New Church Video - Repentance

[JVW]

I saw this video that the church recently released. I was wondering what the forum's thoughts were about the doctrinal accuracy of the statements made by Elder Christofferson in this video? Do you believe he is speaking as the Lord's Apostle or simply as a Saint in this video? Why or why not? Here is the transcript and the 1.5 minute video.
 

Quote

I've been thinking about the precious gift of repentance. Jesus Christ paid a terrible price so that he could offer us this gift. He could atone for our sins and offer us forgiveness and sanctification. I hear uh from time to time the phrase "it's never too late to repent". On the other hand I would say it's more accurate to say it's not too late to repent. The scriptures tell us that it could be too late, or it can become too late (I guess is the way to say it). They tell us not to procrastinate "lest in an hour when you think not the summer shall be passed and the Harvest ended and your Soul's not saved". So I think everyone who's hearing this message, for any of us, it's not too late; but let's not procrastinate because someday it could be too late. I think this is what president Nelson has in mind when he talks about daily repentance. "Please do not fear or delay repenting. The savior loves us always but especially when we repent. Experience the joy of repenting daily." Not that we keep repenting of the same thing over and over again, but that we make these Corrections - usually small course Corrections - each day as we seek to grow in our discipleship. But I say again what a precious gift is repentance.

 

[bluebell]

I think he's right in that the scriptures definitely teach that it can become too late to repent.  Though it's not culturally how we like to think about repentance, it does make sense.  Eventually, if you wait long enough you get to suffer for your own sins, right?  

The scriptures also imply that there are consequences for refusing to listen and obey the counsel of prophets while in mortality, even though there will be a chance after this life is over to do things differently.  Our cultural ideas about people rejecting the gospel while here but then being able to accept it in the next life and be exalted don't match our scriptures on the subject either.

I'm glad that i'm not in charge of any of this.

[Nevo]

I saw this video yesterday and did not care for it. He's not wrong about what the scriptures say, but I think there's something impoverished about a theology that puts limits on God's willingness to forgive. In this view, God is not in "relentless pursuit" of us, as Elder Kearon memorably put it. In this view, the doors of hell are indeed locked from the outside and an infinite punishment awaits those fallible mortals who are "too late" in repenting.

Edited January 21, 2025 by Nevo

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

I saw this video yesterday and did not care for it. He's not wrong about what the scriptures say, but I think there's something impoverished about a theology that puts limits on God's willingness to forgive. In this view, God is not in "relentless pursuit" of us, as Elder Kearon memorably put it. In this view, the doors of hell are indeed locked from the outside and an infinite punishment awaits those fallible mortals who are "too late" in repenting.

This, imo, is the problem with putting out short videos or even just talks across the pulpit (15 minutes or so).  So much context of the Gospel and God’s interaction over the eternities with us is lost imo.  The focus/emphasis on the main point may be tight enough that it distorts the point’s relationship to the whole.

I should add I do not believe this distortion is intentional and likely it doesn’t occur to the person it could be taken that way or will be.  I think it’s more likely they think of what they are saying in the full context of their beliefs which is likely pretty consistent with most members’ beliefs given church leaders are unlikely to be chosen from those with more extreme positions.  My guess is they make assumptions that those listening will think of it in the same more detailed and nuanced way.  I think if questions were asked or if they had more time, the nuances that modify this position into something that is less fearful and more encouraging would likely be discussed.

Edited January 21, 2025 by Calm

[CV75]

2 hours ago, JVW said:

I saw this video that the church recently released. I was wondering what the forum's thoughts were about the doctrinal accuracy of the statements made by Elder Christofferson in this video? Do you believe he is speaking as the Lord's Apostle or simply as a Saint in this video? Why or why not? Here is the transcript and the 1.5 minute video.
 

