What is the Miracle of Forgiveness? (revisited)

[_Inconceivable]

Though in this particular instance I would caution you against that kind of confidence in Joseph Smith's guilt (or in anything for that matter). Not because of his connection to the Book of Mormon, but because I once spat his name like a curseword and I can now honestly say I beleive he was a prophet of God. Notice of course that I said "beleive" and not "know". This change was both spiritual and intellectual. We have to be careful to never be so sure of ourselves as to think we can't be proven wrong. And we have to make sure that we're at least open enough that we don't ignore the true influence of the spirit were it to lead us in a direction opposite our current opinions.

I said it before but I'll say it again, I can't emphasize enough that no matter how completely dead positive I was that the case was closed, I have been shown over and over how my understanding was wrong. In a rational, intellectual, and complete way, not just by a silly tingle up my spine. But I had to keep myself open to see the answers.

I should clarify. For now I've tossed the Book of Mormon out of contempt for the church's doctrine of "all or nothing" - It's their book, not mine. Their rules require that I keep both the baby (that which I thought brought me peace - a good bit of the evolved doctrine) and the bathwater (the whitewashed seplecurs of Mormon history).

In it's entirety I have lost the desire to enter a temple, trust any leader that testifies or says that they "know" Joseph Smith was etc., or attend a church meeting. I've never lost my desire to live a peaceable life. Showing kindness with little reservation. I have no desire to live immorally or to begin taking advantage of life's other potential vices. I see the wisdom and peace with respect to these philosophies. Those are mine. They don't hold the copyright on such things.

Now Z, it strains my capacity to comprehend that my understanding is incorrect concerning the most damning practices of Joseph Smith et al. But I would be very interested to be know in what ways you have come to see how your understandings were wrong.

Although the arguments are strong concerning Book of Abraham, DNA, Masonry etc. I have very little interest in these distractions or those that bantor (though I have thrown my hat in out of boredom lately). I even hated poligamy the way the faithful history explained it, but that didn't destroy my faith. What destroyed my faith was the truth of how Joseph Smith actually introduced and practiced it. I found the impass where he lied time and again to the wife of his youth, betraying her trust and making a mockery of vows that most of mankind deem sacred. I also find it contemptable the way all the "holy men" practiced it with the very young women and the negative effects it had on the rest of their lives. I just simply see this as calling evil good.

[_Roger Morrison]

Z, from your post, into which i inject in bold:

Respectfully Roger, you severely misinterpreted my statements. In an earlier post I had mentioned how I felt while I was an athiest. And eventually it was the lack of direction and purpose that came from the idea that death was the end of my existence that made my life hell. This is what I was referring to when I said, "I might as well be dead", because I'd be back where I was, doubting the spirit that led me to beleive in what the Mormon church teaches, and as a consequence doubting the existence of God, and I have a hard time finding meaning in a purely temporary life.

RM: "misinterpretation," my misunderstanding, sorry. "Atheism" is a 'bed' in which all are not comfortable... I have rested on it at times, without discomfort. However, in my life-long state of ignorance concerning "creation", and with my all encompassing gratitude for my existent romp in the garden, i just 'know' whether by "big-bang", "big-Daddy", happen-chance, or I-D, i'm here now depending on science more than on institutionalized religion. In this mind set i don't happen to see life as "purely temporary". Very much to the contrary... BUT, not as imagined religiously, generally speaking...

And please don't reduce my struggle for meaning in a godless world to a byproduct of my Mormon upbringing. Its an insult to my intelligence. The meaning of life in the absence of religion is one of the fundamental questions of philosophy and plenty of intelligent men have been driven to madness or suicide in similar struggles. I actively searched for peace in that abyss for years! I read nietzsche, kant, plato, descartes, hume, as well as the greatest works from all major religions. I wasn't just sitting on my ass waiting for an excuse to return to Mormonism. It was the last thought on my mind beleive me. My pain had nothing to do with the absence of Mormon doctrine specifically. Any set of beleifs that gave my life purpose could have filled that void.

