Sin and Living through Repentance

Different approaches from noted LDS and Orthodox teachers on the subject

Round 1- FIGHT!

Introduction

Repentance is central to a Christian life, but different faith traditions may have very different lived experiences with repentance. Eastern Orthodoxy and the Latter-day Saint (LDS or Mormon) faiths (two I’m very familiar with) both emphasize the need to turn away from sin and return to God, but, in my opinion, their approaches and the resulting experience are quite different.

In this article I will attempt explore the concepts and approaches to repentance by looking at the teachings of two influential 20th-century religious figures: Saint Porphyrios (1906–1991), a beloved Eastern Orthodox monk and spiritual elder, and Spencer W. Kimball (1895–1985), an LDS Church president and author of The Miracle of Forgiveness¹.

I will delve into how each taught repentance, highlighting differences in tone, their understandings of the purpose of repentance, and the process believers undergo, while lending thoughts from my own experiences in both faiths. Each man saw repentance as essential to spiritual life, but their styles and approaches differ as a result of the underlying theologies, or doctrinal understandings, of each religion.

Views on Sin and the Unforgivable Sin

The differing views on Sin and, as a result, the differing approaches to repentance largely stem from differing understandings about what Christ achieved on the cross. What LDS might term “The Atonement.”

I’ve written about this in detail in the following article, which I recommend reading if you have not yet read it. It is illuminating and quite different from the Protestant/LDS view.

Different Approaches to Sin and Repentance

Let’s start by understanding how each tradition views Sin and Repentance as a result of their theological beliefs. The different attitudes and approaches to repentance are a direct result of these core beliefs. By doing so, we will see how important theology is. It’s not just an academic or intellectual exercise; it directly shapes the lived experiences of people within a tradition, and it is the life experience of people within a religion that will determine how much that tradition can affect their lives and ultimately their “salvation.” Theology and doctrines matter, A LOT! You can’t just sweep this under the rug and look only at lived experiences because the experiences are direct and unavoidable consequences of theology.

• In Orthodoxy, sin isn’t a crime or offense against God that needs punishment or restitution to satisfy a divine sense of justice. Instead, sin is a disease that needs healing.

  • The way we think about it is that as we become holier and more transformed by God’s Grace, we align ourselves closer to the image of God. This would be what is happening as you progress in “eternal progression towards Exhalation.” It’s a process, not a destination. The objective is to come closer to God by aligning ourselves with Him.

  • Sin is a disease that takes us out of alignment with the Image of God and needs healing. When we sin, our souls become afflicted, and we get off course in that journey to come closer to God. (That’s why sin means to miss the mark.)

  • All sin separates us from God to some degree, but in Orthodoxy, there are no classes of sin, such as “deadly vs. minor” as there are in Roman Catholicism. Orthodoxy is Mystical and not legalistic.

• In LDS/Mormonism (and Protestantism - I add protestantism because the LDS perspective on sin and the atonement is inherited from Protestantism, which in turn inherited it from Roman Catholicism.) Sin is an offense against God because you broke his rules or transgressed His Law. This mindset, based on a very different understanding of the “Atonement”, requires some form of payment or restitution. The very word Atone, means that you need to make amends for these transgressions of God’s will. Otherwise, God will be angry and you will ultimately be punished in some way. Thus, this view of Christ and what he accomplished on the cross is centered around him paying all of the penalties and punishments for our sins so that he is the one who satisfies all of God’s demands for Justice, creating the ability to provide us with Mercy.

Each of these approaches has a different effect on the soul and your resulting relationship with God.

They also have different implications for how you can interpret the nature of God, or what you can infer about God’s nature. In the first, God is envisioned entirely as a God of infinite love and mercy; he doesn’t seek to punish us, but to love us and gather us back to him.

In the second, God also loves us, but is open to being construed (but is not necessarily always construed) as an angry God who demands justice. In this view, Christ needs to “ransom” us from him so that Christ can show us Mercy since God the Father is mainly concerned with Justice. Effectively, this is not the Lord of the New Testament, but a kind of negotiation with the God of the Old Testament.

It’s difficult for me to articulate the difference regarding how this played out in my lived experience in a short statement, but let me attempt it before continuing.

