Thoughts on daily repentance

[heliocentr1c]

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.




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’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.

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?

I was just pointing out that the idea of daily repentance being a commandment is not contained in the scriptures. Therefore, Nelson advocating for it is extra-scriptural. Was just making an observation related to the OP which supports the premise. No straw man accusations necessary.

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.

I don’t think you really understand what coming unto Christ entails. Nor have I ever suggested we don’t need to. I’ve never said that I don’t want to come unto Him or don’t want to repent daily- more strawman and false accusations. More pot-stirring and lack of charity.

You really should read Nelson’s talk again. There’s some alright stuff in there imo.


I believe you’re conflating things at this point. Maybe go back to the scriptures to check your understanding:

“Nevertheless, I will be merciful unto them, saith the Lord God, if they will repent and come unto me, for mine arm is lengthened out all the day long, saith the Lord God of Hosts”

In the way I read it, repentance is separated out from coming unto Him. You repent first, then you come unto Him. If you haven’t repented, you can’t keep coming.

You can repent without coming unto Him fully, but you can’t come unto Him without repenting.

If you’ve repented and then come unto Him, what exactly are you repenting of unless you’ve sinned, transgressed etc after the initial repentance?

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

Did not say it did.

Just asking for some clarification. Do you really not know if you can or can’t come into God’s presence without being sanctified? Why so reticent?

[Artaxerxes]

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.

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?

I was just pointing out that the idea of daily repentance being a commandment is not contained in the scriptures. Therefore, Nelson advocating for it is extra-scriptural. Was just making an observation related to the OP which supports the premise. No straw man accusations necessary.

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.

I don’t think you really understand what coming unto Christ entails. Nor have I ever suggested we don’t need to. I’ve never said that I don’t want to come unto Him or don’t want to repent daily- more strawman and false accusations. More pot-stirring and lack of charity.

You really should read Nelson’s talk again. There’s some alright stuff in there imo.


I believe you’re conflating things at this point. Maybe go back to the scriptures to check your understanding:

“Nevertheless, I will be merciful unto them, saith the Lord God, if they will repent and come unto me, for mine arm is lengthened out all the day long, saith the Lord God of Hosts”

In the way I read it, repentance is separated out from coming unto Him. You repent first, then you come unto Him. If you haven’t repented, you can’t keep coming.

You can repent without coming unto Him fully, but you can’t come unto Him without repenting.

If you’ve repented and then come unto Him, what exactly are you repenting of unless you’ve sinned, transgressed etc after the initial repentance?

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

Did not say it did.

Just asking for some clarification. Do you really not know if you can or can’t come into God’s presence without being sanctified? Why so reticent?

So you were referring to Pres. Nelson as I said, and which you denied?

As stated several times above, you need to repent until you perfectly possess all Christlike attributes, whether you commit a sin or not.

I would like to stay on topic and not move onto something else that detracts from this. But if you really want to know my thoughts, my view is exactly what Samuel says in Helaman 14.

[heliocentr1c]

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.




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.




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.

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?

I was just pointing out that the idea of daily repentance being a commandment is not contained in the scriptures. Therefore, Nelson advocating for it is extra-scriptural. Was just making an observation related to the OP which supports the premise. No straw man accusations necessary.

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.

I don’t think you really understand what coming unto Christ entails. Nor have I ever suggested we don’t need to. I’ve never said that I don’t want to come unto Him or don’t want to repent daily- more strawman and false accusations. More pot-stirring and lack of charity.

You really should read Nelson’s talk again. There’s some alright stuff in there imo.


I believe you’re conflating things at this point. Maybe go back to the scriptures to check your understanding:

“Nevertheless, I will be merciful unto them, saith the Lord God, if they will repent and come unto me, for mine arm is lengthened out all the day long, saith the Lord God of Hosts”

In the way I read it, repentance is separated out from coming unto Him. You repent first, then you come unto Him. If you haven’t repented, you can’t keep coming.

You can repent without coming unto Him fully, but you can’t come unto Him without repenting.

If you’ve repented and then come unto Him, what exactly are you repenting of unless you’ve sinned, transgressed etc after the initial repentance?

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

Did not say it did.

Just asking for some clarification. Do you really not know if you can or can’t come into God’s presence without being sanctified? Why so reticent?

So you were referring to Pres. Nelson as I said, and which you denied?

As stated several times above, you need to repent until you perfectly possess all Christlike attributes, whether you commit a sin or not.

I would like to stay on topic and not move onto something else that detracts from this. But if you really want to know my thoughts, my view is exactly what Samuel says in Helaman 14.

So you were referring to Pres. Nelson as I said, and which you denied?

No, not exactly. It seems like you’re fishing at this point. Comes off as a bit “reachy” imo.

I made a comment in light of what Nelson said in the talk. Nelson gave a directive to “repent daily”. This directive is extra-scriptural. I believe I pointed that out.

I did not say that Nelson said we need to repent daily in order to be saved. But I did observe that daily repentance is not a requirement outlined in the scriptures for salvation.

Therefore Nelson’s directive to “repent daily” given in the talk is not required for salvation from a scriptural stand point.

As stated several times above, you need to repent until you perfectly possess all Christlike attributes, whether you commit a sin or not.

You/we need to repent and come unto Christ. Once we come unto Him, He’ll tell us what we need to do going forward.

You can’t sin against a level of light or order of things that hasn’t been given yet bc no law has been issued in relation to it. You have to receive the light FIRST before you can sin against it or match it.