RM: Sorry again that i misunderstood you; i certainly did not intend to "...insult your intelligence." However, it came through your writing, as i read it, that Mormonism had not grounded you well. Consequently, your journey from TBM to doubt and dispair. And now you are returned older, wiser but less indoctrinated... Purged???

And I really must contest the following interpretation of my statements:

Quote:

Much like the entrapment of a debilitating addiction. 'Suffer' with it, in a sense of knowing it's 'wrong' while at the same time receiving a pay-back creating, dependency--can't live without it--"I might as well be dead."

RM: I'm glad You are not one of those poor souls. I know they exist. Some overtly, others in denial, for whatever reasons ...

This does not describe my feelings in any way. If I gave you that impression then I must have mispoken. I am not "suffering" with anything, nor am I struggling against something I know is wrong. I'm simply attempting to take a patient and humble approach. Taking truth as its given to me, and asking God to guide me as I try to find answers to what I don't understand. I'm not fighting anything, I'm not forcing anything.

RM: Congrats! You're going about it the right way. As many have before you...

Seriously Roger it seems like you really want to beleive I'm a brainwashed cultmember. Please give me more credit than that. If there's one thing I know its myself. If you read my posts carefully I think you'll see that I am where I am is the result of careful intellectual and spiritual inquiry with a firm base of rationality, honesty, and critical introspection.

RM: Sorry, didn't mean it to sound so demeaning to You personally. OTOH, after 50+ years of personal LDSism i AM well aware of the 'cultish attributes' of Mormonism. Not readily seen from the centre where my energies were invested... You might want to get an expanded understanding of 'cultism'--if you don't already have it... I did not intend to insult You personally...

I appreciate your attempts to help me along the path to the "mother load" as you put it. I sincerely do. And I am on my way there. I truly beleive that for the first time in my life I am following the spirit as it was meant to be followed. I beleive that on my current path I have made true connections with God in ways I never had before. As I have tried to make clear I don't know for sure if the LDS church is a perminant part of that path or not. So far its at least been the launching point. But make no mistake I'm following the Spirit, not a dogma. RM: Then you're in good hands, Bro... :-)

Z, "...the LDS church IS a perminant part of (your) path..." As it is of most posters here. With some it has been a "launching point", as with me. With others it is an anchor in a safe harbour of unquestionable authoritative rule. With others it is a chain of suppression and oppression that frustrates their individuality--but for some reason they remain...

Whatever, it is a choice that is strictly an individals. IMSCO, that choice has no impact on "God" who/that will continue to reward according to Universal laws, not upon ANY church's edicts; as i see it... Warm regards, Roger

[_Z]

Roger:

I'm glad we're now on the same page. I don't blame you for making the assumptions you did. Its difficult to understand a person's motivations based on a few paragraphs of thought, and there's certainly no shortage of Mormons who take their faith to cultish levels. Though there are certainly aspects of the Mormon Church that are more life-encompassing than others I would submit that most any faith can become a cult, or healthily appreciated as a guide on a spiritual journey, depending on the attitude of the individual. Mormonism may be easier to do that with than most but I've met members of several sects and faiths that frighten me with their unquestioned devotion to a concept or individual. But that's beside the point. As far as our general outlook on spirituality goes, I'd say our perspectives are more similar than not, though we express it in different ways, and are in different places right now.

Inconceivable:

I should probably also clarify. When I say I beleive Joseph Smith was a Prophet, what I mean is that I beleive he was appointed by God to restore some certain principles and truths to the earth. And I beleive God worked through him on several occasions in ways that are beyond usual spiritual promptings. I do not in any way see his teachings as infallible. Like all individuals he was very much a product of his time and culture, and he had an array of human vices.

With that said, the area of polygamy is one in which my understanding has been reversed several times. There is very little first hand or historically reliable information on the subject, and many of our most oft-quoted sources directly conflict on important issues. So its hard even for the most studies researcher to pin down the truth. It's an enormous subject and I'm not sure posting all my personal research is the best way to go about this. I don't know your specific questions or mindset and I think the only way for you to make sure you're understanding things correctly is through the help of the spirit. But I will give you one relatively short example of how things can change.