The difference is like Standing before a Judge when you know you are guilty and trying to beg forgiveness to avoid punishment vs. stepping into a hospital for your soul, where healing is real but can be painful; Where the Physician himself meets you, soothes you, nurtures you and heals you, not with demands but with his own life.

Degrees of Sin?

While some sins may seem to cut deeper in terms of our alienation from God, none are beyond healing. Orthodoxy does not take a legalistic approach, and for that reason, we do not categorize sins as Mortal or Venial (like roman catholics) because the church is interested in healing the person, not in ranking offenses before you are hauled before a magistrate.

“There is only one sin that is unpardonable—not to repent.”

• St. John Chrysostom

What about Matthew 12:31? (I hear LDS readers asking, because my brain went there too.)

“Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.”

• Matthew 12:31

In Orthodox theology, the “sin against the Holy Spirit” is generally understood as a persistent, conscious, and hardened resistance to the grace of repentance. It is not a single act, but a state of willful rejection of God’s mercy. Meaning that effectively,

The only sin that cannot be forgiven is the one that one refuses to repent of.

Thus, Blasphemy against the Spirit:

• Is not just blasphemous words spoken in ignorance or weakness.

• Is not a sexual sin, murder, or even apostasy—these can all be forgiven with genuine repentance.

• Is not despair or doubt unless they calcify into hardened rejection.

What the Sin against the Holy Spirit is, According to the Patristic Fathers:

1. Persistent, Unrepentant Rebellion

• Similar to the state of rebellion that caused the fall of the rebellious angels led by the Devil

• St. John Chrysostom explains: it is to refuse to acknowledge God’s grace, mock repentance, and die in impenitence.

2. Calling Good Evil

• In context, Jesus said this about the Pharisees who claimed He cast out demons by Beelzebub. In other words, they saw the Holy Spirit’s power and deliberately attributed it to Satan.

3. Final Impenitence

• The Fathers (e.g., St. Basil, St. Gregory of Nyssa) are clear: God will forgive any sin, but He will not override a person’s final and deliberate rejection of that forgiveness.

This is not meant to cause fear, but to warn against spiritual pride, cynicism, and hypocrisy. The Church constantly preaches that God’s mercy is available until the last breath, but the soul must respond.

So yes, the Orthodox do believe that the blasphemy against the holy spirit is unpardonable— not because God withholds mercy, but because the sinner cuts himself off from it completely and willingly.

LDS hold that the sin against the holy spirit is something challenging to do, and as a result, few people will even be in a position to commit this sin. You essentially need to have a sure knowledge (not belief but knowledge) of the truth of “the gospel” and then knowingly and deliberately reject it.

Kimball taught that there is a difference between sin and serious sin. In a way, for LDS following Kimball’s teachings, there are Degrees of Sin. (Note that I have never heard this taught by any other LDS leader on a local level or in a general conference address.)

While Kimball says all sins (other than the unpardonable sin against the holy spirit) can be forgiven, he emphasizes that some are extremely difficult and may take years or even a lifetime of effort.

“Even with the most serious sins, such as murder, there is hope. But let no one think that the road back is easy or quick. It is a long road spiked with thorns and briars.”

(The Miracle of Forgiveness, Chapter 12)

What does Kimball consider Serious Sin?

• Sexual sin: He calls this “abominable and next to murder in seriousness” and warns repeatedly about its danger. Kimball classifies sexual sin as: Fornication, Adultery, Homosexuality, Rape, Incest and Sexual abuse. He characterizes Pornography, Petting, passionate kissing, and Masturbation as sexual sins that are gateways to the more serious sexual sins listed previously. Even Impure thoughts and fantasies are considered sinful if they are entertained.

<short tangent warning! >

• Orthodox saints might to agree with the last point about impure thoughts “if they are entertained”. St. Porphyrios says:
  

  “Do not be troubled by bad thoughts. They are not yours. They are like flies that hover around you. You only sin when you accept them and keep them.”
  

