Thoughts on daily repentance

[heliocentr1c]

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”?





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’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.

Just bc a certain word is used in a certain language and a certain point in time to convey something, doesn’t mean the strict definition of that word as defined by scholars over 2000 years later constitutes its definitive definition necessarily or completely or entirely conveys the gospel meaning of that word in its entirety.

Words and languages are not static in their meanings necessarily, nor is it fair to assume that we can we fully recreate the full cultural and literary connotations of a word 2000 years after the fact purely through scholarship. Language and words evolve. They can take on different meanings and implications based on context, etc. The ideas associated with a word at one point in history may greatly flux even over 500 years imo bc of cultural influences.

If your argument is that bc at one spot in the NT a word gets translated as “change” according to you (which it doesn’t, a more contextually appropriate translation would imo be: a transformative change of heart, mind, body etc especially: a spiritual conversion.)

Then my point is just as valid that people can be perfect bc at one spot in the OT a word or series of words in Hebrew gets translated as “perfect”.

I agree justification and sanctification are different. But if one is justified by the law or spirit, they can’t repent of having transgressed it. Therefore, it’s technically possible for someone to have followed a given law perfectly and have no need to repent of having transgressed it (eg Jesus)

“Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment? Now there was a punishment affixed and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.”
-Alma

Repentance is specifically tied to sin in the BoM by Alma. If Nelson was more familiar w/ the book, I assume he’d know this.

Therefore repentance and perfection are not the same thing. Since Jesus became perfect, but did this by grace, and yet didn’t sin, then change and repentance cannot be co-equal or synonymous either since Jesus needed to change before becoming perfect. Therefore change is NOT repentance and the BoM clearly shows this since repentance requires sin. We’ve already run over this ground.

If you’re saying Jesus is directing people to see what the Law of Moses pointed to and become not only justified by a higher law but also sanctified so that they embody that law and are “infused” by it, then I agree.

But if you have already transformed into all that God requires that you do here in mortality, then you can’t repent, or “change” any more in the sense of required or requisite repentance.

It’s possible for someone to max out the progress or repentance/“change”, as you put it, they can make in mortality and then merit/request transition into another sphere imo. Alma did this imo, for example. So did John. If there had been a reason for John to stick around in order to “change” (or in other words “repent” since repentance and change are synonymous according to you) more, why would God have translated him?

These people do not need to repent or “change” in the flesh any longer. Their work here (and therefore growth/change) is finished.

They’ve attained all God expects them to for their mortal lives. Bc this is true, it’s possible to live our lives for a period of time in which we bind the tempter for a season imo bc God cannot tempt us above what we’re able. In other words, we can resist all temptation for a time and are “full” or complete for that period. If we don’t give into the sin, then we cannot repent as Aa clearly teaches.

We can keep progressing but I wouldn’t call this repentance as the word was frequently used by JS, Alma, etc.

The period in church history talking about this suggests that we can enjoy periods which foreshadow the possibility of permanently being able to bind Satan’s influence bc we are justified and therefore merit sanctification at some point.

Are you saying that you cannot become sanctified in this life?

[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 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.

But if Noah “walked with God”, then he may have returned to his Father also, and therefore became something which could be conveyed as “perfect” in a sense or in other words “whole” as the OP states it. Or at least slated/promised to become so. And God cannot break His word, can He?

[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 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!!

What is this world coming to?

There is repentance, and there is repentance. They aren't the same thing and I don't understand why both sides of this discussion conflate the two.

Repentance - regular course corrections

Repentance - required for breaking serious commandments, making restitution, etc.

We need to make adjustments daily because we drift daily, but we only make major large course corrections after big mistakes.

That's the difference between daily repentance and what JS was talking about.

[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.

But if Noah “walked with God”, then he may have returned to his Father also, and therefore became something which could be conveyed as “perfect” in a sense or in other words “whole” as the OP states it. Or at least slated/promised to become so. And God cannot break His word, can He?

Next you are you going to say that Jesus never walked with God?

There is a difference between visiting with God and returning to God.

[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 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.

But if Noah “walked with God”, then he may have returned to his Father also, and therefore became something which could be conveyed as “perfect” in a sense or in other words “whole” as the OP states it. Or at least slated/promised to become so. And God cannot break His word, can He?

Next you are you going to say that Jesus never walked with God?

There is a difference between visiting with God and returning to God.

Next you are you going to say that Jesus never walked with God?

Idk what this means. Why would I say that?

There is a difference between visiting with God and returning to God.

I don’t think I said there wasn’t. I said “may”. You don’t think Noah returned to God while in the flesh?

[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!!

What is this world coming to?

There is repentance, and there is repentance. They aren't the same thing and I don't understand why both sides of this discussion conflate the two.

Repentance - regular course corrections

Repentance - required for breaking serious commandments, making restitution, etc.

We need to make adjustments daily because we drift daily, but we only make major large course corrections after big mistakes.

That's the difference between daily repentance and what JS was talking about.

I’m not sure this is the case honestly. We need to repent when we sin. The BoM clearly teaches this:

“Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment? Now there was a punishment affixed and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.”
-Alma

According to Alma, unless you’ve sinned you can’t really repent. If you need to repent daily bc you’ve sinned that’s your business. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that eve one else has.

What is peoples’ comprehension of the BoM coming to?!

[randyps]

The only problem I had with the OP was this...
"So when the leaders like Nelson said in the past to repent daily, they do not understand the doctrine."

Then she goes and makes it even worse by editing it to say this...
"So when the leaders like Nelson said in the past for EVERYONE to repent daily, that isn’t supported by the scriptures."

Two completely ignorant statements.

Everyone else's take on repentance is their own personal interpretations.

[heliocentr1c]

The only problem I had with the OP was this...
"So when the leaders like Nelson said in the past to repent daily, they do not understand the doctrine."

Then she goes and makes it even worse by editing it to say this...
"So when the leaders like Nelson said in the past for EVERYONE to repent daily, that isn’t supported by the scriptures."

Two completely ignorant statements.

Everyone else's take on repentance is their own personal interpretations.

According to the doctrine from Alma, it’s not really possible to repent daily, unless you’ve sinned. I don’t see where the ignorance is, personally.

Seems like a reasonably valid conclusion based on Alma’s question.

Implied in Nelson’s talk was the idea that everyone reading ought to repent daily, as I interpreted it. But Alma apparently didn’t think this way.

Maybe Nelson just thinks everyone in the church is really sinning a lot, on a daily basis and that the church needs to be “cleansed”? Maybe he meant it in a different sense, but never bothered to clarify it, that I could see?

He definitely talks a lot about the adversary and really beats that drum pretty hard. I wonder if those comments are related to church migration rumors and data/people leaving the church en-masse/becoming less active?

Who knows?

But it doesn’t square particularly well w/ what Alma says, unfortunately.

I wonder if his comments in this talk will make more or less people leave the LDS church, percentage-wise in the coming days/months? Or have no effect at all?

[ransomme]

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.

But if Noah “walked with God”, then he may have returned to his Father also, and therefore became something which could be conveyed as “perfect” in a sense or in other words “whole” as the OP states it. Or at least slated/promised to become so. And God cannot break His word, can He?

Next you are you going to say that Jesus never walked with God?

There is a difference between visiting with God and returning to God.

Next you are you going to say that Jesus never walked with God?

Idk what this means. Why would I say that?