..................................................................................

Actually, after about 30 minutes of writing I realized this was going to be unmanageably long (as are many of my posts - sorry about that). I was going to adress the issue of joseph's young wives (14-16). An issue which was very troubling to me but which I now feel I understand very well. If this is of interest to you than let me know and I'll e-mail it to you or something. But you'd have to do research on your own, explaining my perspective on the issue would require me writing my own book I think, and wouldn't be as convincing as you making the discoveries yourself.

But the point remains that bitterness is nothing but a barrier to your understanding. I say that again out of personal experience. I know it "strains [your] capacity to comprehend" that you might be incorrect about Joseph's character, because it did mine as well. I'm sure its easy to assume that I must not have known as firmly as you do but I'm willing to wager I did. I'm a researcher by nature and had spent countless hours on the issue of polygamy before laying down my initial judgment. And having things I felt I knew so thouroughly overturned was a life-changing experience. And once I realized its possible, its happened again and again.

Which I think is part of the reason behind the true principle of humility taught in most major religions. That is the real danger of "trusting in the arm of flesh" as the Book of Mormon puts it. Humility and admitting at least the possibility of our fallibility immediately increases our ability to receive and incorporate truth from wherever it may come.

I will say that if you want to understand joseph smith better, I would suggest reading "The Joseph Smith Papers", which is an unedited collection of his personal writings. His letters, his journals, everything. And a lot of it is in the form of actual copies of his letters, so you can see his edits and doodles and such. It was very enlightening for me to read and it challenged many of the ideas I held about his character, both positively and negatively. I came out understanding his motivations in very different ways than I did before.

This ended up being kind of a mish-mash post because I deleted several entire paragraphs for length reasons. I may not be able to post as frequently in the next few days as I have one of the busiest weekends of my life coming up here. But i'll try to follow along and return to the conversation when possible.

[_nomi]

Inconceivable, I think that you have miss understood what Spencer W Kimball was saying in the book, it may seem harsh but its really not, its a matter of attending it with the Spirit. In the case of Enos, he went into the wilderness and he started to think about the things that his father taught him about God. The book does not state if that was the first time he was thinking of the matter, but we know that he was pondering the teachings of his father. Then he started praying to Heavenly Father. Do you know how long he prayed for? I will tell you, "And my soul hungered and kneeled down before my Maker, and I cried unto him in a mighty prayer and supplication for mine own soul, and all the day long did I cry unto Him , yea, and when the night came I did still raise my voice high that it reached the heavens". So, what is my point ....? My point is that Enos' forgiveness did not just happen. He prayed for the whole day and night and then the Lord told him that His sins were forgiven, but you are forgetting one thing, how long was Enos crying out to the Lord and what was he feeling at the time.That is what Spencer is trying to tell us. In order for forgiveness to take part we need to have Godly Sorrow, and that's what Enos felt at that time, Godly sorrow. There's a song in the New Testament CD, its track number 6. There's a part wher it goes, Godly sorrow became the start of a mighty change of heart, don't you think that Enos felt the same feeling and that resulted in the change of heart, this applies to Alma who was struck down for three days, do you not think that he felt that Godly sorrow and as a result he had a mighty change of Heart? So you said that he made you feel guilty for a long time right? I want to ask, was it Godly sorrow? and secondly if you read the book you will notice that he outlines the importance and steps that need to be followed for that miracle of forgiveness right? You said that there were times when you felt the same forgiveness come in a flash like Enos but for what sin was that forgiveness for? Do you think you will feel that feeling for breaking the law of chastity? for murder? for raping? the list goes on. Spencer even said that there are sins that we need to confess to God only but there are sins that we need to confess to God and the Bishop and those sins are the ones that will unfortunately take time, beacuse there are procedures to be followed to make sure that repentace is taking place but most importantly the forgiveness of the grieved person also takes place - this is also in respect to the temple endowment and the covenants that one takes in the temple - if you go against them - and repent - you will have to feel like Enos - you need to have that Godly sorrow. You may think that just because it did not take Enos 20years to reach the state of being forgiven - that he did not have a raw deal like you did- carrying guilt for years, right? But have you ever thought that the hours he spent praying were the longets hours in his life- You sound like you are actually angry with Spencer - but remember that he was a prophet of God and he would never say anything that would make you feel like you are a worthless soul - and sorry if you feel that way. The prophet Gordon B Hinckley once said "we are sons and daughters of God and we all have divine potential" For you to reach that divine potential, you need to repent and if you follow that book as a guide I promise you, you will never go wrong.