  The appearance of a sinful or impure thought—even an involuntary fantasy or image—is not considered sinful. The mind produces countless thoughts all day, most of which are either random, influenced by the passions, or even inserted by demons, as the Fathers often say. St. John Climacus, also sometimes referred to St. John of the Ladder, describes the process of sin as follows:

  • The Ladder of Divine Ascent (St. John Climacus) outlines the process that leads to sin by describing it as the following stages: suggestion → conversation → consent → captivity → passion.

    • Suggestion (logismos / προσβολή) The initial thought or temptation appears in the mind.

      • Status: Not sinful. Simply a mental image or idea—often from demons, passions, or the environment.

    • Conversation (συνδιαλογισμός) The mind entertains or considers the thought. Still a temptation.

      • Status: Still not yet sinful, but dangerous. Lingering with the thought increases risk.

    • Consent (συνκατάθεσις) The will agrees with the thought or takes pleasure in it.

      • Status: This is where sin begins.

    • Captivity (αἰχμαλωσία) The mind becomes fixated or seized by the sin or passion, losing freedom.

      • Status: The sin deepens and begins to shape behavior or emotions.

    • Passion (πάθος) The sinful tendency becomes a habitual state or rooted vice in the soul.

      • Status: The sin becomes a chronic illness of the soul, requiring spiritual struggle and healing.

Note that only at the point of consent does moral responsibility (sin) begin. Suggestions and even initial conversations are temptations, not sins.

</end tangent>

• I think it is very important to remember that Kimball’s book is written at the end of the 1960’s “sexual revolution” and if anything, it should be read in context as reactionary to the social sexual issues being advanced and normalized in the 60’s and 70’s, meaning that his book is not really a book about repentance, but is instead a reaction to the sexual revolution. For example, Kimball talks about homosexuality extensively and much more harshly than earlier LDS leaders had done. He insists it is curable. He links masturbation to the development of homosexuality (which became a repeated LDS teaching through the 80s and 90s). He singles it out alongside murder and adultery as among the gravest sins. I’m certain that “The Miracle of Forgiveness” was not a general moral treatise or a book about repentance per se, but a direct response to the sexual revolution and the growing public visibility and acceptance of homosexuality. Kimball’s personal preoccupation with sexual purity, his public statements from the late 60s, and the timing of the book all line up with a period of deep anxiety among conservative religious leaders about losing the moral and cultural battles on sex, marriage, and family. In addition. Kimball’s book:

  • Obsesses over sexual purity, spending more chapters and more explicit language on sexual sin than on any other topic.

  • Condemns masturbation, fornication, adultery, homosexuality, pornography, and even passionate kissing in extremely strong terms.

  • Frames sexual sin as not just morally wrong, but a society-destroying cancer.

  • Claims that certain sins (especially sexual sins) can take a lifetime to repent of or may never be fully repented of.

  • Directly mirrors the tone of other conservative religious leaders of the 60s and early 70s who were alarmed at what they saw as the collapse of Christian sexual morality. It’s no coincidence that evangelical leaders like Jerry Falwell Sr., Catholic bishops, and Jewish Orthodox rabbis at the time were also issuing stern warnings about:

    • The Pill (leading to promiscuity)

    • Gay rights

    • No-fault divorce laws

    • Sex education in schools

    • Pornography “addiction”

    • Kimball’s book fits this broader conservative religious backlash against the 60s-70s sexual revolution.²

• Murder: While not labeled “unpardonable,” Kimball is deeply skeptical that full repentance is ever possible for murderers in this life. He writes that the path back may be so long and difficult that few ever make it.

• Apostasy: While not beyond forgiveness, returning from open rebellion against the Church (i.e, the LDS church) is portrayed as extremely rare and difficult.

An Unfair comparison?

I fully recognize that it may be unfair to compare b/c St. Porphyrios with Kimball. Porphyrios is widely known to be loving, Christ-like, holy, compassionate, and merciful, whereas Pres. Kimball’s book, The Miracle of Forgiveness, has been widely criticized as an almost horrific treatise on the subject. St. Porphyrios was a monk, largely removed from the world, and Pres. Kimball was the leader of a church with a membership > 10million members, and sometimes LDS leaders may feel that their members need a bit of a kick in the rear to shape up. Kimball seemed like that kind of guy to me, as does the man Elder Oaks, who will be the next LDS president after the current LDS president, Nelson, passes.