There are things involving our perfection that must be done on the other side of the present veil. We cannot repent of these things while still in mortality, nor are we at fault for not doing them while still here necessarily. Just read the King Follet Discourse and D&C/BoM.

I would like to stay on topic and not move onto something else that detracts from this. But if you really want to know my thoughts, my view is exactly what Samuel says in Helaman 14.

I believe you’re the one who brought up the topic of sanctification, not me. I don’t really see how it’s relevant per se.

But since you introduced it to the discussion and referred to it repeatedly, thought you could at least explain if someone needs to be sanctified before going into God’s presence or not.

Thought you might be able to put the concept in your own words instead of just citing and entire BoM chapter without commenting on it whatsoever.

[Artaxerxes]

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.

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?

I was just pointing out that the idea of daily repentance being a commandment is not contained in the scriptures. Therefore, Nelson advocating for it is extra-scriptural. Was just making an observation related to the OP which supports the premise. No straw man accusations necessary.

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.

I don’t think you really understand what coming unto Christ entails. Nor have I ever suggested we don’t need to. I’ve never said that I don’t want to come unto Him or don’t want to repent daily- more strawman and false accusations. More pot-stirring and lack of charity.

You really should read Nelson’s talk again. There’s some alright stuff in there imo.


I believe you’re conflating things at this point. Maybe go back to the scriptures to check your understanding:

“Nevertheless, I will be merciful unto them, saith the Lord God, if they will repent and come unto me, for mine arm is lengthened out all the day long, saith the Lord God of Hosts”

In the way I read it, repentance is separated out from coming unto Him. You repent first, then you come unto Him. If you haven’t repented, you can’t keep coming.

You can repent without coming unto Him fully, but you can’t come unto Him without repenting.

If you’ve repented and then come unto Him, what exactly are you repenting of unless you’ve sinned, transgressed etc after the initial repentance?

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

Did not say it did.

Just asking for some clarification. Do you really not know if you can or can’t come into God’s presence without being sanctified? Why so reticent?

So you were referring to Pres. Nelson as I said, and which you denied?

As stated several times above, you need to repent until you perfectly possess all Christlike attributes, whether you commit a sin or not.

I would like to stay on topic and not move onto something else that detracts from this. But if you really want to know my thoughts, my view is exactly what Samuel says in Helaman 14.

So you were referring to Pres. Nelson as I said, and which you denied?

No, not exactly. It seems like you’re fishing at this point. Comes off as a bit “reachy” imo.

I made a comment in light of what Nelson said in the talk. Nelson gave a directive to “repent daily”. This directive is extra-scriptural. I believe I pointed that out.

I did not say that Nelson said we need to repent daily in order to be saved. But I did observe that daily repentance is not a requirement outlined in the scriptures for salvation.

Therefore Nelson’s directive to “repent daily” given in the talk is not required for salvation from a scriptural stand point.

As stated several times above, you need to repent until you perfectly possess all Christlike attributes, whether you commit a sin or not.

You/we need to repent and come unto Christ. Once we come unto Him, He’ll tell us what we need to do going forward.

You can’t sin against a level of light or order of things that hasn’t been given yet bc no law has been issued in relation to it. You have to receive the light FIRST before you can sin against it or match it.

There are things involving our perfection that must be done on the other side of the present veil. We cannot repent of these things while still in mortality, nor are we at fault for not doing them while still here necessarily. Just read the King Follet Discourse and D&C/BoM.

I would like to stay on topic and not move onto something else that detracts from this. But if you really want to know my thoughts, my view is exactly what Samuel says in Helaman 14.

I believe you’re the one who brought up the topic of sanctification, not me. I don’t really see how it’s relevant per se.

But since you introduced it to the discussion and referred to it repeatedly, thought you could at least explain if someone needs to be sanctified before going into God’s presence or not.

Thought you might be able to put the concept in your own words instead of just citing and entire BoM chapter without commenting on it whatsoever.

It seems like you're saying that we can't be truly perfect in this life because our perfection continues into the next life. Is that correct?

I talked about sanctification, not what it required to be on God's presence. Sanctification is very much part of the discussion. When we can return to God's presence and how sanctification related to that is not.

[heliocentr1c]

I was just pointing out that the idea of daily repentance being a commandment is not contained in the scriptures. Therefore, Nelson advocating for it is extra-scriptural. Was just making an observation related to the OP which supports the premise. No straw man accusations necessary.




I don’t think you really understand what coming unto Christ entails. Nor have I ever suggested we don’t need to. I’ve never said that I don’t want to come unto Him or don’t want to repent daily- more strawman and false accusations. More pot-stirring and lack of charity.

You really should read Nelson’s talk again. There’s some alright stuff in there imo.


I believe you’re conflating things at this point. Maybe go back to the scriptures to check your understanding:

“Nevertheless, I will be merciful unto them, saith the Lord God, if they will repent and come unto me, for mine arm is lengthened out all the day long, saith the Lord God of Hosts”

In the way I read it, repentance is separated out from coming unto Him. You repent first, then you come unto Him. If you haven’t repented, you can’t keep coming.

You can repent without coming unto Him fully, but you can’t come unto Him without repenting.

If you’ve repented and then come unto Him, what exactly are you repenting of unless you’ve sinned, transgressed etc after the initial repentance?




Did not say it did.

Just asking for some clarification. Do you really not know if you can or can’t come into God’s presence without being sanctified? Why so reticent?