 

I would agree it is more accurate to say "it's not too late to repent" because the turning point is now. "Never too late to repent" suggests there is no serious turning point, or that the turning point could be "never" and that things continue on just fine as they are. That is not how a "terrible price" works. It's great not to judge others and allow them to repent and their own pace and have a "never-too-late" attitude toward them, but I've never benefited applying that advice to myself -- which is different than getting up after failing.

Edited January 21, 2025 by CV75

[Maestrophil]

Just a thought - but perhaps this take implies that it might be too late because our ability and willingness to(aka hard heart) could be beyond feeling if we delay too long, and WE will make it too late because of that.  Daily repentance can keep us humble and keep that door open.

[Peacefully]

I think it borders on scare tactics which I do not care for. It reminds me too much of of the vengeful God of my childhood when I was not a member of this church.
 

Repenting sooner than later is good for the soul, relieves burdens, and often leads to happiness. We could start there. 

[Senator]

27 minutes ago, Peacefully said:

I think it borders on scare tactics which I do not care for. It reminds me too much of of the vengeful God of my childhood

That was my immediate thought in response to certain statements during Pres. Nelsons's  "think celestial" talk.

Edited January 21, 2025 by Senator

[manol]

3 hours ago, Peacefully said:

I think it borders on scare tactics which I do not care for. It reminds me too much of of the vengeful God of my childhood when I was not a member of this church.

I am not a big fan of scare tactics either.  Imo good teachers need not engender fear in their students.  Of course there are a lot of fear-inducing scriptures so maybe I'm wrong, or maybe they are what works best in some situations even if a fearful perception is not the highest level of truth on the subject (D&C 19:6-12).  And maybe inducing fear is an effective way of getting someone who is not yet a "student" to decide to become one. 

Here is a possible alternative to the view expressed by Elder Christofferson in the video (which may not portray his complete viewpoint):

Christ's mission is to bring about the immortality and eternal life of every single one of us (Moses 1:39), the worth of souls being "great" (D&C 18:10).  And in this mission Christ will not fail (D&C 3:1); therefore, even though progression makes unavoidable demands upon us, ultimately we have no need to fear (D&C 50:41).  We are already his... and so is everyone else (D&C 76:22).

 

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I would agree it is more accurate to say "it's not too late to repent" because the turning point is now. "Never too late to repent" suggests there is no serious turning point, or that the turning point could be "never" and that things continue on just fine as they are. That is not how a "terrible price" works. It's great not to judge others and allow them to repent and their own pace and have a "never-too-late" attitude toward them, but I've never benefited applying that advice to myself -- which is different than getting up after failing.

I really like this.  Now is the moment of power.  Or as you put it, the turning point is now.  

Edited January 22, 2025 by manol

[bluebell]

16 minutes ago, Nevo said:

I saw this video yesterday and did not care for it. He's not wrong about what the scriptures say, but I think there's something impoverished about a theology that puts limits on God's willingness to forgive. In this view, God is not in "relentless pursuit" of us, as Elder Kearon memorably put it. In this view, the doors of hell are indeed locked from the outside and an infinite punishment awaits those fallible mortals who are "too late" in repenting.

Do you think the scriptures are espousing an impoverished theology or is there some other disconnect somewhere else in your view?

[manol]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Do you think the scriptures are espousing an impoverished theology or is there some other disconnect somewhere else in your view?

This wasn't addressed to me, but imo there is arguably scriptural backing for multiuple viewpoints, some of which are rather hopeful (and one of which I presented in my previous post).  So imo it is not so much the scriptures themselves which present an impoverished theology (limiting God's willingness and/or ability to forgive), but rather an arguably fear-based reading of them.

Thus I would say that the disconnect is somewhere else. 

 

Edited January 22, 2025 by manol

[Nevo]

1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Do you think the scriptures are espousing an impoverished theology or is there some other disconnect somewhere else in your view?

Yes, in some cases, I think they are. The God I worship is a God who loves his people with a love that never fails, who doesn't give up on them, in this life or in the next. This is the God who said: "Is Ephraim my dear son? Is he my darling child? For as often as I speak against him, I do remember him still. Therefore my heart yearns for him; I will surely have mercy on him" (Jer. 31:20, ESV).