If I know this comparison may not be fair, why am I proceeding to make it? It’s not b/c I hate Kimball or want to spend time slamming the LDS church (believe me, I’d rather not, it can be exhausting and as time goes on, I care less and less about LDS issues.)

It’s because at one point, when I was struggling with despair and guilt over my challenges, I read a book on St. Porphyrios ’ life and teachings and was immediately struck by the stark difference in approaches, and the massive gulf of difference in my personal lived experience as an Orthodox Christian. Also, despite the fact that Kimball’s book has been criticized, I think we need to recognize its impact. Kimball was considered one of the 12 apostles when he wrote the book, and then 4 years later was confirmed/set apart as the “prophet, seer and revelator” over the entire LDS church. As such, his prophetic teachings were at that time considered binding on the LDS church and its members in a way that even the Pope speaking Ex-Cathedra cannot hope to equal. When I was an LDS missionary, it was recommended that all missionaries read it, especially in my mission. My mission president was 100% a by-the-book rule follower, and so we had to read it.

As a result of the above, I think it’s fair game to use Kimball and his book as a comparison. At the time it was published (1970), it was a legitimate and authentic representation of LDS theology, thought, and practice on the subject, and it had a significant influence on the LDS church for most of my life as an LDS member. (Though I understand that in later years, since his death, LDS leaders have distanced themselves from his views, which have been minimized or in some cases abandoned. The book is no longer in print and no longer recommended reading for missionaries, which is odd to me because if he were truly a Prophet of God, shouldn’t his words and teachings be heeded and maintain importance despite the passage of time? Or do God’s words spoken through prophets lose relevance over time to the point where they can be ignored when they are no longer popular or convenient?)

Our cast

Saint Porphyrios (Eastern Orthodoxy): Porphyrios was a Greek Orthodox monk from Mount Athos who later served as a parish priest in Athens. Renowned for his holiness and spiritual insight, he stressed the all-encompassing love of God and the joy of living a life in Christ. His teachings were posthumously compiled in Wounded by Love, where he shares wisdom on prayer, spiritual struggle, and repentance. In Orthodox doctrine, repentance (Greek metanoia, meaning a “change of mind” or heart) is not a one-time event but an ongoing process of transformation. It is intrinsically linked with the sacrament of confession (often called “the Mystery of Repentance” in Orthodoxy) and is seen as a healing process for the soul. Orthodox view the Church as a hospital and the priest-confessor as a physician who, by God’s grace, aids the penitent in being restored to spiritual health. Christ is the “great physician” who came to redeem humanity from the fall by healing us and conquering death. Porphyrios’s era (1906–1991) was marked by a renewal of Orthodox spirituality, and his emphasis on divine compassion and inner transfiguration through repentance reflects centuries-old Orthodox theology in a modern voice.

Spencer W. Kimball (LDS Church): Spencer W. Kimball served as the 12th President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints from 1973 to 1985. Even before becoming the LDS prophet, he wrote The Miracle of Forgiveness, a book that became highly influential in Mormon teachings on sin and repentance. In LDS doctrine, repentance is one of the fundamental principles of the gospel and a prerequisite for receiving the full benefits of Christ’s Atonement. Kimball’s context was a mid-20th-century Mormonism that stressed personal righteousness, commandment-keeping, and striving toward perfection. He spoke bluntly about the need for complete repentance, reflecting an LDS view that while Christ’s atonement makes forgiveness possible, each individual must earnestly “work out” their repentance with fear and trembling. Kimball’s tone in his book can be characterized as direct, stern, and uncompromising. The Miracle of Forgiveness has been described as one of the most “blunt” and strict LDS writings on repentance, which some have criticised as a perfectionistic approach. Kimball’s counsel, while rooted in the hope of Christ’s forgiveness, often stresses the intense effort and remorse required from the sinner.

Emotional Tone

One of the most apparent differences between the Orthodox and LDS approaches is the emotional atmosphere surrounding repentance. St. Porphyrios spoke of repentance in warm and encouraging terms, suffused with compassion and hope, whereas Spencer W. Kimball’s approach, while not devoid of hope, often carried a weighty tone emphasizing sorrow, urgency, and even fear of unforgiven sin.