[_Inconceivable]

Hi, cool planet chick,

You've noted much of what I learned, taught and believed for many years.

I am angered by what SWK wrote in his book. He taught only the little he thought he understood.

According to Mormon scriptural accounts, God forgives us when our heart is right, not "after all we can do". For example, the sons of Mosiah spent the rest of their lives righting the wrongs they had committed - after they were forgiven. This was not a contingency of their becoming clean. They had become clean. Becoming children of Christ, desiring only good, it was natural for them to live the miracle by assisting God in correcting the effects of their previous lives.

Time involved for the repentance process is not proportional to the greviousness of the sin either. Lamoni was forgiven not long after his first prayer. Lest we forget he was a cold blooded murderer of his own people.

SWK served during the generation that taught from the pulpit (even in the 1940's) that it would be better for a son or daughter to be brought home in a casket than to have lost their virtue. At this time in Mormon evolutionary revelation, Jesus prefers they die rather than commit a forgivable and pardonable sin. What?!

I think SWK and others, for whatever reason, perceived those that committed more "grevious" sin as tainted individuals even after forgiveness - why else the casket doctrine and the use of the phrase "lost virtue"?

The doctrine of "lost virtue" (never to regain it once lost) is very deceptive. It implies permanent stigma and eternal spiritual scaring. After forgiveness from God, there are no spiritual scars. There is no stigma to hold over one's head for eternity. God has the capacity to "remembers them no more" and neither should we if we understand forgiveness.

The fact of the matter is that the scriptures on repentance and forgiveness give this simple message:

Sin in any degree makes the children of God unclean to enter His presence. When one repents and is forgiven, they become without spot. They are clean. There is no residual spiritual blemish or scar. After this miracle of forgiveness can we sin again and through repentance become clean again?

"how oft will I gather you as a hen gathereth her chicks..". Have you ever seen a chicken do this at sunset? She is relentless until the darkness.

Makes sense to me. Even if I may have lost my faith in it.

At this point in my own evolution, perhaps all of it makes me angry. As a nobody, I have the delusion that I may understand it better than someone that personally had God explain it to him.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi, cool planet chick,

You've noted much of what I learned, taught and believed for many years.

I am angered by what SWK wrote in his book. He taught only the little he thought he understood.

According to Mormon scriptural accounts, God forgives us when our heart is right, not "after all we can do". For example, the sons of Mosiah spent the rest of their lives righting the wrongs they had committed - after they were forgiven. This was not a contingency of their becoming clean. They had become clean. Becoming children of Christ, desiring only good, it was natural for them to live the miracle by assisting God in correcting the effects of their previous lives.

Time involved for the repentance process is not proportional to the greviousness of the sin either. Lamoni was forgiven not long after his first prayer. Lest we forget he was a cold blooded murderer of his own people.

SWK served during the generation that taught from the pulpit (even in the 1940's) that it would be better for a son or daughter to be brought home in a casket than to have lost their virtue. At this time in Mormon evolutionary revelation, Jesus prefers they die rather than commit a forgivable and pardonable sin. What?!

I think SWK and others, for whatever reason, perceived those that committed more "grevious" sin as tainted individuals even after forgiveness - why else the casket doctrine and the use of the phrase "lost virtue"?