So you were referring to Pres. Nelson as I said, and which you denied?

As stated several times above, you need to repent until you perfectly possess all Christlike attributes, whether you commit a sin or not.

I would like to stay on topic and not move onto something else that detracts from this. But if you really want to know my thoughts, my view is exactly what Samuel says in Helaman 14.

So you were referring to Pres. Nelson as I said, and which you denied?

No, not exactly. It seems like you’re fishing at this point. Comes off as a bit “reachy” imo.

I made a comment in light of what Nelson said in the talk. Nelson gave a directive to “repent daily”. This directive is extra-scriptural. I believe I pointed that out.

I did not say that Nelson said we need to repent daily in order to be saved. But I did observe that daily repentance is not a requirement outlined in the scriptures for salvation.

Therefore Nelson’s directive to “repent daily” given in the talk is not required for salvation from a scriptural stand point.

As stated several times above, you need to repent until you perfectly possess all Christlike attributes, whether you commit a sin or not.

You/we need to repent and come unto Christ. Once we come unto Him, He’ll tell us what we need to do going forward.

You can’t sin against a level of light or order of things that hasn’t been given yet bc no law has been issued in relation to it. You have to receive the light FIRST before you can sin against it or match it.

There are things involving our perfection that must be done on the other side of the present veil. We cannot repent of these things while still in mortality, nor are we at fault for not doing them while still here necessarily. Just read the King Follet Discourse and D&C/BoM.

I would like to stay on topic and not move onto something else that detracts from this. But if you really want to know my thoughts, my view is exactly what Samuel says in Helaman 14.

I believe you’re the one who brought up the topic of sanctification, not me. I don’t really see how it’s relevant per se.

But since you introduced it to the discussion and referred to it repeatedly, thought you could at least explain if someone needs to be sanctified before going into God’s presence or not.

Thought you might be able to put the concept in your own words instead of just citing and entire BoM chapter without commenting on it whatsoever.

It seems like you're saying that we can't be truly perfect in this life because our perfection continues into the next life. Is that correct?

I talked about sanctification, not what it required to be on God's presence. Sanctification is very much part of the discussion. When we can return to God's presence and how sanctification related to that is not.

It seems like you're saying that we can't be truly perfect in this life because our perfection continues into the next life. Is that correct?

It seems reasonably straightforward to me, honestly.

One simply needs to gain an orientation/perspective that is centered correctly relative to where they stand. If they’ve done this, then they’re “perfectly” oriented relative to their present situation.

If their situation were to change, they’d need to reorient themselves, obviously. Why wouldn’t sufficient time be given to do this?

If in that amount of “time”, they re-orient themselves to the center once again, then they’ve done all they can do at that place.

It’s really rather obvious when you think about it.

I’ve already talked about perfection in past posts quite a bit. Look at those for my response.

The quote I’m referring to is this:

“It is not all to be comprehended in this world: it will be a great work to learn our salvation and exaltation even beyond the grave.”

There are things pertaining to exaltation and salvation which must be learned “beyond the grave.” Perfection involves exaltation and salvation. Perfection isn’t something which is entirely static.

It’s an upward course. The course offers perspective, but not all at once. If there are rungs on the ladder, then you can obviously move up and down the rungs:

“Wherefore, look, and I will show you the workmanship of my hands — but not all, for my works are without end, and also my words, for they never cease. Wherefore, no man can behold all my works except he behold all my glory, and no man can behold all my glory and afterward remain in the flesh on the earth.“
- Moses

Then shall I see his face with pleasure, and he will say unto me, Come unto me, ye Blessed; there is a place prepared for you in the mansions of my Father. Amen.
- Enos

It’s enough for us to receive from God the glory we need to be made whole in this world. This does not mean there won’t be other stops along the way. If this had been the case, our Father would have told us as much.

Do you think He’d leave us comfortless?

[heliocentr1c]

I was just pointing out that the idea of daily repentance being a commandment is not contained in the scriptures. Therefore, Nelson advocating for it is extra-scriptural. Was just making an observation related to the OP which supports the premise. No straw man accusations necessary.




I don’t think you really understand what coming unto Christ entails. Nor have I ever suggested we don’t need to. I’ve never said that I don’t want to come unto Him or don’t want to repent daily- more strawman and false accusations. More pot-stirring and lack of charity.

You really should read Nelson’s talk again. There’s some alright stuff in there imo.


I believe you’re conflating things at this point. Maybe go back to the scriptures to check your understanding:

“Nevertheless, I will be merciful unto them, saith the Lord God, if they will repent and come unto me, for mine arm is lengthened out all the day long, saith the Lord God of Hosts”

In the way I read it, repentance is separated out from coming unto Him. You repent first, then you come unto Him. If you haven’t repented, you can’t keep coming.

You can repent without coming unto Him fully, but you can’t come unto Him without repenting.

If you’ve repented and then come unto Him, what exactly are you repenting of unless you’ve sinned, transgressed etc after the initial repentance?




Did not say it did.

Just asking for some clarification. Do you really not know if you can or can’t come into God’s presence without being sanctified? Why so reticent?

So you were referring to Pres. Nelson as I said, and which you denied?

As stated several times above, you need to repent until you perfectly possess all Christlike attributes, whether you commit a sin or not.

I would like to stay on topic and not move onto something else that detracts from this. But if you really want to know my thoughts, my view is exactly what Samuel says in Helaman 14.