There is a difference between visiting with God and returning to God.

I don’t think I said there wasn’t. I said “may”. You don’t think Noah returned to God while in the flesh?

Jesus wasn't perfected until after his death and resurrection, not until his triumphant return to live with the Father.

This is why Jesus said during his mortal life to be ye therefore perfect as your father in heaven is perfect, and only included himself when speaking to the Nephites because he was victorious and returned.

So Noah wasn't perfect because he walked with God. Noah wasn't perfect in the same sense as Jesus Christ: not even during Jesus' sinless life and especially not after His death and resurrection.

[ransomme]

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!!

What is this world coming to?

There is repentance, and there is repentance. They aren't the same thing and I don't understand why both sides of this discussion conflate the two.

Repentance - regular course corrections

Repentance - required for breaking serious commandments, making restitution, etc.

We need to make adjustments daily because we drift daily, but we only make major large course corrections after big mistakes.

That's the difference between daily repentance and what JS was talking about.

I’m not sure this is the case honestly. We need to repent when we sin. The BoM clearly teaches this:

“Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment? Now there was a punishment affixed and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.”
-Alma

According to Alma, unless you’ve sinned you can’t really repent. If you need to repent daily bc you’ve sinned that’s your business. But it doesn’t necessarily follow that eve one else has.

What is peoples’ comprehension of the BoM coming to?!

Not all repentance was created equal

JST Matthew 6:22 "The light of the body is the eye; if therefore thine eye be single to the glory of God, thy whole body shall be full of light." (Do a word search for "eye single".)

When need tiny corrections constantly to maintain our alignment. If we don't we go down the path of temptation towards sin.

"I have commanded…that ye should come unto me, that ye might feel and see; even so shall ye do unto the world; and whosoever breaketh this commandment suffereth himself to be led into temptation” (3 Ne. 18:25).

Also do we only repent of sin?
What's the difference between transgression, sin, etc? We fail to varying degrees all the time. JS was obviously taking about more weighty matters of sin and repentance, not the small course corrections.

[Momma J]

*shrugs* Part of my daily prayers is asking our Father to forgive me for my weaknesses and to give me strength to overcome. In my mortal state I often have small bursts of anger when I become frustrated. This is a battle that I wage with the adversary. I seek forgiveness.

I agree that JS was talking of heavier sins. If I were to steal, ask for forgiveness and steal again.... Then I am not truly seeking forgiveness. I am seeking a loophole for a life of crime.

[Mamabear]

Paul speaking about his conversion:
“Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin by that which is good working death in me; that sin, by the commandment, might become exceeding sinful.
​​​14 ​For we know that the ​commandment​ is spiritual; but ​when I was under the law,​ I ​was yet​ carnal, sold under sin.
​​​15 ​​But now I am spiritual;​ for that which ​I am commanded to do, I do; and that which I am commanded not to allow,​ I allow not.
​​​16 ​For what I ​know is not right, I would​ not ​do; for that which is sin,​ I hate.
​​​17 ​If then I do ​not​ that which I would not ​allow,​ I consent unto the law, that it is good; ​and I am not condemned.​
​​​18 ​Now then, it is no more I that do ​sin;​ but I ​seek to subdue that​ sin which dwelleth in me.” Romans 7:13-18 JST

This scripture matches what Joseph said:
“Let us this very day begin anew, and now say, with all our hearts, we will forsake our sins and be righteous.”

“Now they, after being sanctified by the Holy Ghost, having their garments made white, being pure and spotless before God, could not look upon sin save it were with abhorrence; and there were many, exceedingly great many, who were made pure and entered into the rest of the Lord their God.“ Alma 13:12

“I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.” Luke 5:31-32

[endlessQuestions]

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?

This is true.

[Artaxerxes]

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.

Just bc a certain word is used in a certain language and a certain point in time to convey something, doesn’t mean the strict definition of that word as defined by scholars over 2000 years later constitutes its definitive definition necessarily or completely or entirely conveys the gospel meaning of that word in its entirety.

Words and languages are not static in their meanings necessarily, nor is it fair to assume that we can we fully recreate the full cultural and literary connotations of a word 2000 years after the fact purely through scholarship. Language and words evolve. They can take on different meanings and implications based on context, etc. The ideas associated with a word at one point in history may greatly flux even over 500 years imo bc of cultural influences.

If your argument is that bc at one spot in the NT a word gets translated as “change” according to you (which it doesn’t, a more contextually appropriate translation would imo be: a transformative change of heart, mind, body etc especially: a spiritual conversion.)

Then my point is just as valid that people can be perfect bc at one spot in the OT a word or series of words in Hebrew gets translated as “perfect”.

I agree justification and sanctification are different. But if one is justified by the law or spirit, they can’t repent of having transgressed it. Therefore, it’s technically possible for someone to have followed a given law perfectly and have no need to repent of having transgressed it (eg Jesus)

“Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment? Now there was a punishment affixed and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.”
-Alma

Repentance is specifically tied to sin in the BoM by Alma. If Nelson was more familiar w/ the book, I assume he’d know this.

Therefore repentance and perfection are not the same thing. Since Jesus became perfect, but did this by grace, and yet didn’t sin, then change and repentance cannot be co-equal or synonymous either since Jesus needed to change before becoming perfect. Therefore change is NOT repentance and the BoM clearly shows this since repentance requires sin. We’ve already run over this ground.

If you’re saying Jesus is directing people to see what the Law of Moses pointed to and become not only justified by a higher law but also sanctified so that they embody that law and are “infused” by it, then I agree.

But if you have already transformed into all that God requires that you do here in mortality, then you can’t repent, or “change” any more in the sense of required or requisite repentance.

It’s possible for someone to max out the progress or repentance/“change”, as you put it, they can make in mortality and then merit/request transition into another sphere imo. Alma did this imo, for example. So did John. If there had been a reason for John to stick around in order to “change” (or in other words “repent” since repentance and change are synonymous according to you) more, why would God have translated him?

These people do not need to repent or “change” in the flesh any longer. Their work here (and therefore growth/change) is finished.

They’ve attained all God expects them to for their mortal lives. Bc this is true, it’s possible to live our lives for a period of time in which we bind the tempter for a season imo bc God cannot tempt us above what we’re able. In other words, we can resist all temptation for a time and are “full” or complete for that period. If we don’t give into the sin, then we cannot repent as Aa clearly teaches.

We can keep progressing but I wouldn’t call this repentance as the word was frequently used by JS, Alma, etc.

The period in church history talking about this suggests that we can enjoy periods which foreshadow the possibility of permanently being able to bind Satan’s influence bc we are justified and therefore merit sanctification at some point.

Are you saying that you cannot become sanctified in this life?

You keep changing terms. Pres. Nelson didn't say "repent of our transgressions daily." He said "repent daily." You're again confusing justification and sanctification. Repentance involves both. Just because someone is justified doesn't mean they're perfect.

Your Nelson derangement syndrome is showing again. Do you really think that he isn't familiar with Alma 42, or did it just sound like a cool snarky thing when you wrote it?

Yeah, repentance is related to sin and law. How can we change for the better if there is no good or bad? Sin and law establish the contrast of goodness and reward.

Pres. Nelson said the pathway to purity is daily repentance. If you're saying people have finished their pathway to purity then I suppose they don't need daily repentance.