The doctrine of "lost virtue" (never to regain it once lost) is very deceptive. It implies permanent stigma and eternal spiritual scaring. After forgiveness from God, there are no spiritual scars. There is no stigma to hold over one's head for eternity. God has the capacity to "remembers them no more" and neither should we if we understand forgiveness.

The fact of the matter is that the scriptures on repentance and forgiveness give this simple message:

Sin in any degree makes the children of God unclean to enter His presence. When one repents and is forgiven, they become without spot. They are clean. There is no residual spiritual blemish or scar. After this miracle of forgiveness can we sin again and through repentance become clean again?

"how oft will I gather you as a hen gathereth her chicks..". Have you ever seen a chicken do this at sunset? She is relentless until the darkness.

Makes sense to me. Even if I may have lost my faith in it.

At this point in my own evolution, perhaps all of it makes me angry. As a nobody, I have the delusion that I may understand it better than someone that personally had God explain it to him.

Hi, Conceiveably, one of the best posts i've read in a long time! It warrants a re-post...

I've been thinking about the tendency of past religious types to "mystify", in an attempt of piety, the simple exercises of spiritual conditioning. You point out, without malice, SWK's conditioning of his time and environment to see sin, and repentence through the harshness of the Old-Tyme religion of Calvan, BY, and others who demanded an eye-for-eye type of suffering and humiliation as a part of forgiveness.

It is in the records of most, if not every, Branch, Ward and Stake, of public confessions before their respective congregations, into the 20th century. As a matter of fact, there was a die-hard in my Stake Elders' Quorum who insisted he stand and humiliate himself, (and the woman involved) to make his repentence valid. A very wrong understanding of the working of "God". BUT, in obedience to authoritarian demigodery.

De-mystification is now in process:

The NATURAL healing-of-injury (physical/psyche) begins immediately after one ceases, or is removed from the affiction/infliction. If 'medication' is required it is administered with compassion and no ritualistic payment in sack-cloth... Full "healing" may require differing times. BUT, generally speaking, once healed forever healed. Unless of course remission occurs, then the process begins again, simply, and without guilt, shame or penance.

As with the physical, so it is with the emotional and spiritual components of an individual. Unfortunately quackery has opportuned in all genres. Physical and Psyche malpractioners being earlier exposed than the Spiritual Quacks who still ignorantly administer guilt and shame; to a slow if ever full healing...

But times, they are a-changing!! Even religions are becoming more rational and are moving forward with knowledge, understanding and tolerances more in keeping with the justice, and 'love' of "God" than with the edicts of past generations of prejudice and intolerance... Some churches on the leading edge. Others on the trailing end... Ever thus. Warm regards, Roger ( PS: Welcome Cool Chick! :-)

[_Jason Bourne]

Hi, cool planet chick,

You've noted much of what I learned, taught and believed for many years.

I am angered by what SWK wrote in his book. He taught only the little he thought he understood.

According to Mormon scriptural accounts, God forgives us when our heart is right, not "after all we can do". For example, the sons of Mosiah spent the rest of their lives righting the wrongs they had committed - after they were forgiven. This was not a contingency of their becoming clean. They had become clean. Becoming children of Christ, desiring only good, it was natural for them to live the miracle by assisting God in correcting the effects of their previous lives.

Time involved for the repentance process is not proportional to the greviousness of the sin either. Lamoni was forgiven not long after his first prayer. Lest we forget he was a cold blooded murderer of his own people.

SWK served during the generation that taught from the pulpit (even in the 1940's) that it would be better for a son or daughter to be brought home in a casket than to have lost their virtue. At this time in Mormon evolutionary revelation, Jesus prefers they die rather than commit a forgivable and pardonable sin. What?!

I think SWK and others, for whatever reason, perceived those that committed more "grevious" sin as tainted individuals even after forgiveness - why else the casket doctrine and the use of the phrase "lost virtue"?

The doctrine of "lost virtue" (never to regain it once lost) is very deceptive. It implies permanent stigma and eternal spiritual scaring. After forgiveness from God, there are no spiritual scars. There is no stigma to hold over one's head for eternity. God has the capacity to "remembers them no more" and neither should we if we understand forgiveness.