So you were referring to Pres. Nelson as I said, and which you denied?

No, not exactly. It seems like you’re fishing at this point. Comes off as a bit “reachy” imo.

I made a comment in light of what Nelson said in the talk. Nelson gave a directive to “repent daily”. This directive is extra-scriptural. I believe I pointed that out.

I did not say that Nelson said we need to repent daily in order to be saved. But I did observe that daily repentance is not a requirement outlined in the scriptures for salvation.

Therefore Nelson’s directive to “repent daily” given in the talk is not required for salvation from a scriptural stand point.

As stated several times above, you need to repent until you perfectly possess all Christlike attributes, whether you commit a sin or not.

You/we need to repent and come unto Christ. Once we come unto Him, He’ll tell us what we need to do going forward.

You can’t sin against a level of light or order of things that hasn’t been given yet bc no law has been issued in relation to it. You have to receive the light FIRST before you can sin against it or match it.

There are things involving our perfection that must be done on the other side of the present veil. We cannot repent of these things while still in mortality, nor are we at fault for not doing them while still here necessarily. Just read the King Follet Discourse and D&C/BoM.

I would like to stay on topic and not move onto something else that detracts from this. But if you really want to know my thoughts, my view is exactly what Samuel says in Helaman 14.

I believe you’re the one who brought up the topic of sanctification, not me. I don’t really see how it’s relevant per se.

But since you introduced it to the discussion and referred to it repeatedly, thought you could at least explain if someone needs to be sanctified before going into God’s presence or not.

Thought you might be able to put the concept in your own words instead of just citing and entire BoM chapter without commenting on it whatsoever.

It seems like you're saying that we can't be truly perfect in this life because our perfection continues into the next life. Is that correct?

I talked about sanctification, not what it required to be on God's presence. Sanctification is very much part of the discussion. When we can return to God's presence and how sanctification related to that is not.

I talked about sanctification, not what it required to be on God's presence. Sanctification is very much part of the discussion. When we can return to God's presence and how sanctification related to that is not.

Sanctification involves being made holy. God is holy. These things are intimately related.

[TheDuke]

I'm sorry, but anyone who doesn't think repentance is a daily process has no idea of what repentance entails. There are many scriptures and interpretations (I don't adhere to all of them) that say if you repent of 10 things and renege on one then all 10 come back. At least the one does. So, lets say someone leads a near perfect life (like those on this forum with their C&E that daily chat with Jesus and have HG as constant companion), long ago (before their becoming perfect) they sinned. One simple sin......... Would then need to be involved in repentance today? Yes! Why? Because repentance is more than saying sorry and confessing, it involves reparation and forsaking. Can you forsake today for tomorrow? No! Then every day we must continue the repentance process, even if there are no new sins today. Every day we must press forward, continue in our sorrow to the point we don't slide back, and lose the forsakenness. So, I guess anyone (other than those few perfect individuals with their C&E that are beyond the law now) we must "daily" repent. or at least daily (or regularly) continue the repentance process for past sins and weaknesses. I mean reread ole King Ben for goodness sake. None on this earth (again other than those few perfected beings on this forum that have moved beyond the law) ever get perfected. As the king says we're still in debt, no matter what we do. So, we still need to continue in repentance and "endure to the end".

Silly word games fighting about the word "daily", we have these discussions on this forum "DAILY"? Get my point?

[EvanLM]

There are things involving our perfection that must be done on the other side of the present veil. We cannot repent of these things while still in mortality, nor are we at fault for not doing them while still here necessarily. Just read the King Follet Discourse and D&C/BoM.

this seems extra scriptural

[EvanLM]

but Duke sometimes I love the arguments since these are the thoughts that never get mentioned in SS or RS or EQ or over the pulpit. This one has moved a little beyond, but allows me to confront my own assumptions.

However, don't know about the posters daughter or anyone else that is C&E but for me and my house . . . I repent daily

I would rather be overzealous than under and come short of the reward . . like the idea with King Ben

[heliocentr1c]

There are things involving our perfection that must be done on the other side of the present veil. We cannot repent of these things while still in mortality, nor are we at fault for not doing them while still here necessarily. Just read the King Follet Discourse and D&C/BoM.

this seems extra scriptural

I agree with you, it’s not technically in the canon of scriptures. But it is in the King Follet Discourse.

If you read it, that general idea is in there imo.

Probably would have been clearer to say “we cannot repent of not doing these things while still in mortality”.

[EvanLM]

There are things involving our perfection that must be done on the other side of the present veil. We cannot repent of these things while still in mortality, nor are we at fault for not doing them while still here necessarily. Just read the King Follet Discourse and D&C/BoM.

this seems extra scriptural

I agree with you, it’s not technically in the canon of scriptures. But it is in the King Follet Discourse.

If you read it, that general idea is in there imo.

Probably would have been clearer to say “we cannot repent of not doing these things while still in mortality”.

thank you for clarifying

[logonbump]

There are things involving our perfection that must be done on the other side of the present veil. We cannot repent of these things while still in mortality, nor are we at fault for not doing them while still here necessarily. Just read the King Follet Discourse and D&C/BoM.

this seems extra scriptural

Not necessarily on the other side of the veil, and not at all if they are the "iniquities of our fathers" and we are not accountable for them; however:
When Zion is established
"the people who inhabit it shall be forgiven their iniquity." Isaiah 33:24
Some offense will be forgiven us at that day:
"Be not exceedingly angry, O Jehovah;
remember not iniquity forever. See, consider that we are all your people!" Isaiah 64:9

[LDS Watchman]

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.

