Quote:
Originally Posted by Tex
Santos and I have been duking it out over the meaning of D&C 58:43. In the context of serious (read: discipline-worthy) sin, I maintain that the forsaking of sin is a necessary requisite to demonstrate repentance. A person who is under discipline for (as examples) adultery, or child abuse, or embezzlement, or whatever, demonstrates a desire for full fellowship by forsaking his sin permanently--usually demonstrated by fidelity to his repentance over a period of time.
Santos insists that this interpretation MUST then logically be applied more broadly: that it must necessarily mean that if I once lose my temper, repent, and then days/weeks/months/whatever later I lose my temper again, that it means I never really repented. Ditto lust, laziness, or what have you.
I don't think that's the intended application of this scripture. What say you?
|
Forget the discipline process. You believe that if you repent of a sin, then repeat the sin, it means you never truly repented of the original sin. If you believe that doctrine, then why wouldn't you apply the doctrine to all sin?