I don't really have an opinion on whether complete sanctification is possible in mortality. When Satan is bound through the people's righteousness, I don't take that to mean that they're perfectly sanctified. I take it to mean that they've reached a certain level of righteousness that means they don't heed Satan's promptings anymore. But I don't equate that with perfectly possessing all Christlike attributes.

[OPMissionary]

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.

Just bc a certain word is used in a certain language and a certain point in time to convey something, doesn’t mean the strict definition of that word as defined by scholars over 2000 years later constitutes its definitive definition necessarily or completely or entirely conveys the gospel meaning of that word in its entirety.

Words and languages are not static in their meanings necessarily, nor is it fair to assume that we can we fully recreate the full cultural and literary connotations of a word 2000 years after the fact purely through scholarship. Language and words evolve. They can take on different meanings and implications based on context, etc. The ideas associated with a word at one point in history may greatly flux even over 500 years imo bc of cultural influences.

If your argument is that bc at one spot in the NT a word gets translated as “change” according to you (which it doesn’t, a more contextually appropriate translation would imo be: a transformative change of heart, mind, body etc especially: a spiritual conversion.)

Then my point is just as valid that people can be perfect bc at one spot in the OT a word or series of words in Hebrew gets translated as “perfect”.

I agree justification and sanctification are different. But if one is justified by the law or spirit, they can’t repent of having transgressed it. Therefore, it’s technically possible for someone to have followed a given law perfectly and have no need to repent of having transgressed it (eg Jesus)

“Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment? Now there was a punishment affixed and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.”
-Alma

Repentance is specifically tied to sin in the BoM by Alma. If Nelson was more familiar w/ the book, I assume he’d know this.

Therefore repentance and perfection are not the same thing. Since Jesus became perfect, but did this by grace, and yet didn’t sin, then change and repentance cannot be co-equal or synonymous either since Jesus needed to change before becoming perfect. Therefore change is NOT repentance and the BoM clearly shows this since repentance requires sin. We’ve already run over this ground.

If you’re saying Jesus is directing people to see what the Law of Moses pointed to and become not only justified by a higher law but also sanctified so that they embody that law and are “infused” by it, then I agree.

But if you have already transformed into all that God requires that you do here in mortality, then you can’t repent, or “change” any more in the sense of required or requisite repentance.

It’s possible for someone to max out the progress or repentance/“change”, as you put it, they can make in mortality and then merit/request transition into another sphere imo. Alma did this imo, for example. So did John. If there had been a reason for John to stick around in order to “change” (or in other words “repent” since repentance and change are synonymous according to you) more, why would God have translated him?

These people do not need to repent or “change” in the flesh any longer. Their work here (and therefore growth/change) is finished.

They’ve attained all God expects them to for their mortal lives. Bc this is true, it’s possible to live our lives for a period of time in which we bind the tempter for a season imo bc God cannot tempt us above what we’re able. In other words, we can resist all temptation for a time and are “full” or complete for that period. If we don’t give into the sin, then we cannot repent as Aa clearly teaches.

We can keep progressing but I wouldn’t call this repentance as the word was frequently used by JS, Alma, etc.

The period in church history talking about this suggests that we can enjoy periods which foreshadow the possibility of permanently being able to bind Satan’s influence bc we are justified and therefore merit sanctification at some point.

Are you saying that you cannot become sanctified in this life?

You keep changing terms. Pres. Nelson didn't say "repent of our transgressions daily." He said "repent daily." You're again confusing justification and sanctification. Repentance involves both. Just because someone is justified doesn't mean they're perfect.

Your Nelson derangement syndrome is showing again. Do you really think that he isn't familiar with Alma 42, or did it just sound like a cool snarky thing when you wrote it?

Yeah, repentance is related to sin and law. How can we change for the better if there is no good or bad? Sin and law establish the contrast of goodness and reward.

Pres. Nelson said the pathway to purity is daily repentance. If you're saying people have finished their pathway to purity then I suppose they don't need daily repentance.

I don't really have an opinion on whether complete sanctification is possible in mortality. When Satan is bound through the people's righteousness, I don't take that to mean that they're perfectly sanctified. I take it to mean that they've reached a certain level of righteousness that means they don't heed Satan's promptings anymore. But I don't equate that with perfectly possessing all Christlike attributes.

You can change for the better without going through the formal repentance process. Repentance is for when you've transgressed.

Repentance implies remorse or contrition. Change does not. With change, you can go from good to better. When you repent, you're attempting to remove something that is negative.

This "daily repentance" talk implies that we are in a constant deficit. I'm sorry but I refuse to look at humanity in that way. You can overcome sin completely in this life. You can certainly go a day without sinning, in which case, there is simply nothing to repent for. Saying otherwise trivializes the process. Again, how could a man repent except he should sin?

[Artaxerxes]

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.

Just bc a certain word is used in a certain language and a certain point in time to convey something, doesn’t mean the strict definition of that word as defined by scholars over 2000 years later constitutes its definitive definition necessarily or completely or entirely conveys the gospel meaning of that word in its entirety.

Words and languages are not static in their meanings necessarily, nor is it fair to assume that we can we fully recreate the full cultural and literary connotations of a word 2000 years after the fact purely through scholarship. Language and words evolve. They can take on different meanings and implications based on context, etc. The ideas associated with a word at one point in history may greatly flux even over 500 years imo bc of cultural influences.

If your argument is that bc at one spot in the NT a word gets translated as “change” according to you (which it doesn’t, a more contextually appropriate translation would imo be: a transformative change of heart, mind, body etc especially: a spiritual conversion.)

Then my point is just as valid that people can be perfect bc at one spot in the OT a word or series of words in Hebrew gets translated as “perfect”.

I agree justification and sanctification are different. But if one is justified by the law or spirit, they can’t repent of having transgressed it. Therefore, it’s technically possible for someone to have followed a given law perfectly and have no need to repent of having transgressed it (eg Jesus)

“Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment? Now there was a punishment affixed and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.”
-Alma

Repentance is specifically tied to sin in the BoM by Alma. If Nelson was more familiar w/ the book, I assume he’d know this.

Therefore repentance and perfection are not the same thing. Since Jesus became perfect, but did this by grace, and yet didn’t sin, then change and repentance cannot be co-equal or synonymous either since Jesus needed to change before becoming perfect. Therefore change is NOT repentance and the BoM clearly shows this since repentance requires sin. We’ve already run over this ground.

If you’re saying Jesus is directing people to see what the Law of Moses pointed to and become not only justified by a higher law but also sanctified so that they embody that law and are “infused” by it, then I agree.

But if you have already transformed into all that God requires that you do here in mortality, then you can’t repent, or “change” any more in the sense of required or requisite repentance.

It’s possible for someone to max out the progress or repentance/“change”, as you put it, they can make in mortality and then merit/request transition into another sphere imo. Alma did this imo, for example. So did John. If there had been a reason for John to stick around in order to “change” (or in other words “repent” since repentance and change are synonymous according to you) more, why would God have translated him?

These people do not need to repent or “change” in the flesh any longer. Their work here (and therefore growth/change) is finished.

They’ve attained all God expects them to for their mortal lives. Bc this is true, it’s possible to live our lives for a period of time in which we bind the tempter for a season imo bc God cannot tempt us above what we’re able. In other words, we can resist all temptation for a time and are “full” or complete for that period. If we don’t give into the sin, then we cannot repent as Aa clearly teaches.