What's with the "Brethrenite" name calling? That is juvenile behavior.

It's no different than a "TBM" hurling this accusation out of left field:

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

[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.

What's with the "Brethrenite" name calling? That is juvenile behavior.

It's no different than a "TBM" hurling this accusation out of left field:

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

You're one to talk about "juvenile behaviour"!

You could say that if you wanted to, but for many "apostates" it doesn't apply.

I frankly just don't care what the leaders of the LDS Church have to say. If I agree with them, then I agree with them, if I disagree with them, then I disagree with them. I would much rather focus on my own beliefs.

[LDS Watchman]

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.

What's with the "Brethrenite" name calling? That is juvenile behavior.

It's no different than a "TBM" hurling this accusation out of left field:

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

You're one to talk about "juvenile behaviour"!

You could say that if you wanted to, but for many "apostates" it doesn't apply.

I frankly just don't care what the leaders of the LDS Church have to say. If I agree with them, then I agree with them, if I disagree with them, then I disagree with them. I would much rather focus on my own beliefs.

That's the problem with your juvenile name calling and accusations. Maybe you could find a few true believing members who couldn't care less about the truth, but for most this is a false accusation.

And we need look no farther than this forum to clearly see that there are certain "apostates" who are determined to attack the Lord's church and its leaders no matter what they say or do. But of course not all "apostates" fit this bill. And calling everyone who makes a criticism of the brethren or expresses a concern an "apostate" is wrong.

So please refrain from juvenile name calling and false accusations.

[ransomme]

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.

You make several things clear; you tend to conflate things, and you seemingly have a fetish for the word change.

Greek noun: μετάνοια - metanoia (met-an'-oy-ah)
- a change of mind, change in the inner person, repentance

Greek verb: μετανοέω - metanoeó (met-an-o-eh'-o)
- to change one's mind or purpose

Hebrew
Nacham - regret
Teshuvah - return to (the covenant, to God)


Repentance does not mean to change in the sense that you used it. In this sense Jesus did not need to repent, he was always about his Father's business. His eye was always single to the glory of God. He didn't have to change his mind, will or inner person.

Jesus grew from grace to grace, but growth/change is not repentance.

Also to be perfect like Jesus and the Father is not the same as Noah's perfection. We can become like Noah, but only through a covenant may we be just men made perfect in Christ through the Atonement (which requires repentance and includes Noah.)

[EvanLM]

of course, for Christ then the growth change was not repentance

but for us regular mortals, who did not live in this world as perfect, then the growth change does fall under repentance as well as the stopping of obvious sins including contrition and all that other fallder rah

even after the Savior had saved from death the more righteous people of the Nephites so he could return to the earth then he still told them to repent . . .so the definition of this repentance thing is really difficult.

I have always contemplated even since I was a child and read in the BoM, what sins or wrongs would these people, who had been saved, because of their righteousness, need to repent of? And this thought has kept me pretty close to asking myself almost daily what I need to consider in my behavior as being in need of repentance. These people were priviledged to see the risen Christ and some have speculated that they went on to live a Zion society for some time after. Yet they were still asked to repent.

I know one thing they needed to repent of cuz they said that they should have warned their brothers better.

anyway, I have no definition for repentance or any explanation of how it is lived in truth . . but I have plenty of scriptures that show examples of when God expected someone to repent including the vile sinner as well as the righteous. So probably all of the suggestions of a definition in these posts could be considered.

It becomes more obvious to me every day that there really are some people out there that want to live the commandments in truth and that seems to be the reason to argue the point.

[heliocentr1c]

Idk what this means. Why would I say that?



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.

You make several things clear; you tend to conflate things, and you seemingly have a fetish for the word change.

Greek noun: μετάνοια - metanoia (met-an'-oy-ah)
- a change of mind, change in the inner person, repentance

Greek verb: μετανοέω - metanoeó (met-an-o-eh'-o)
- to change one's mind or purpose

Hebrew
Nacham - regret
Teshuvah - return to (the covenant, to God)


Repentance does not mean to change in the sense that you used it. In this sense Jesus did not need to repent, he was always about his Father's business. His eye was always single to the glory of God. He didn't have to change his mind, will or inner person.

Jesus grew from grace to grace, but growth/change is not repentance.

Also to be perfect like Jesus and the Father is not the same as Noah's perfection. We can become like Noah, but only through a covenant may we be just men made perfect in Christ through the Atonement (which requires repentance and includes Noah.)

You make several things clear; you tend to conflate things, and you seemingly have a fetish for the word change.

Greek noun: μετάνοια - metanoia (met-an'-oy-ah)
- a change of mind, change in the inner person, repentance

Greek verb: μετανοέω - metanoeó (met-an-o-eh'-o)
- to change one's mind or purpose

Hebrew
Nacham - regret
Teshuvah - return to (the covenant, to God)


Repentance does not mean to change in the sense that you used it. In this sense Jesus did not need to repent, he was always about his Father's business. His eye was always single to the glory of God. He didn't have to change his mind, will or inner person.

Jesus grew from grace to grace, but growth/change is not repentance.

You really should go back and read my posts more carefully.

At no time am I arguing that growth or change is repentance. I consistently argue against that, when speaking about repentance in a Gospel context.

If I’m understanding your response correctly, you’re basically now arguing the same thing I’ve been and then saying that I haven’t been arguing it?

