Themis wrote:No, you clearly do not understand what the church teaches on this issue. I have already shown you on the church website what entails restitution as part of the repentance process. If one lies, in order to make full restitution, one would need to admit to the lie to those they lied to. You can call it an apology since feeling sorry about it is also a necessity. I see no where the option of not making restitution if it is possible. I am not sure how this can be that hard to understand, and I think you are just doing the apologetic thing to protect him as much as possible. This is why I think I am being more honest here.
Okay, Themis. You're better than me. Whatever. I'm not trying to be deceptive here. I truly see the whole process of repentence as personal, and the formulated steps, though important, are between God and the sinner for repentance to be reached. I do not hold to the idea that each and every soul must show that they've accomplished the steps to others, because I feel it best to let them determine how to handle the steps.
On top of that, I have honestly suggested that even if Hinckley failed to accomplish the steps in repentence for this particular lie, then its between he and God, and not between you, me, he and God. Thus, I drop it, in the spirit of forgiveness and positivity. Yet you hold on to it even going so far as to condemn him for not repenting for whatever reason.