We can keep progressing but I wouldn’t call this repentance as the word was frequently used by JS, Alma, etc.

The period in church history talking about this suggests that we can enjoy periods which foreshadow the possibility of permanently being able to bind Satan’s influence bc we are justified and therefore merit sanctification at some point.

Are you saying that you cannot become sanctified in this life?

You keep changing terms. Pres. Nelson didn't say "repent of our transgressions daily." He said "repent daily." You're again confusing justification and sanctification. Repentance involves both. Just because someone is justified doesn't mean they're perfect.

Your Nelson derangement syndrome is showing again. Do you really think that he isn't familiar with Alma 42, or did it just sound like a cool snarky thing when you wrote it?

Yeah, repentance is related to sin and law. How can we change for the better if there is no good or bad? Sin and law establish the contrast of goodness and reward.

Pres. Nelson said the pathway to purity is daily repentance. If you're saying people have finished their pathway to purity then I suppose they don't need daily repentance.

I don't really have an opinion on whether complete sanctification is possible in mortality. When Satan is bound through the people's righteousness, I don't take that to mean that they're perfectly sanctified. I take it to mean that they've reached a certain level of righteousness that means they don't heed Satan's promptings anymore. But I don't equate that with perfectly possessing all Christlike attributes.

You can change for the better without going through the formal repentance process. Repentance is for when you've transgressed.

Repentance implies remorse or contrition. Change does not. With change, you can go from good to better. When you repent, you're attempting to remove something that is negative.

This "daily repentance" talk implies that we are in a constant deficit. I'm sorry but I refuse to look at humanity in that way. You can overcome sin completely in this life. You can certainly go a day without sinning, in which case, there is simply nothing to repent for. Saying otherwise trivializes the process. Again, how could a man repent except he should sin?

That isn't what it implies, and Pres. Nelson has consistently taught against this false notion.

"Too many people consider repentance as punishment—something to be avoided except in the most serious circumstances. But this feeling of being penalized is engendered by Satan. He tries to block us from looking to Jesus Christ, who stands with open arms, hoping and willing to heal, forgive, cleanse, strengthen, purify, and sanctify us.

The word for repentance in the Greek New Testament is metanoeo. The prefix meta- means “change.” The suffix -noeo is related to Greek words that mean “mind,” “knowledge,” “spirit,” and “breath.”

Thus, when Jesus asks you and me to “repent,” He is inviting us to change our mind, our knowledge, our spirit—even the way we breathe. He is asking us to change the way we love, think, serve, spend our time, treat our wives, teach our children, and even care for our bodies."

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

We aren't in a daily deficit, and we shouldn't view repentance as only a result of a deficit. Repentance is the process of becoming more Christlike, and he is absolutely right that we should be trying to do it every day.

[EvanLM]

I confess that I have to repent everyday to stay or be purified. It's hard for me . . . no excuses . . just difficult

[Mamabear]

I think what we are trying to say is that to come to God every day is what we are supposed to do. Whether we need to repent or not - we are to be humble.
Maybe to pray each morning and say something like what Joseph taught:
“Let us this very day begin anew, and now say, with all our hearts, we will forsake our sins and be righteous.”
And if at the end of the day, we find that we kept that promise, then we have succeeded and give thanks to God for that in our prayers. If not then we repent.

[heliocentr1c]

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.

Just bc a certain word is used in a certain language and a certain point in time to convey something, doesn’t mean the strict definition of that word as defined by scholars over 2000 years later constitutes its definitive definition necessarily or completely or entirely conveys the gospel meaning of that word in its entirety.

Words and languages are not static in their meanings necessarily, nor is it fair to assume that we can we fully recreate the full cultural and literary connotations of a word 2000 years after the fact purely through scholarship. Language and words evolve. They can take on different meanings and implications based on context, etc. The ideas associated with a word at one point in history may greatly flux even over 500 years imo bc of cultural influences.

If your argument is that bc at one spot in the NT a word gets translated as “change” according to you (which it doesn’t, a more contextually appropriate translation would imo be: a transformative change of heart, mind, body etc especially: a spiritual conversion.)

Then my point is just as valid that people can be perfect bc at one spot in the OT a word or series of words in Hebrew gets translated as “perfect”.

I agree justification and sanctification are different. But if one is justified by the law or spirit, they can’t repent of having transgressed it. Therefore, it’s technically possible for someone to have followed a given law perfectly and have no need to repent of having transgressed it (eg Jesus)

“Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment? Now there was a punishment affixed and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.”
-Alma

Repentance is specifically tied to sin in the BoM by Alma. If Nelson was more familiar w/ the book, I assume he’d know this.

Therefore repentance and perfection are not the same thing. Since Jesus became perfect, but did this by grace, and yet didn’t sin, then change and repentance cannot be co-equal or synonymous either since Jesus needed to change before becoming perfect. Therefore change is NOT repentance and the BoM clearly shows this since repentance requires sin. We’ve already run over this ground.

If you’re saying Jesus is directing people to see what the Law of Moses pointed to and become not only justified by a higher law but also sanctified so that they embody that law and are “infused” by it, then I agree.

But if you have already transformed into all that God requires that you do here in mortality, then you can’t repent, or “change” any more in the sense of required or requisite repentance.

It’s possible for someone to max out the progress or repentance/“change”, as you put it, they can make in mortality and then merit/request transition into another sphere imo. Alma did this imo, for example. So did John. If there had been a reason for John to stick around in order to “change” (or in other words “repent” since repentance and change are synonymous according to you) more, why would God have translated him?

These people do not need to repent or “change” in the flesh any longer. Their work here (and therefore growth/change) is finished.

They’ve attained all God expects them to for their mortal lives. Bc this is true, it’s possible to live our lives for a period of time in which we bind the tempter for a season imo bc God cannot tempt us above what we’re able. In other words, we can resist all temptation for a time and are “full” or complete for that period. If we don’t give into the sin, then we cannot repent as Aa clearly teaches.

We can keep progressing but I wouldn’t call this repentance as the word was frequently used by JS, Alma, etc.

The period in church history talking about this suggests that we can enjoy periods which foreshadow the possibility of permanently being able to bind Satan’s influence bc we are justified and therefore merit sanctification at some point.

Are you saying that you cannot become sanctified in this life?

You keep changing terms. Pres. Nelson didn't say "repent of our transgressions daily." He said "repent daily." You're again confusing justification and sanctification. Repentance involves both. Just because someone is justified doesn't mean they're perfect.

Your Nelson derangement syndrome is showing again. Do you really think that he isn't familiar with Alma 42, or did it just sound like a cool snarky thing when you wrote it?

Yeah, repentance is related to sin and law. How can we change for the better if there is no good or bad? Sin and law establish the contrast of goodness and reward.

Pres. Nelson said the pathway to purity is daily repentance. If you're saying people have finished their pathway to purity then I suppose they don't need daily repentance.

I don't really have an opinion on whether complete sanctification is possible in mortality. When Satan is bound through the people's righteousness, I don't take that to mean that they're perfectly sanctified. I take it to mean that they've reached a certain level of righteousness that means they don't heed Satan's promptings anymore. But I don't equate that with perfectly possessing all Christlike attributes.

You keep changing terms. Pres. Nelson didn't say "repent of our transgressions daily." He said "repent daily." You're again confusing justification and sanctification. Repentance involves both. Just because someone is justified doesn't mean they're perfect.