I cannot bring myself to believe in the God who says "he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father" (3 Ne. 27:17). I believe in accountability, but I cannot conceive of a "justice" that punishes people eternally for sins and failures in mortality, when a veil is drawn over our minds and our wills are impaired, that sets an arbitrary deadline after which any repentance or moral improvement is impossible.

Edited January 22, 2025 by Nevo

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Nevo said:

Yes, in some cases, I think they are. The God I worship is a God who loves his people with a love that never fails, who doesn't give up on them, in this life or in the next. This is the God who said: "Is Ephraim my dear son? Is he my darling child? For as often as I speak against him, I do remember him still. Therefore my heart yearns for him; I will surely have mercy on him" (Jer. 31:20, ESV).

I cannot bring myself to believe in the God who says "he that endureth not unto the end, the same is he that is also hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence they can no more return, because of the justice of the Father" (3 Ne. 27:17). I believe in accountability, but I cannot conceive of a "justice" that punishes people eternally for sins and failures in mortality, when a veil is drawn over our minds and our wills are impaired, that sets an arbitrary deadline after which any repentance or moral improvement is impossible.

If the deadline was arbitrary, then I would agree.

Purely for discussion's sake, do you believe it is impossible to set a fair and merciful deadline, or would the presence of any deadline automatically make it unjust?

[Dario_M]

Yeah...does it really matter or he speaks as the Lord's apostle or just as a saint? I find this 1.5 munite video rather beautiful and i just love the message. The message should be more relevant in my opinion. I just love it. 🥰

[JVW]

17 hours ago, manol said:

I am not a big fan of scare tactics either.  Imo good teachers need not engender fear in their students.

There are many schools, professors, and businesses that cultivate a highly competitive environment. There are professors who cut the bottom x% of students from the program. They set clear expectations and those expectations are not for the weak and unmotivated. It is incredibly easy to paint these professors as "fearmongering" as they remind their students frequently that if they don't perform well they will have to figure out an alternative path through life and shatter the hopes of their parents and peers.

On the other hand there are professors that do everything they can to help every student succeed. But! Every time a student takes an exam they are scored on it, and if a student gets a poor score they receive a poor grade. This isn't explicitly fearmongering, but my dad, as an example, has extreme test anxiety. He's a brilliant man, a human calculator, but give him an exam and he freezes up due to his fear. I love tests, my dad hates them. So depending on the perspective will determine how much fear there is.

On the other other hand, an acquaintances primary school recently did away with the grading system. Students are now given the "grades" of Beginning, Climbing, Achieving, and Soaring. None of the grades are bad, they are simply meant to be used as a tool to communicate with parents. MY acquaintance's son didn't turn in homework for a month before their teacher sent out an email stating that they haven't been seeing any homework from this student. After the boy did all his homework and turned it in he then got an award because he turned in so much homework. There is little to no fear in this environment regardless of one's perspective.

So when it comes to the perfect teacher. The best approach to teaching and guiding. Which of these scenarios is the best? Which one results in the best outcome for students? Are any of these fearmongering? Are any of them similar to the concept of a "deadline" set by God in which to repent, or else? How can a perfect teacher not engender any fear in their students without also holding them accountable. Is accountability important as a teaching tool? Is there any responsibility on the student to adjust their perspective and become less afraid over time? Or is fear in a student entirely the fault of the teacher?

[bluebell]

7 minutes ago, JVW said:

 

So when it comes to the perfect teacher. The best approach to teaching and guiding. Which of these scenarios is the best? Which one results in the best outcome for students? Are any of these fearmongering? Are any of them similar to the concept of a "deadline" set by God in which to repent, or else? How can a perfect teacher not engender any fear in their students without also holding them accountable. Is accountability important as a teaching tool? Is there any responsibility on the student to adjust their perspective and become less afraid over time? Or is fear in a student entirely the fault of the teacher?

