have a reasonable conversation or just looking for ways to accuse others when you have no meaningful response?

It seems more likely to me that you’re projecting your own frustration onto me, and trying to simply needlessly debase me to gain traction in the discussion, than that I’ve found fault with anyone. I’ve just respectfully disagreed is all.

Nelson clearly called for daily repentance:

“Daily repentance is the pathway to purity, and purity brings power.”

JS disagrees w this notion. The history of the church contradicts it. And the scriptures themselves to do too at times. How could Noah “walk perfectly” before God if he needed to repent daily?

He also contradicts the Savior in the sermon on the mount. The savior commands us to “be ye therefore perfect”.

Nelson says:

“The Lord does not expect perfection from us at this point in our eternal progress”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/stu ... n?lang=env

Why would the Savior give us a commandment while in mortality that He doesn’t expect us to achieve and that squarely contradicts Nelson’s advice?

It’s not me that’s all over the map, so much as Nelson in my view. He once gave a talk on God’s conditional love. His wife prefers to talk about the “not even once club”. Yet here he says:

“Too many people consider repentance as punishment”

But if Gods love is conditioned on our repentance, then it is punishment bc what else could a withdrawal of God’s love and direction be but punishment?

Why do you keep projecting onto me the very things that Nelson is doing when he finds fault with those who have not repented fully enough to merit Gods love?

No, repentance doesn't require change. Repentance IS change. It literally means to change. That's what metanoia literally means. You keep attaching different things to it that aren't there.

Why should someone think of changing as punishment? He was just teaching against the false notion that you're still grasping on to.

Yes, changing every day is the path to perfection. I don't understand how you continue to argue against this point.

Pres. Nelson merely teaches what Joseph did about perfection. Joseph also taught people not to expect perfection, even from him. "He said he was but a man and they must not expect him to be perfect; if they expected perfection from him, he should expect it from them, but if they would bear with his infirmities and the infirmities of the brethren, he would likewise bear with their infirmities."

We can't be perfect in this life. That can only come after the resurrection. That's why Jesus said "And he said unto them, Go ye, and tell that fox, Behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to day and to morrow, and the third day I shall be perfected." Even sinless Jesus wasn't perfect until he was resurrected.

No, repentance doesn't require change. Repentance IS change.

Repentance is not change itself, technically. We’ve gone over this ad nauseum.

A person can change for the worse and this wouldn’t be repentance. The two words are not synonymous or directly interchangeable. That’s pretty easily shown.

I agree there are imperfections associated with the flesh and in that sense we can’t be perfect. But we can have our sins completely forgiven (for example when the angel appears to JS and tells him his sins are forgiven) and therefore no repentance from sin would be necessary for a period of time. What that period of time may be, there aren’t any restrictions put on, only that all have sinned at some point. People aren’t “perfect” immediately but the scriptures still say:

“This is the genealogy of Noah.
Noah was a just man, perfect in his generations. Noah walked with God."

So it’s possible to be perfect in some sense.

If there are imperfections from the flesh, after we’ve been redeemed from the fall, these don’t constitute “sin” imo, and therefore repentance in the sense of repenting of a sin isn’t necessary imo.

If perfection in one sense equates to “wholeness” or “fullness”, then a person can be whole or “perfect” in that sense of the word at any given time. Once they have received the “fullness” of all that God is wiling to offer them here in mortality, then they’re perfect in that sense of the word. Noah was apparently perfect in his generations

But yes, I agree, they can’t be perfect necessarily in the way the world defines the word. If Nelson meant it in this way, I don’t know, bc he makes no distinction in the talk to my knowledge.

You keep disagreeing but haven't shown it. The Greek word, which is the word that would have been used in the NT literally means to change. The fact that you think it means something else doesn't make it so. That's what the NT means when it used that word.

Justification and sanctification are not the same thing. Being without sin is not the same thing as being perfect. Our sins may be forgiven but that doesn't meant we're perfect. Even someone forgiven still needs to repent.

[ransomme]

Repentance is for everyone, anytime. But I have had to reteach myself and family that repentance is not needed daily if you don’t sin every day. Some of us do, some of us don’t. So when the leaders like Nelson said in the past for EVERYONE to repent daily, that isn’t supported by the scriptures.

“And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.
32 I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Luke 5:31-32

Also, some can achieve perfection in this life. Noah and others did. This enables us to come into the presence of the Father and the Son in this life.

“And thus Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord; for Noah was a just man, and perfect in his generation; and he walked with God, as did also his three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.“ Moses 8:27

“Therefore I would that ye should be perfect even as I, or your Father who is in heaven is perfect.“ 3 Nephi 48

“All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and they to whom the Son will reveal himself; they shall see the Father also.“ Matthew 11:27

Just because a verse in English uses the word perfect does not mean that Noah was perfect. Jesus wasn't perfect until he returned to the father, maybe that says something.