The definition you have for repentance was already given by me, more or less.

Some of the things I said were rhetorical. In order to understand what I meant, you have to read them in their context.

Also to be perfect like Jesus and the Father is not the same as Noah's perfection.

Then in what sense do the scriptures mean Noah was perfect?

We can become like Noah, but only through a covenant may we be just men made perfect in Christ through the Atonement (which requires repentance and includes Noah.)

Agreed. Quote anything I said where I say differently, as long as it’s quoted within its original context.

you seemingly have a fetish for the word change.

If I have a fetish for word change, show directly where or how I have this.

You make several things clear; you tend to conflate things,

If you’re accusing me of conflating things, it would be nice if you could provide some direct evidence of this by quoting me directly when I conflated something, instead of just accusing me of it.



I feel like my argument has been pretty clear. I’ve repeated it several times at this point:

1) There is no scriptural mandate which requires daily repentance. Therefore advocating for daily repentance is extra-scriptural but there is likewise nowhere saying you can’t repent daily either.

2) The word “repentance” can sometimes be used in slightly varying senses. However, in a gospel context, it consistently means changing towards God and away from sin and its effects.

3) We are only able to repent bc a law was given delineating righteousness from sin/wickedness.

4) The idea of change itself is not strictly synonymous with the act of repentance.
Change does not equal repentance in every instance or sense (I’ve repeated this one probably 4x at this point).

Honestly don’t know how to make it any clearer.

[EvanLM]

I can accept arguments of doctrine on this forum, but I am having a heck of a time accepting the questioning or teaching of one's own opinion instead of just teaching it the way a manual asks in the COJCLDS. When were teachers given permission to go so outside the manuals so far, they can claim that what I learned in primary is all wrong?

True story of yesterday in church . . . where is one supposed go to find the consistency and the lack of "I am smarter than this church." I have heard a lot of false doctrine taught in church but this is the first time I have honestly heard anyone claim that you don't have to follow the steps of repentance that was taught to you in primary. No comment from the RS pres or any counselor . . just move on and brain wash everyone in the room with one persons opinion cuz she is sitting in the teacher chair.

She basically said that the manuals we have been taught from and the approval of general authorities was all wrong on this one and we need to agree with her. I call that apostasy from within. and the fact that any RS pres would let her get away with that is amazing. She was teaching a lesson from RMN talk that has been discussed here.

I listen DAILY to the presentation of news in our world and then the interpretation of that news. I am so tired of this kind of world. Let me respond how I want to when the news is presented to me. If I want an opinion, then I'll check the editorial section or find those on social media that present their opinion only or log onto LDSFF. Who the heck besides herself appointed her to be the fact checker. This is fine if she wants to do that but NOT in the setting that she is in. I find this totally rude and ostentacious.

If you are going to stand at the pulpit of the mormon church or teach a class then teach the doctrine as presented in the manuals. No one in those positions of teacher has the right to distract or teach their own thing like our politicians do in order to brain wash. They do have the right to brainwash using the presentation of the doctrine as approved by the church.

and I have read the posts on this forum of those who have dared to teach what they wanted and they were proud of it. What about us sitting in the class. You are no better than the prophets hwo hog the light when they are in GC. They cannot be disputed and you have given them your attention only to be disappointed or reassured. Same with you. I have showed up and am listening and why would you opr anyone take advantage of that. Express your opinion somewhere else and just teach the doctrine.

Have the mormons really become so brainwashed by the world that even they try those techniques . . or behave as fact checker when they are allowed to teach a church audience? . . .what happened to freedom of thought or integrity when representing an entity? I you don't want to represent the church then move out of the way. If you don't like the way that doctrine is presented in primary then don't accept a teaching position where you are going to rudely dis on the manuals.

I use to know what to expect. If I disagree with the manual presentation then its on me. If I disagree with the prophet then it is on me. But what happened to the honesty. The brainwashing tactic to get one's own agenda met with doctrine in this setting is so offensive I don't even have words for it.

This teacher is a counselor-whatever that means and so turns every lesson into a group counseling session with her asking questions that we respond to. Then, she responds back to those who say what she wants to hear. So in that way then those who don't agree or are offended by her control tactics are obviously shunned or stop responding since they don't get the reward of having her responding to them personally. I DON'T go to church to be in a counseling session.

As well, she always promotes medication and counseling. Every time she teaches she does this group therapy and promotes meds and counseling for everything., AAAARGH!!!! This lesson is on finding peace. . .not on creating peace, manipulating peace, etc. The only answer is through Christ.

I don't care how any christian stands on church attendance or doctrine BUT the only way to find peace in this world in through Christ. However she teaches that it is through the use of medications especially for mental illness and counseling. Then as in every lesson women start confessing their use of drugs, their diagnosis, and others give their support and the whole thing is totally manipulated with lots of virtue signaling.

Medicatiopn canonly help the symptoms of a disease and few medications sotp and turn around a disease. the use of insulin, thyroid medication, cancer drugs, etc. can take away the symptoms or make them bearable to live with. BUT meds cannot bring you peace.

Counseling can put your feet in the right direction BUT counseling cannot bring peace. Only Christ can bring peace.

I am beginning to think that the division in the church is not between wicked and righteous. And I don't think anymore that the elect are a part of the division. They are NOT one side of it. The elect who are the remnant who do not apostatize are the observers. They watch the church split into two groups where they can no longer agree because of their pride, education, wordly connections,their need to believe every science fact, the new written history, etc.