I have two thoughts on this.  First, I think that whichever teacher is best preparing their students for the actual world they will have to function in, is the one that is doing the best job of "teaching".  That doesn't mean the strictest is necessarily the best, or the most permissive either.  My second thought is that, it probably mostly depends on the student.  The best teachers are the ones that can teach to the needs of the student I think.  One kid might need the reminders of the looming consequences of poor choices, but for another that might cause more harm than good.  

Edited January 22, 2025 by bluebell

[Nevo]

12 hours ago, bluebell said:

Purely for discussion's sake, do you believe it is impossible to set a fair and merciful deadline, or would the presence of any deadline automatically make it unjust?

That's an interesting question. I don't know. Eternity is a long time. I'm not sure what circumstances would ever warrant demarcating a fixed "point of no return" beyond which a person couldn't reorient themselves toward goodness. Why should the clock ever run out when the soul is eternal and God desires its greatest good?

[bluebell]

3 minutes ago, Nevo said:

That's an interesting question. I don't know. Eternity is a long time. I'm not sure what circumstances would ever warrant demarcating a fixed "point of no return" beyond which a person couldn't reorient themselves toward goodness. Why should the clock ever run out when the soul is eternal and God desires its greatest good?

Do you believe that's also true for Lucifer and the 1/3 who didn't keep their first estate and were cast out?  Are they still capable of reorienting themselves?

(not looking to argue, this is just the first question that popped into my head when reading your reply)

[Nevo]

57 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Do you believe that's also true for Lucifer and the 1/3 who didn't keep their first estate and were cast out?  Are they still capable of reorienting themselves?

I'm sentimental enough to hope so. 

I'd be thrilled if Origen was correct that Love conquers all:

“Origen claims that at an appointed time known only to God, all rational souls, the souls of all men, angels, celestial beings and demons will be purified and will voluntarily return to their original state of perfection (De principiis 1.6.1; 2.10.8). However, the individual soul’s education and purification is a long and gradual one, developing stage by stage in the course of infinite and immeasurable ages with each soul continually beset by temptation and sin . . . Thus, the process of purification is realized in each soul gradually and separately at different levels and speeds (3.6.6). Therefore it may take more than one aeon before the ‘apokatastasis’ [Gk: restoration] is achieved. Nonetheless, God’s infinite love and patience will prevail and will wear down the resistance of even the most rebellious souls. Even Satan himself will of his own free will acknowledge God’s excellence and return to Him. God will then be all in all.”

— Antonia Tripolitis, Origen: A Critical Reading (New York: Peter Lang, 1985), 33; see also, C.A. Patrides, “The Salvation of Satan,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 28 (Oct.-Dec. 1967): 467.

[manol]

14 hours ago, JVW said:

So when it comes to the perfect teacher. The best approach to teaching and guiding. Which of these scenarios is the best? Which one results in the best outcome for students? Are any of these fearmongering? Are any of them similar to the concept of a "deadline" set by God in which to repent, or else? How can a perfect teacher not engender any fear in their students without also holding them accountable. Is accountability important as a teaching tool? Is there any responsibility on the student to adjust their perspective and become less afraid over time? Or is fear in a student entirely the fault of the teacher?

I think that ideally the teacher meets the student wherever the student is at that time.

For those who are willing and eager students, or even disciples, that will be in a different place from those who are disinterested or otherwise unwilling students.

So perhaps I should have said, “Imo good teachers need not engender fear in their willing and eager students.”

Sometimes fearful language may be the only language that has a good chance of getting through if the student is disinterested or otherwise unwilling (again, D&C 19:6-12).

In my opinion accountability is inevitable. Everything we think or imagine, our attitudes, our words and actions, all of that has effects. I am accountable for these words I'm writing, and also for the thoughts I did not write. Imo we are accountable for all of the ripples we radiate out into the pond. That being said, I do not think God inflicts punishment beyond natural consequences. If you flunk the class you flunk the class; you don't need to be tortured too. On the contrary, you probably need a tutor. I'm not saying that's practical, but wouldn't it be nice if our failures were met with sufficient help rather than rejection?