No terms have been changed. There’s no need to say they have. Show where I changed the term if so.

I’ve never said that bc someone is justified it means they’re perfect. Again, stop attributing things to me that I’ve never said.

We’ve already agreed that the term can be used in different senses. Eg God can “repent”, we can repent of sins, transgressions, iniquities, etc.

Show me any scriptures that outlines daily repentance as a commandment. If there is no scripture, then the idea that daily repentance is a requirement is extra-scriptural and therefore doesn’t constitute a direct commandment to all but rather a private interpretation/view.

There isn’t even a commandment that daily change is required to be saved.

We obviously need to change. Repentance involves change. But there is no requirement saying it must take place daily. Therefore this idea, by definition, is extra-scriptural, unless there is scripture teaching/supporting it.

Again, if there is no scripture mandating daily repentance, then it’s extra-scriptural by definition.

I think daily repentance is good. I think daily change is good too.

However, advocating for daily repentance in the sense that it’s required by scripture or mandated by God through a commandment is not scriptural imo and therefore there isn’t any direct doctrine supporting it’s absolute necessity. Therefore I agree w/ the OP.

When Nelson calls for daily repentance, this is not explicitly supported by the scriptures, but I do think it’s pretty good advice personally.

Even if you define repentance as change, there is no commandment saying we need to do it daily. The scripture Nelson cites talking about metanoeo does not say we need to engage in that daily. It’s the DAILY part that was originally referenced by the OP.

If people need to perform daily “course corrections” and they want to call this repentance, that’s fine. But the scriptures nowhere mandate this. So I agree w/ the OP.

Your Nelson derangement syndrome is showing again. Do you really think that he isn't familiar with Alma 42, or did it just sound like a cool snarky thing when you wrote it?

There’s no need to start accusing people again. Talking about me having some type of made up form of derangement syndrome isn’t very Christ-like.

There are higher, nicer, and more forgiving ways to get your point across. There’s really no need to resort to this type of argumentation.

There’s no need to become offended or lash out just bc someone has reached a different conclusion than you. There’s no need to call anyone deranged. Comments like these are pretty clearly designed to “stir the hearts of men to contend with anger”. Which means the person making them is under Satan’s influence.

We can have a discussion without accusing anyone of being deranged. Please, try to be better — Nelson is advocating for this exact thing in the talk we’re discussing. It’s literally titled “we can do better and be better”.

Maybe you should re-read it instead of accusing others of being deranged just bc they disagree with you or Nelson on a point or two?

Doesn’t it seem a little hypocritical for Nelson to be talking about being better on the one hand, and you needlessly accusing others of having a “derangement syndrome” on the other?

Are you sure you’ve taken his words to heart and applied them? He is your prophet after all.

I don't really have an opinion on whether complete sanctification is possible in mortality. When Satan is bound through the people's righteousness, I don't take that to mean that they're perfectly sanctified.

I’m not sure why you keep bringing sanctification up yet don’t elaborate on it. Are you saying incomplete sanctification can take place?

Am I correct in assuming, that your premise is that a person can be in the presence of God but not be sanctified ?

[Luke]

There is no point whatsoever in trying to argue with Brethrenites. For them, there is no search for truth, it’s only about dogmatically defending everything the Brethren say, whether right or wrong.

[heliocentr1c]

But if Noah “walked with God”, then he may have returned to his Father also, and therefore became something which could be conveyed as “perfect” in a sense or in other words “whole” as the OP states it. Or at least slated/promised to become so. And God cannot break His word, can He?

Next you are you going to say that Jesus never walked with God?

There is a difference between visiting with God and returning to God.

Next you are you going to say that Jesus never walked with God?

Idk what this means. Why would I say that?

There is a difference between visiting with God and returning to God.

I don’t think I said there wasn’t. I said “may”. You don’t think Noah returned to God while in the flesh?

Jesus wasn't perfected until after his death and resurrection, not until his triumphant return to live with the Father.

This is why Jesus said during his mortal life to be ye therefore perfect as your father in heaven is perfect, and only included himself when speaking to the Nephites because he was victorious and returned.

So Noah wasn't perfect because he walked with God. Noah wasn't perfect in the same sense as Jesus Christ: not even during Jesus' sinless life and especially not after His death and resurrection.

Jesus wasn't perfected until after his death and resurrection, not until his triumphant return to live with the Father.

This is why Jesus said during his mortal life to be ye therefore perfect as your father in heaven is perfect, and only included himself when speaking to the Nephites because he was victorious and returned.

Agreed, I don’t believe I said He was.

Yet, Jesus also never sinned. If repentance is simply change, Jesus did change. But He didn’t sin. Jesus did NOT need to repent, but He did need to change, grow, and reach a point of completion/perfection in order to fulfill His earthly work. That’s literally my point.

If you were to say to your average Christian “Jesus needed to repent” they’d look at you funny. Repentance is not generally used to mean solely “change” in most Gospel contexts.

So Noah wasn't perfect because he walked with God. Noah wasn't perfect in the same sense as Jesus Christ: not even during Jesus' sinless life and especially not after His death and resurrection.

Again, I don’t recall saying Jesus and Noah were perfect in the same sense. I didn’t say Noah was perfect bc he walked with God.

I just quoted a scripture, drew attention to the the fact that Noah is called perfect in it, and then immediately following this statement it says he walked w/ God. I then posed a question based on this.

[Artaxerxes]

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.

Just bc a certain word is used in a certain language and a certain point in time to convey something, doesn’t mean the strict definition of that word as defined by scholars over 2000 years later constitutes its definitive definition necessarily or completely or entirely conveys the gospel meaning of that word in its entirety.

Words and languages are not static in their meanings necessarily, nor is it fair to assume that we can we fully recreate the full cultural and literary connotations of a word 2000 years after the fact purely through scholarship. Language and words evolve. They can take on different meanings and implications based on context, etc. The ideas associated with a word at one point in history may greatly flux even over 500 years imo bc of cultural influences.

If your argument is that bc at one spot in the NT a word gets translated as “change” according to you (which it doesn’t, a more contextually appropriate translation would imo be: a transformative change of heart, mind, body etc especially: a spiritual conversion.)

Then my point is just as valid that people can be perfect bc at one spot in the OT a word or series of words in Hebrew gets translated as “perfect”.

I agree justification and sanctification are different. But if one is justified by the law or spirit, they can’t repent of having transgressed it. Therefore, it’s technically possible for someone to have followed a given law perfectly and have no need to repent of having transgressed it (eg Jesus)

“Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment? Now there was a punishment affixed and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.”
-Alma

Repentance is specifically tied to sin in the BoM by Alma. If Nelson was more familiar w/ the book, I assume he’d know this.

Therefore repentance and perfection are not the same thing. Since Jesus became perfect, but did this by grace, and yet didn’t sin, then change and repentance cannot be co-equal or synonymous either since Jesus needed to change before becoming perfect. Therefore change is NOT repentance and the BoM clearly shows this since repentance requires sin. We’ve already run over this ground.

If you’re saying Jesus is directing people to see what the Law of Moses pointed to and become not only justified by a higher law but also sanctified so that they embody that law and are “infused” by it, then I agree.

But if you have already transformed into all that God requires that you do here in mortality, then you can’t repent, or “change” any more in the sense of required or requisite repentance.