I'm going to open my eyes to see who these two groups are that are tearing away at the church cuz it isn't the seperation of the wicked and righteous. It is a seperation of the prideful and the prideful and it is being played out before our very eyes. It has nothing to do with the elect. Both sides of this division in the church will fight the elect.

Just like politics have left most of this nation wondering what party we belong to politically then the church is also dividing causing those elect to wonder where the heck they belong in such a church. And this forum supports that idea.

Many who are righteous and elect (even if hasn't been revealed to them yet) are lost. There is so darn much contention and pride and need to be right with the world that we no longer know where we belong. We have hard time holding on to truth and knowing where to find support for believing in this gospel. so many teachers in our church (and outside the church) are trying to push their personal agenda which may be totally against the doctrine.

[EvanLM]

woops forgot to say . . .drugs used for depression OCD, bi and so on can only relieve symptoms. they do not cure the disease. And the meds cannot bring peace . . only Christ can

[EvanLM]

so I think the scriptures say that the divisions in the church . . .which actually happened first, before the political split as mentioned in Isaiah. Anyway the divisions in the church are between the educated and the rich and those who didn't have a chance for education and are poor. the elect don't necessarily fall into either of these categories or could be found in both categories. And I think this division of social classes is spoken of through Nephi.

The rich will grind the very faces of the humble. The humble are those trying to live Jesus commandments since those commandments are pretty humbling in this day and age and are now being knocked down from within. And just like the pride we see in our society among each class then it exists in our church as well.

And just like the fallout reaches the citizens of the USA with this political battle then the fallout of this church division will land on the elect , those who will be the remnant.

Are we having any fun yet?

do you see the fight on this forum alone, between the rich and poor . . the fight regarding money . . . its is going on in our churches as well . . . satan creates a good distraction there

[Cruiserdude]

I can accept arguments of doctrine on this forum, but I am having a heck of a time accepting the questioning or teaching of one's own opinion instead of just teaching it the way a manual asks in the COJCLDS. When were teachers given permission to go so outside the manuals so far, they can claim that what I learned in primary is all wrong?

True story of yesterday in church . . . where is one supposed go to find the consistency and the lack of "I am smarter than this church." I have heard a lot of false doctrine taught in church but this is the first time I have honestly heard anyone claim that you don't have to follow the steps of repentance that was taught to you in primary. No comment from the RS pres or any counselor . . just move on and brain wash everyone in the room with one persons opinion cuz she is sitting in the teacher chair.

She basically said that the manuals we have been taught from and the approval of general authorities was all wrong on this one and we need to agree with her. I call that apostasy from within. and the fact that any RS pres would let her get away with that is amazing. She was teaching a lesson from RMN talk that has been discussed here.

I listen DAILY to the presentation of news in our world and then the interpretation of that news. I am so tired of this kind of world. Let me respond how I want to when the news is presented to me. If I want an opinion, then I'll check the editorial section or find those on social media that present their opinion only or log onto LDSFF. Who the heck besides herself appointed her to be the fact checker. This is fine if she wants to do that but NOT in the setting that she is in. I find this totally rude and ostentacious.

If you are going to stand at the pulpit of the mormon church or teach a class then teach the doctrine as presented in the manuals. No one in those positions of teacher has the right to distract or teach their own thing like our politicians do in order to brain wash. They do have the right to brainwash using the presentation of the doctrine as approved by the church.

and I have read the posts on this forum of those who have dared to teach what they wanted and they were proud of it. What about us sitting in the class. You are no better than the prophets hwo hog the light when they are in GC. They cannot be disputed and you have given them your attention only to be disappointed or reassured. Same with you. I have showed up and am listening and why would you opr anyone take advantage of that. Express your opinion somewhere else and just teach the doctrine.

Have the mormons really become so brainwashed by the world that even they try those techniques . . or behave as fact checker when they are allowed to teach a church audience? . . .what happened to freedom of thought or integrity when representing an entity? I you don't want to represent the church then move out of the way. If you don't like the way that doctrine is presented in primary then don't accept a teaching position where you are going to rudely dis on the manuals.

I use to know what to expect. If I disagree with the manual presentation then its on me. If I disagree with the prophet then it is on me. But what happened to the honesty. The brainwashing tactic to get one's own agenda met with doctrine in this setting is so offensive I don't even have words for it.

This teacher is a counselor-whatever that means and so turns every lesson into a group counseling session with her asking questions that we respond to. Then, she responds back to those who say what she wants to hear. So in that way then those who don't agree or are offended by her control tactics are obviously shunned or stop responding since they don't get the reward of having her responding to them personally. I DON'T go to church to be in a counseling session.

As well, she always promotes medication and counseling. Every time she teaches she does this group therapy and promotes meds and counseling for everything., AAAARGH!!!! This lesson is on finding peace. . .not on creating peace, manipulating peace, etc. The only answer is through Christ.

I don't care how any christian stands on church attendance or doctrine BUT the only way to find peace in this world in through Christ. However she teaches that it is through the use of medications especially for mental illness and counseling. Then as in every lesson women start confessing their use of drugs, their diagnosis, and others give their support and the whole thing is totally manipulated with lots of virtue signaling.

Medicatiopn canonly help the symptoms of a disease and few medications sotp and turn around a disease. the use of insulin, thyroid medication, cancer drugs, etc. can take away the symptoms or make them bearable to live with. BUT meds cannot bring you peace.