As for whether God runs out of patience and sets deadlines for repentance “or else”, let me tell a story. Many years ago I was absolutely a believer in such a God, until something happened. My first my son was born. It soon became inconceivable to me that I could ever tell him, “I never want to see you again.”. That was when I started questioning the idea that God would ever say to any of us, “I never want to see you again.” I understand there are scriptures which say otherwise, but I do not believe those scriptures are teaching the highest level of truth on the subject.

See also @Nevo's posts in this thread.  He says it far better than I could. 

edit: Sorry for the large font size!  Not sure what happened.  Tried to change it to no avail. 

Edited January 23, 2025 by manol

[Nofear]

I get the impression that most of the people commenting in the thread agree that Elder Christofferson's position and doctrine are accurate, but that some don't like that he said it forthrightly*.


* Almost like another apostle who said that everything that is true isn't necessarily useful (but that offended some too).

[Senator]

1 hour ago, Nofear said:

I get the impression that most of the people commenting in the thread agree that Elder Christofferson's position and doctrine are accurate, but that some don't like that he said it forthrightly*.


* Almost like another apostle who said that everything that is true isn't necessarily useful (but that offended some too).

My  impression is that some agree that Elder Christofferson is accurately relaying the doctrine, but that they simply don't believe it.

[Nevo]

4 hours ago, Nofear said:

I get the impression that most of the people commenting in the thread agree that Elder Christofferson's position and doctrine are accurate, but that some don't like that he said it forthrightly*.

I agree with Elder Christofferson's message to not procrastinate repentance. Repentance is good and necessary and shouldn't be put off. I just don't care for the threat that he attached to his plea ("because someday it could be too late"). Repent now or else. That doesn't sit well with me. It's not that it's unscriptural or that I object to blunt speech. It's that I don't think threatening people with hellfire is the best way to motivate personal change, and I object to the implication that there's an expiry date on God's mercy. I don't think that's sound doctrine.

But it's possible that I've misunderstood Elder Christofferson's meaning here.

I was reading an old Sunstone piece by Eugene England yesterday that made me consider other alternatives:

"I remembered how as a missionary I delighted in teaching people that God does not stand at the border between heaven and hell (or between three kingdoms), stamping on the fingers of those reaching up who can't quite qualify. God indeed never stops loving us and helping us repent; he welcomes us into his presence and eternal life whenever we become able to repent, even after any imagined final judgment. That conviction has never wavered.

But I'm not a universalist; that is, I don't believe that God can guarantee universal salvation. . . . God is all-loving but not all-powerful; we are eternal agents like him; and thus he cannot force salvation upon us, but must teach and move and assist us to be saved. Like the best parent, however, he will do all he can and never stop. . . .

In the King Follett Discourse, Joseph Smith rejoices that all the spirits God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement and improvement. Some may stop progressing for a while or permanently, but neither we nor God know when they might change; therefore, we must always treat everyone, including ourselves, as potential gods. Yes, it is possible to procrastinate the day of our repentance until it is too late—not because God will ever refuse to accept us, but only because we can eventually, through our own choices, lose all desire.

I rejoice in God's unlimited grace and forgiveness, and in a universe of plenitude, full of his glory and love. As the earth turns, new dawns and bright sunsets constantly revolve before us—God's never-ending show of grace; clouds turn with the earth, and rainbows grow up through the rain—God's never-ending promise of forgiveness. All of God's work is to bring to pass our immortality and eternal life."

— Eugene England, "The Joy of Unlimited Salvation," Sunstone (February 1994): 19; emphasis added.

Edited January 23, 2025 by Nevo

[MrShorty]

How much does the "is this true doctrine?" question depend on how we answer the "is there progression between kingdoms question?" I've heard rumors that I cannot verify that Elder Christofferson personally rejects progression between kingdoms (believable because it seems that a lot of leadership disbelieves in progression between kingdoms), even though the church officially has no position on the question, so how does that color his concern here?