Porphyrios – Joy and Compassion in Repentance: In Orthodox spirituality, repentance is often called a “joyful sorrow” (Charmolypi in Greek) – a paradoxical mix of regret for sin and joy in God’s mercy. Porphyrios exemplifies this balance, overwhelmingly tilting toward joy and love. He taught that the act of repentance and confession is fundamentally a gift of God’s love:

“There is nothing higher than what is called repentance and confession. This sacrament is the offering of God’s love to mankind. In this perfect way a person is freed of evil.”

For Porphyrios, the outcome of true repentance is not prolonged guilt but liberating relief. “We go and confess and we sense our reconciliation with God; joy enters us and guilt departs,” Porphyrios often advised us not to focus on evil or sink into despair over our failings, but rather to turn our gaze to Christ. “You won’t become saints by hounding after evil. Ignore evil. Look towards Christ and He will save you.” This compassionate outlook means that we should feel encouraged and embraced by God. Porphyrios even shares from his personal life that as soon as he confessed his sins, he experienced immediate joy: “Whenever I sinned, I went and confessed and everything went away. I would jump for joy. I am sinful and weak. I resort to God’s compassion and I am saved; I become calm and I forget everything.” In his view, God’s grace quickly consoles the repentant soul, sweeping away anxiety.

Porphyrios acknowledges that sin causes pain and confusion in the soul, but he insists that Christ’s love can transform sorrow into joy. “Only with the light of Christ does the confusion depart,” he explains. Thus, the overall tone is one of tenderness and healing; repentance is depicted as a loving encounter with God’s grace that brings inner consolation. Even the grief one feels for sin is meant to be gentle and cleansing, not crushing. Saint Porphyrios’s approach epitomizes the Orthodox ideal of compunction without despair: a tearful return to the Father’s embrace, much like the prodigal son who is met with a loving welcome.

Here are some excerpts from St. Porphyrios’ boo,k as I think he says it much better than I can:

Repentance requires sincerity and brings sanctification and freedom:

We cannot repent unless the Lord gives us repentance. And this holds for everything. It is a case of the scriptural John 15:5 principle, Without me you can do nothing. If there are not the preconditions for Christ to enter into us, repentance does not come. The preconditions are humility, love, prayer, prostrations (exemplifying an attitude of humility) and labour for Christ. If the sentiment is not pure, if there is no simplicity and if the soul is moved by self-interest, then divine grace does not come. In that case we go and confess, but we don't feel relief.

Repentance is a very delicate matter. True repentance will bring sanctification. Repentance will sanctify us.

When a person makes confession, grace frees him from his psychological wounds

[…]

There is a way for a person to be freed from this evil [of sin.] This way is a general confession, which takes place through the grace of God.

[…]

God will forgive us for everything through the sacrament of confession:

God forgives everything with confession

Don't let's turn back to sins we have confessed. The recollection of sins is harmful. Have we asked for forgiveness? Then the matter is closed.

Never let sin cause you to fall into despair. Too much guilt, shame, and sorrow for sin is contrary to the spirit of God and a snare set by the devil.

God forgives everything with confession. We mustn't turn back and enmesh ourselves in despair. We need to be humble servants before God and have a sense of gratitude for the forgiveness of our sins.

It is not healthy to be excessively downcast on account of your sins and to turn with such revulsion against your evil self that you end up in despair.

Despondency is the worst thing. It is a snare set by Satan to make a person lose his appetite for spiritual things and to bring him into a state of despair, inactivity and negligence. In this state a person is unable to do anything and rendered useless. The person says, I am sinful and wretched, I am this, I am that, I didn't do this, I didn't do that. I should have done that then, now it’s too late, nothing can be done...I've wasted my life, I am unworth..." He is brought into a sense of inferiority and consumed by fruitless self-reproach.

Do you know what a destructive thing that is? It is pseudo-humility.