It’s possible for someone to max out the progress or repentance/“change”, as you put it, they can make in mortality and then merit/request transition into another sphere imo. Alma did this imo, for example. So did John. If there had been a reason for John to stick around in order to “change” (or in other words “repent” since repentance and change are synonymous according to you) more, why would God have translated him?

These people do not need to repent or “change” in the flesh any longer. Their work here (and therefore growth/change) is finished.

They’ve attained all God expects them to for their mortal lives. Bc this is true, it’s possible to live our lives for a period of time in which we bind the tempter for a season imo bc God cannot tempt us above what we’re able. In other words, we can resist all temptation for a time and are “full” or complete for that period. If we don’t give into the sin, then we cannot repent as Aa clearly teaches.

We can keep progressing but I wouldn’t call this repentance as the word was frequently used by JS, Alma, etc.

The period in church history talking about this suggests that we can enjoy periods which foreshadow the possibility of permanently being able to bind Satan’s influence bc we are justified and therefore merit sanctification at some point.

Are you saying that you cannot become sanctified in this life?

You keep changing terms. Pres. Nelson didn't say "repent of our transgressions daily." He said "repent daily." You're again confusing justification and sanctification. Repentance involves both. Just because someone is justified doesn't mean they're perfect.

Your Nelson derangement syndrome is showing again. Do you really think that he isn't familiar with Alma 42, or did it just sound like a cool snarky thing when you wrote it?

Yeah, repentance is related to sin and law. How can we change for the better if there is no good or bad? Sin and law establish the contrast of goodness and reward.

Pres. Nelson said the pathway to purity is daily repentance. If you're saying people have finished their pathway to purity then I suppose they don't need daily repentance.

I don't really have an opinion on whether complete sanctification is possible in mortality. When Satan is bound through the people's righteousness, I don't take that to mean that they're perfectly sanctified. I take it to mean that they've reached a certain level of righteousness that means they don't heed Satan's promptings anymore. But I don't equate that with perfectly possessing all Christlike attributes.

You keep changing terms. Pres. Nelson didn't say "repent of our transgressions daily." He said "repent daily." You're again confusing justification and sanctification. Repentance involves both. Just because someone is justified doesn't mean they're perfect.

No terms have been changed. There’s no need to say they have. Show where I changed the term if so.

I’ve never said that bc someone is justified it means they’re perfect. Again, stop attributing things to me that I’ve never said.

We’ve already agreed that the term can be used in different senses. Eg God can “repent”, we can repent of sins, transgressions, iniquities, etc.

Show me any scriptures that outlines daily repentance as a commandment. If there is no scripture, then the idea that daily repentance is a requirement is extra-scriptural and therefore doesn’t constitute a direct commandment to all but rather a private interpretation/view.

There isn’t even a commandment that daily change is required to be saved.

We obviously need to change. Repentance involves change. But there is no requirement saying it must take place daily. Therefore this idea, by definition, is extra-scriptural, unless there is scripture teaching/supporting it.

Again, if there is no scripture mandating daily repentance, then it’s extra-scriptural by definition.

I think daily repentance is good. I think daily change is good too.

However, advocating for daily repentance in the sense that it’s required by scripture or mandated by God through a commandment is not scriptural imo and therefore there isn’t any direct doctrine supporting it’s absolute necessity. Therefore I agree w/ the OP.

When Nelson calls for daily repentance, this is not explicitly supported by the scriptures, but I do think it’s pretty good advice personally.

Even if you define repentance as change, there is no commandment saying we need to do it daily. The scripture Nelson cites talking about metanoeo does not say we need to engage in that daily. It’s the DAILY part that was originally referenced by the OP.

If people need to perform daily “course corrections” and they want to call this repentance, that’s fine. But the scriptures nowhere mandate this. So I agree w/ the OP.

Your Nelson derangement syndrome is showing again. Do you really think that he isn't familiar with Alma 42, or did it just sound like a cool snarky thing when you wrote it?

There’s no need to start accusing people again. Talking about me having some type of made up form of derangement syndrome isn’t very Christ-like.

There are higher, nicer, and more forgiving ways to get your point across. There’s really no need to resort to this type of argumentation.

There’s no need to become offended or lash out just bc someone has reached a different conclusion than you. There’s no need to call anyone deranged. Comments like these are pretty clearly designed to “stir the hearts of men to contend with anger”. Which means the person making them is under Satan’s influence.

We can have a discussion without accusing anyone of being deranged. Please, try to be better — Nelson is advocating for this exact thing in the talk we’re discussing. It’s literally titled “we can do better and be better”.

Maybe you should re-read it instead of accusing others of being deranged just bc they disagree with you or Nelson on a point or two?

Doesn’t it seem a little hypocritical for Nelson to be talking about being better on the one hand, and you needlessly accusing others of having a “derangement syndrome” on the other?

Are you sure you’ve taken his words to heart and applied them? He is your prophet after all.

I don't really have an opinion on whether complete sanctification is possible in mortality. When Satan is bound through the people's righteousness, I don't take that to mean that they're perfectly sanctified.

I’m not sure why you keep bringing sanctification up yet don’t elaborate on it. Are you saying incomplete sanctification can take place?

Am I correct in assuming, that your premise is that a person can be in the presence of God but not be sanctified ?

You're still changing things. Pres. Nelson isn't saying it's required for salvation. That's just a straw man.

If you think that it was good advice, then what'd the problem?

Of course incomplete sanctification can happen. We can perfect or improve in one attribute at a time.

My presence has nothing to do with being in the presence of God. My only point is that we should strive to be better every day.

[heliocentr1c]

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

Didn’t see this until just now. Great points. Looks like you beat me to the punch w/ the JS quote! Sorry for the repeat.

[heliocentr1c]

Just bc a certain word is used in a certain language and a certain point in time to convey something, doesn’t mean the strict definition of that word as defined by scholars over 2000 years later constitutes its definitive definition necessarily or completely or entirely conveys the gospel meaning of that word in its entirety.

Words and languages are not static in their meanings necessarily, nor is it fair to assume that we can we fully recreate the full cultural and literary connotations of a word 2000 years after the fact purely through scholarship. Language and words evolve. They can take on different meanings and implications based on context, etc. The ideas associated with a word at one point in history may greatly flux even over 500 years imo bc of cultural influences.

If your argument is that bc at one spot in the NT a word gets translated as “change” according to you (which it doesn’t, a more contextually appropriate translation would imo be: a transformative change of heart, mind, body etc especially: a spiritual conversion.)

Then my point is just as valid that people can be perfect bc at one spot in the OT a word or series of words in Hebrew gets translated as “perfect”.

I agree justification and sanctification are different. But if one is justified by the law or spirit, they can’t repent of having transgressed it. Therefore, it’s technically possible for someone to have followed a given law perfectly and have no need to repent of having transgressed it (eg Jesus)

“Now, how could a man repent except he should sin? How could he sin if there was no law? How could there be a law save there was a punishment? Now there was a punishment affixed and a just law given, which brought remorse of conscience unto man.”
-Alma

Repentance is specifically tied to sin in the BoM by Alma. If Nelson was more familiar w/ the book, I assume he’d know this.

Therefore repentance and perfection are not the same thing. Since Jesus became perfect, but did this by grace, and yet didn’t sin, then change and repentance cannot be co-equal or synonymous either since Jesus needed to change before becoming perfect. Therefore change is NOT repentance and the BoM clearly shows this since repentance requires sin. We’ve already run over this ground.