The fact of the matter is that the scriptures on repentance and forgiveness give this simple message:

Sin in any degree makes the children of God unclean to enter His presence. When one repents and is forgiven, they become without spot. They are clean. There is no residual spiritual blemish or scar. After this miracle of forgiveness can we sin again and through repentance become clean again?

"how oft will I gather you as a hen gathereth her chicks..". Have you ever seen a chicken do this at sunset? She is relentless until the darkness.

Makes sense to me. Even if I may have lost my faith in it.

At this point in my own evolution, perhaps all of it makes me angry. As a nobody, I have the delusion that I may understand it better than someone that personally had God explain it to him.

Hi, Conceiveably, one of the best posts I've read in a long time! It warrants a re-post...

I've been thinking about the tendency of past religious types to "mystify", in an attempt of piety, the simple exercises of spiritual conditioning. You point out, without malice, SWK's conditioning of his time and environment to see sin, and repentence through the harshness of the Old-Tyme religion of Calvan, BY, and others who demanded an eye-for-eye type of suffering and humiliation as a part of forgiveness.

It is in the records of most, if not every, Branch, Ward and Stake, of public confessions before their respective congregations, into the 20th century. As a matter of fact, there was a die-hard in my Stake Elders' Quorum who insisted he stand and humiliate himself, (and the woman involved) to make his repentence valid. A very wrong understanding of the working of "God". BUT, in obedience to authoritarian demigodery.

De-mystification is now in process:

The NATURAL healing-of-injury (physical/psyche) begins immediately after one ceases, or is removed from the affiction/infliction. If 'medication' is required it is administered with compassion and no ritualistic payment in sack-cloth... Full "healing" may require differing times. BUT, generally speaking, once healed forever healed. Unless of course remission occurs, then the process begins again, simply, and without guilt, shame or penance.

As with the physical, so it is with the emotional and spiritual components of an individual. Unfortunately quackery has opportuned in all genres. Physical and Psyche malpractioners being earlier exposed than the Spiritual Quacks who still ignorantly administer guilt and shame; to a slow if ever full healing...

But times, they are a-changing!! Even religions are becoming more rational and are moving forward with knowledge, understanding and tolerances more in keeping with the justice, and 'love' of "God" than with the edicts of past generations of prejudice and intolerance... Some churches on the leading edge. Others on the trailing end... Ever thus. Warm regards, Roger ( PS: Welcome Cool Chick! :-)

I must second Roger's accollades. Great post.

[_Inconceivable]

God... Did you read the nice things that Roger and Jason wrote about my post?

If so, are they just as out to lunch as I am or have we a friggen clue (don't sugar coat it, let me know what you really think)



By the way, thanks guys. This is all therapy (and free too)


Maybe someday I can cool down and feel again.

[_Roger Morrison]

God... Did you read the nice things that Roger and Jason wrote about my post?

If so, are they just as out to lunch as I am or have we a friggen clue (don't sugar coat it, let me know what you really think)



By the way, thanks guys. This is all therapy (and free too)


Maybe someday I can cool down and feel again.

Hey Bro, if we didn't get "out-to-lunch" some times we'd malnutrish!! Ya put a smile on my old face that'll be with me all-day! Thanks!

And to You too, Jas... Warm regards... Roger :-)

[_Jason Bourne]

God... Did you read the nice things that Roger and Jason wrote about my post?

If so, are they just as out to lunch as I am or have we a friggen clue (don't sugar coat it, let me know what you really think)



By the way, thanks guys. This is all therapy (and free too)


Maybe someday I can cool down and feel again.

No you/we have a clue. I have been preaching what you wrote for some time, just not as eloquently. You THE GOOD NEWS! When Jesus says to through Paul in 2 Corinthians 5:17 that when in Christ you are a new creature and repeats that in the Book of Mormon to Alma in Mosaih 27 I think we need to believe it. Like Robinson siad, "Believing Christ."