I'm disinclined to believe that God Himself imposes some kind of "point of no return" on us. If there is a "point of no return," it is self-imposed. I might speculate that the mechanism is like what Amulek says in Alma 34:34 about "spirits" that "possess" our bodies at death being somewhat permanent. My thinking is that, if we have fostered a "spirit" of procrastinating repentance ("I know that this thing that I believe/do is wrong, but I will wait until tomorrow to change."), we eventually become so set in that course that we never choose to repent, even though God would be perfectly willing to accept our repentance if we chose to do so.

I will note here that I make a particular point about "knowing" that something should change and not trying to make the change and not repenting because one is uncertain about the moral claim being made. It's different for a practicing Latter-day Saint who has a strong testimony that God wants them to abstain from coffee and tea who drinks coffee and tea anyway and the non-LDS who drinks coffee and tea and disbelieves that God forbids the practice.

The problems I encounter in this line of thought. One, it can suggest that sincerity of belief is more important than correctness of belief. Which is fine when we are talking about morally neutral things like drinking tea and coffee, but becomes problematic when we end up talking about any of the truly atrocious things that have been done by religionists who sincerely believe that God wanted them to do it. Slavery, war, murder, genocide and the like have all been practiced by believers who sincerely believed that God wanted them to do it. The question then is, is there a belief that is so wrong that sincerity cannot redeem that belief? How does one determine if he believes something like that?

Another problem is one of changing beliefs. As a mostly believing Latter-day saint, I might rejoice when someone who previously didn't believe that God commands abstinence from coffee and tea gets a testimony of the word of wisdom and repents to start practicing that abstinence. How should I feel about former LDS who used to believe that God commanded abstinence but who no longer have that testimony? They are still sincere, and they change their actions to reflect the changed beliefs, but is this still "repentance" as Elder Christofferson is thinking of it?

Just some ideas floating around in my head.

Edited January 23, 2025 by MrShorty

[Calm]

What kind of repentance are we talking here?  Doctrine says no unclean thing can enter the Kingdom of God so we already know that God allows how ever long it takes for the desire to sin to be purged from us as sin is unclean, the desire to sin is taught by Jesus to be unclean (Matt 5:28), therefore even the desire to sin must be gone before entering any kingdom of God’s glory.

So it seems to me God’s deadline in the post Final Judgment time, if there is such a thing, is attached to how much we desire to do good.  I find it really hard to believe that God would do anything that limits the ability of someone to sincerely seek to do more good in their life.

Because of the two conditions above, I conclude that if there is a deadline, a time where God says “no more waiting” in terms of progression, when choice is removed, it’s when people are judged fit for Hell or Spirit Prison to begin their purification from sin….suffering on their own because they refuse to accept Christ as Saviour or opening themselves up as much as they can to God’s Grace to begin their process.  

First question I have is are they doomed to stay in Hell until they are completely purified of sin, past, present, and future….even if they desire to leave so much they become willing to accept Christ as their Saviour?  Since God’s purpose in providing eternal torment and punishment in hell appears to be to turn people to Christ so they can accept him seems likely to me anyone turning to Christ, even if in Hell, is heard.  

Second question I have is if we are capable of turning to Christ at that point (when we are in Hell in the afterlife).

Is our doctrine once someone is in hell, they are stuck there till all sin and desire to sin is purged from them or do we allow for mid process change of heart?  The more personal descriptions of people suffering in hell when alive such as Alma gives indicates at least in mortality clearly suggest that our experience of hell is ended when we reach out to Christ to save us. (Mosiah 27)

I don’t know of any doctrine that teaches our hearts will be so hardened after death those who have rejected Christ as Saviour and are in Hell will never accept Christ.  Anyone else know of any such doctrine?

Edited January 23, 2025 by Calm