If you’re saying Jesus is directing people to see what the Law of Moses pointed to and become not only justified by a higher law but also sanctified so that they embody that law and are “infused” by it, then I agree.

But if you have already transformed into all that God requires that you do here in mortality, then you can’t repent, or “change” any more in the sense of required or requisite repentance.

It’s possible for someone to max out the progress or repentance/“change”, as you put it, they can make in mortality and then merit/request transition into another sphere imo. Alma did this imo, for example. So did John. If there had been a reason for John to stick around in order to “change” (or in other words “repent” since repentance and change are synonymous according to you) more, why would God have translated him?

These people do not need to repent or “change” in the flesh any longer. Their work here (and therefore growth/change) is finished.

They’ve attained all God expects them to for their mortal lives. Bc this is true, it’s possible to live our lives for a period of time in which we bind the tempter for a season imo bc God cannot tempt us above what we’re able. In other words, we can resist all temptation for a time and are “full” or complete for that period. If we don’t give into the sin, then we cannot repent as Aa clearly teaches.

We can keep progressing but I wouldn’t call this repentance as the word was frequently used by JS, Alma, etc.

The period in church history talking about this suggests that we can enjoy periods which foreshadow the possibility of permanently being able to bind Satan’s influence bc we are justified and therefore merit sanctification at some point.

Are you saying that you cannot become sanctified in this life?

You keep changing terms. Pres. Nelson didn't say "repent of our transgressions daily." He said "repent daily." You're again confusing justification and sanctification. Repentance involves both. Just because someone is justified doesn't mean they're perfect.

Your Nelson derangement syndrome is showing again. Do you really think that he isn't familiar with Alma 42, or did it just sound like a cool snarky thing when you wrote it?

Yeah, repentance is related to sin and law. How can we change for the better if there is no good or bad? Sin and law establish the contrast of goodness and reward.

Pres. Nelson said the pathway to purity is daily repentance. If you're saying people have finished their pathway to purity then I suppose they don't need daily repentance.

I don't really have an opinion on whether complete sanctification is possible in mortality. When Satan is bound through the people's righteousness, I don't take that to mean that they're perfectly sanctified. I take it to mean that they've reached a certain level of righteousness that means they don't heed Satan's promptings anymore. But I don't equate that with perfectly possessing all Christlike attributes.

You keep changing terms. Pres. Nelson didn't say "repent of our transgressions daily." He said "repent daily." You're again confusing justification and sanctification. Repentance involves both. Just because someone is justified doesn't mean they're perfect.

No terms have been changed. There’s no need to say they have. Show where I changed the term if so.

I’ve never said that bc someone is justified it means they’re perfect. Again, stop attributing things to me that I’ve never said.

We’ve already agreed that the term can be used in different senses. Eg God can “repent”, we can repent of sins, transgressions, iniquities, etc.

Show me any scriptures that outlines daily repentance as a commandment. If there is no scripture, then the idea that daily repentance is a requirement is extra-scriptural and therefore doesn’t constitute a direct commandment to all but rather a private interpretation/view.

There isn’t even a commandment that daily change is required to be saved.

We obviously need to change. Repentance involves change. But there is no requirement saying it must take place daily. Therefore this idea, by definition, is extra-scriptural, unless there is scripture teaching/supporting it.

Again, if there is no scripture mandating daily repentance, then it’s extra-scriptural by definition.

I think daily repentance is good. I think daily change is good too.

However, advocating for daily repentance in the sense that it’s required by scripture or mandated by God through a commandment is not scriptural imo and therefore there isn’t any direct doctrine supporting it’s absolute necessity. Therefore I agree w/ the OP.

When Nelson calls for daily repentance, this is not explicitly supported by the scriptures, but I do think it’s pretty good advice personally.

Even if you define repentance as change, there is no commandment saying we need to do it daily. The scripture Nelson cites talking about metanoeo does not say we need to engage in that daily. It’s the DAILY part that was originally referenced by the OP.

If people need to perform daily “course corrections” and they want to call this repentance, that’s fine. But the scriptures nowhere mandate this. So I agree w/ the OP.

Your Nelson derangement syndrome is showing again. Do you really think that he isn't familiar with Alma 42, or did it just sound like a cool snarky thing when you wrote it?

There’s no need to start accusing people again. Talking about me having some type of made up form of derangement syndrome isn’t very Christ-like.

There are higher, nicer, and more forgiving ways to get your point across. There’s really no need to resort to this type of argumentation.

There’s no need to become offended or lash out just bc someone has reached a different conclusion than you. There’s no need to call anyone deranged. Comments like these are pretty clearly designed to “stir the hearts of men to contend with anger”. Which means the person making them is under Satan’s influence.

We can have a discussion without accusing anyone of being deranged. Please, try to be better — Nelson is advocating for this exact thing in the talk we’re discussing. It’s literally titled “we can do better and be better”.

Maybe you should re-read it instead of accusing others of being deranged just bc they disagree with you or Nelson on a point or two?

Doesn’t it seem a little hypocritical for Nelson to be talking about being better on the one hand, and you needlessly accusing others of having a “derangement syndrome” on the other?

Are you sure you’ve taken his words to heart and applied them? He is your prophet after all.

I don't really have an opinion on whether complete sanctification is possible in mortality. When Satan is bound through the people's righteousness, I don't take that to mean that they're perfectly sanctified.

I’m not sure why you keep bringing sanctification up yet don’t elaborate on it. Are you saying incomplete sanctification can take place?

Am I correct in assuming, that your premise is that a person can be in the presence of God but not be sanctified ?

You're still changing things. Pres. Nelson isn't saying it's required for salvation. That's just a straw man.

If you think that it was good advice, then what'd the problem?

Of course incomplete sanctification can happen. We can perfect or improve in one attribute at a time.

My presence has nothing to do with being in the presence of God. My only point is that we should strive to be better every day.

You're still changing things. Pres. Nelson isn't saying it's required for salvation. That's just a straw man.

I don’t believe I said Nelson said this. If so, where’d I say it? Are you sure you’re not straw manning me by accusing me of setting up a straw man? I believe someone else tried this same approach w/ me before already.

I said the directive that people are obligated to repent daily is extra-scriptural. If it’s extra-scriptural then it supports the OP’s original point— that there’s no doctrine to support it.

I also pointed out that, in a Gospel context, repentance is very typically associated with sin, transgression, iniquity etc., not simply “change” as you put it.

Repentance is not change. It’s a form of change that involves turning from sin, iniquity etc. toward God.

There is no time interval placed on the frequency with which we repent in the scriptures other than the space of this life. Saying otherwise is, by definition, extra-scriptural.

JS stated that the need for daily repentance
due to transgression is negative. The quote is pretty straightforward. Logonbump was the first to point this out. I should have given him credit.

I’m still waiting on any scripture which outlines daily repentance or change as a commandment, instruction, directive, law, etc.

When Nelson says all of us (he was talking to the men of the church predominately I believe) need to repent daily, is there any scripture to support the notion of doing it daily?

When he says all of “us” that would include him right? So Nelson is saying he also needs to repent daily.

If you think that it was good advice, then what'd the problem?

Just bc it’s good advice for me doesn’t mean it automatically is for everyone else.

Good advice doesn’t constitute gospel doctrine. It just constitutes good advice.