Counseling can put your feet in the right direction BUT counseling cannot bring peace. Only Christ can bring peace.

I am beginning to think that the division in the church is not between wicked and righteous. And I don't think anymore that the elect are a part of the division. They are NOT one side of it. The elect who are the remnant who do not apostatize are the observers. They watch the church split into two groups where they can no longer agree because of their pride, education, wordly connections,their need to believe every science fact, the new written history, etc.

I'm going to open my eyes to see who these two groups are that are tearing away at the church cuz it isn't the seperation of the wicked and righteous. It is a seperation of the prideful and the prideful and it is being played out before our very eyes. It has nothing to do with the elect. Both sides of this division in the church will fight the elect.

Just like politics have left most of this nation wondering what party we belong to politically then the church is also dividing causing those elect to wonder where the heck they belong in such a church. And this forum supports that idea.

Many who are righteous and elect (even if hasn't been revealed to them yet) are lost. There is so darn much contention and pride and need to be right with the world that we no longer know where we belong. We have hard time holding on to truth and knowing where to find support for believing in this gospel. so many teachers in our church (and outside the church) are trying to push their personal agenda which may be totally against the doctrine.

Wish there was a way to take our church back

[Cruiserdude]

so I think the scriptures say that the divisions in the church . . .which actually happened first, before the political split as mentioned in Isaiah. Anyway the divisions in the church are between the educated and the rich and those who didn't have a chance for education and are poor. the elect don't necessarily fall into either of these categories or could be found in both categories. And I think this division of social classes is spoken of through Nephi.

The rich will grind the very faces of the humble. The humble are those trying to live Jesus commandments since those commandments are pretty humbling in this day and age and are now being knocked down from within. And just like the pride we see in our society among each class then it exists in our church as well.

And just like the fallout reaches the citizens of the USA with this political battle then the fallout of this church division will land on the elect , those who will be the remnant.

Are we having any fun yet?

do you see the fight on this forum alone, between the rich and poor . . the fight regarding money . . . its is going on in our churches as well . . . satan creates a good distraction there

Absolutely see it.
Generally speaking, and obviously it's my opinion from I see, the wealthy and affluent appear to despise the poor.

[EvanLM]

It is true . . . I really don't see a way to influence a change. For the first time in my life I truly feel sidelined. I know deep in my soul what is right.

Years ago my exspouse bought something at Kmart that was defective or something. They wouldn't take it back on a return so my spouse was mad and decided to totally boycott them and destroy their reputation. I still laugh at the thought that the tirade could have even a small effect on their huge corporation.

Apostasy is not an option and, since I've seen the same brainwashing on this forum as in my ward then I doubt any pleading on my part, bearing of testimony, etc. will have an effect at all. This divide is very wide spread and took me until now to accept it and see that most leaders aren't going to do anything about.

And, I have know this for years that leaders are called because of their $$$$ or they are owners of a personal business that makes $$$$ or/and they have an influential occupation supported by several college degrees, such as social worker or principal or whatever. No blue collar workers or farmers in the ranks of the local leaders let alone the general leaders.

Years ago, the church decided to divide the wards in a manner that there would be putting wealthy in the wards with the apartment dwellers . . as my sister calls them. My snobby sister was the first one to tell me of this years ago when it was done to her ward on the top of NSLC creating boundaries that went down the hill to the poverty dwellers. The results were not what the "brethren" wanted which was to lend help to the apartment dwellers and not keep all the poor in one ward without help. The results, instead was this division.

Sorry to be so long but I been watching it for years and didn't realize it. My nephew and wife decided to move into an inner city in Utah, while attending college, where the solution to help the poverty people is to send local middle class people as missionaries. My nephew and his wife never got a calling for five years cuz the adult missionaries, who has been sent to help them, had all the callings thus sending the message that saints who live in poverty are not capable of handling callings.

I am now thinking of a lot more stories from the past of this inequity way of thinking but . . . we as members have accepted this for years thkiing that we were showing charity while all the time "allowing" the poor to learn from us.

This is creating a divide. Zion won't be like that . No one in Zion will care how much money you can earn based on the american system. No one will care how many hours that you have put into college listening to false concepts and the teachings of man.

I am not saying this in a dog down position. I am not independently wealthy but haven't had to worry for years about expenses. cancel that politically correct comment. I have been out of debt for 22 years. Everything that I have, I own.

I also have 8 years of college which did help me become a professional. I have spent my time being arrogant but have never seen a need for it in the church that carries Christ's name. But being blindsided by degrees and money and arrogant family and friends and other members then I think this slipped by me until now. It is pretty clear. This is the division in the church that was prophesied and did start about 2012.

And it is a lot easier to see and understand if I am not in the cool group. I work at walmart off and on cuz I refuse to go on a mission unless I can knock doors. I will not do mission work on the internet and will not do humanitarian and be told I can't proselyte the people that I help. I don't like to be idle. But in the ward where I have lived now since september, in a state that I have never lived in, then no one knows me and my history or even that I have actually been to college. I love members reactions when they ask where I work and I tell them walmart. It's a happening place.

This is the division and it is in every ward cuz the general leaders decided to divide wards years ago to share the wealth. Who could have forseen this?

sorry to be so long . . . time to build Zion, or at least think about it.

[EvanLM]

I wonder how many men and women were cheated out of callings that should have been theirs but were given to their wealthy, educated brothers and sisters instead.