Since Nelson claims to be a prophet, I do tend to expect more than just good advice from him. I expect expounding of doctrine, new/additional doctrine, prophecy, and hopefully a little bit of seership at some point.

When he issues directives, I tend to want for there to be some doctrine behind them thereby showing he understands it.

My presence has nothing to do with being in the presence of God. My only point is that we should strive to be better every day.

I didn’t say “presence” I said “premise”.

So I’ll ask again. Do you think that someone can be in the presence of God without being sanctified?

[Artaxerxes]

You keep changing terms. Pres. Nelson didn't say "repent of our transgressions daily." He said "repent daily." You're again confusing justification and sanctification. Repentance involves both. Just because someone is justified doesn't mean they're perfect.

Your Nelson derangement syndrome is showing again. Do you really think that he isn't familiar with Alma 42, or did it just sound like a cool snarky thing when you wrote it?

Yeah, repentance is related to sin and law. How can we change for the better if there is no good or bad? Sin and law establish the contrast of goodness and reward.

Pres. Nelson said the pathway to purity is daily repentance. If you're saying people have finished their pathway to purity then I suppose they don't need daily repentance.

I don't really have an opinion on whether complete sanctification is possible in mortality. When Satan is bound through the people's righteousness, I don't take that to mean that they're perfectly sanctified. I take it to mean that they've reached a certain level of righteousness that means they don't heed Satan's promptings anymore. But I don't equate that with perfectly possessing all Christlike attributes.

You keep changing terms. Pres. Nelson didn't say "repent of our transgressions daily." He said "repent daily." You're again confusing justification and sanctification. Repentance involves both. Just because someone is justified doesn't mean they're perfect.

No terms have been changed. There’s no need to say they have. Show where I changed the term if so.

I’ve never said that bc someone is justified it means they’re perfect. Again, stop attributing things to me that I’ve never said.

We’ve already agreed that the term can be used in different senses. Eg God can “repent”, we can repent of sins, transgressions, iniquities, etc.

Show me any scriptures that outlines daily repentance as a commandment. If there is no scripture, then the idea that daily repentance is a requirement is extra-scriptural and therefore doesn’t constitute a direct commandment to all but rather a private interpretation/view.

There isn’t even a commandment that daily change is required to be saved.

We obviously need to change. Repentance involves change. But there is no requirement saying it must take place daily. Therefore this idea, by definition, is extra-scriptural, unless there is scripture teaching/supporting it.

Again, if there is no scripture mandating daily repentance, then it’s extra-scriptural by definition.

I think daily repentance is good. I think daily change is good too.

However, advocating for daily repentance in the sense that it’s required by scripture or mandated by God through a commandment is not scriptural imo and therefore there isn’t any direct doctrine supporting it’s absolute necessity. Therefore I agree w/ the OP.

When Nelson calls for daily repentance, this is not explicitly supported by the scriptures, but I do think it’s pretty good advice personally.

Even if you define repentance as change, there is no commandment saying we need to do it daily. The scripture Nelson cites talking about metanoeo does not say we need to engage in that daily. It’s the DAILY part that was originally referenced by the OP.

If people need to perform daily “course corrections” and they want to call this repentance, that’s fine. But the scriptures nowhere mandate this. So I agree w/ the OP.

Your Nelson derangement syndrome is showing again. Do you really think that he isn't familiar with Alma 42, or did it just sound like a cool snarky thing when you wrote it?

There’s no need to start accusing people again. Talking about me having some type of made up form of derangement syndrome isn’t very Christ-like.

There are higher, nicer, and more forgiving ways to get your point across. There’s really no need to resort to this type of argumentation.

There’s no need to become offended or lash out just bc someone has reached a different conclusion than you. There’s no need to call anyone deranged. Comments like these are pretty clearly designed to “stir the hearts of men to contend with anger”. Which means the person making them is under Satan’s influence.

We can have a discussion without accusing anyone of being deranged. Please, try to be better — Nelson is advocating for this exact thing in the talk we’re discussing. It’s literally titled “we can do better and be better”.

Maybe you should re-read it instead of accusing others of being deranged just bc they disagree with you or Nelson on a point or two?

Doesn’t it seem a little hypocritical for Nelson to be talking about being better on the one hand, and you needlessly accusing others of having a “derangement syndrome” on the other?

Are you sure you’ve taken his words to heart and applied them? He is your prophet after all.

I don't really have an opinion on whether complete sanctification is possible in mortality. When Satan is bound through the people's righteousness, I don't take that to mean that they're perfectly sanctified.

I’m not sure why you keep bringing sanctification up yet don’t elaborate on it. Are you saying incomplete sanctification can take place?

Am I correct in assuming, that your premise is that a person can be in the presence of God but not be sanctified ?

You're still changing things. Pres. Nelson isn't saying it's required for salvation. That's just a straw man.

If you think that it was good advice, then what'd the problem?

Of course incomplete sanctification can happen. We can perfect or improve in one attribute at a time.

My presence has nothing to do with being in the presence of God. My only point is that we should strive to be better every day.

You're still changing things. Pres. Nelson isn't saying it's required for salvation. That's just a straw man.

I don’t believe I said Nelson said this. If so, where’d I say it? Are you sure you’re not straw manning me by accusing me of setting up a straw man? I believe someone else tried this same approach w/ me before already.

I said the directive that people are obligated to repent daily is extra-scriptural. If it’s extra-scriptural then it supports the OP’s original point— that there’s no doctrine to support it.

I also pointed out that, in a Gospel context, repentance is very typically associated with sin, transgression, iniquity etc., not simply “change” as you put it.

Repentance is not change. It’s a form of change that involves turning from sin, iniquity etc. toward God.

There is no time interval placed on the frequency with which we repent in the scriptures other than the space of this life. Saying otherwise is, by definition, extra-scriptural.

JS stated that the need for daily repentance
due to transgression is negative. The quote is pretty straightforward.

I’m still waiting on any scripture which outlines daily repentance or change as a commandment, instruction, directive, law, etc.

When Nelson says all of us (he was talking to the men of the church predominately I believe) need to repent daily, is there any scripture to support the notion of doing it daily?

When he says all of “us” that would include him right? So Nelson is saying he also needs to repent daily.

If you think that it was good advice, then what'd the problem?

Just bc it’s good advice for me doesn’t mean it automatically is for everyone else.

Good advice doesn’t constitute gospel doctrine. It just constitutes good advice.

Since Nelson claims to be a prophet, I do tend to expect more than just good advice from him. I expect expounding of doctrine, new/additional doctrine, prophecy, and hopefully a little bit of seership at some point.

When he issues directives, I tend to want for there to be some doctrine behind them thereby showing he understands it.

My presence has nothing to do with being in the presence of God. My only point is that we should strive to be better every day.

I didn’t say “presence” I said “premise”.

So I’ll ask again. Do you think that someone can be in the presence of God without being sanctified?

Then who were you arguing against when you said, "There isn’t even a commandment that daily change is required to be saved" and "However, advocating for daily repentance in the sense that it’s required by scripture or mandated by God through a commandment is not scriptural imo and therefore there isn’t any direct doctrine supporting it’s absolute necessity"? If no one, then it's a straw man argument. If someone, then who?

You know perfectly well the scriptural basis. We need to come unto Christ. If you don't want to do it every day, I think that's to your detriment.

Again, my argument had nothing to do with being in the Lord's presence.