All these things are symptoms of a person in despair whom Satan has brought under his sway. Such a person reaches the point where he doesn't even want to receive Communion because he regards himself as unworthy of everything. He attempts to negate everything about himself and is rendered useless. This is a snare set by Satan so that a person will lose his hope in God's love. All this is quite terrible and contrary to the Spirit of God.

How St. Porphyrios recommends we deal with the distress and sorrow/despondency of our sins:

I, too, think that I am sinful and that I am not living as I should. Nevertheless, I make whatever distresses me into prayer. I do not shut it up inside myself. I go to my spiritual father and confess it and it is finished and done with. Don't go back and recriminate and say what we didn't do. What is important is what we will do now, from this moment onwards — as Saint Paul says, forgetting the things that are behind and stretching forward to the things that are before us. (Phil. 3:14)

The spirit of cowardice attempted to sever Saint Paul's zeal for Christ,but he took courage and said, It is no longer I who live; Christ lives in me. And also, Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril or sword? As it is written, for Your sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted Rom. 8:35-6 as sheep for the slaughter. (Gal. 2:20) And David the prophet and king said, I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the Lord.

Read the scriptures. Remember the fine words, I love those who love me, and those who seek me shall find grace. (Prov 8:17)

President Kimball – Superficial sorrow is not enough, and there is no forgiveness without absolute sincerity.

“There must be a consciousness of guilt. It cannot be a vague, uncertain feeling that maybe something isn’t right; it must be a sharp and certain realization that one has done wrong. And with this must come an earnest desire to do right.”

[…]

“If a person does not feel sorrow for his sin, he is not repentant. If he does not fully abandon the sin, he is not repentant. If he does not live the commandments of the Lord, he is not repentant. If he fails to restore that which is in his power to restore, he is not repentant. True repentance is based on and flows from the love of God.”

(The Miracle of Forgiveness, Chapter 12)

True repentance requires profound guilt and sorrow.

Spencer W. Kimball’s tone in The Miracle of Forgiveness is often urgent, sobering, and meant to elicit deep remorse in the sinner. LDS scriptures and leaders speak of “godly sorrow” for sin (see 2 Corinthians 7:10), and President Kimball emphasizes that true repentance is impossible without profound guilt and sorrow. He did not shy away from strong words. The emotional experience of a repenting person in Kimball’s framework is often one of struggle and anguish. In fact, Kimball openly states that “Repentance is a painful process, but it leads to forgiveness and lasting peace.” While he promises eventual peace, he makes it clear that pain, shame, and a broken heart are necessary parts of reaching it.

Spencer W. Kimball, in The Miracle of Forgiveness, teaches unequivocally that profound guilt and sorrow are indispensable elements of true repentance. For him, these aren’t optional emotions or psychological byproducts—they are core evidences of whether a person is truly repentant or just going through the motions. Without deep emotional anguish, Kimball argues, repentance hasn’t even begun.

Guilt and Sorrow Are Proofs of Repentance

“There must be a consciousness of guilt. It cannot be a vague, uncertain feeling… it must be a sharp and certain realization that one has done wrong.”

[…]

“It is good that a person be ashamed of his sins. God himself uses guilt and remorse and even fear to move his children to repentance.”

[…]

“If a person does not feel sorrow for his sin, he is not repentant.”

[…]

“There must be a genuine, unrelenting remorse and sorrow for the sin. It must be like the sorrow that weighs down the soul almost to the brink of despair.”

(The Miracle of Forgiveness, Ch. 12)

There are a number of takeaway messages that I had from Kimball’s book:

• Sorrow Must Be Intense and Crushing

• Shame Is Necessary and Healthy

• No Guilt, No Forgiveness

Kimball paints repentance as a dark, painful valley the sinner must pass through. If sorrow isn’t deep enough to nearly crush the person, it’s probably not real in his view. He calls this kind of sorrow “godly sorrow”, borrowing the term from 2 Corinthians 7:10. Kimball also affirms the legitimacy of shame. Kimball sees shame and guilt as tools of divine grace, not something to be avoided or minimized. In fact, without shame and guilt, the sinner might never seek change.

Kimball treats guilt and sorrow as types of spiritual birth pains—without them, the new life of righteousness can’t begin. He does eventually speak of peace, joy, and forgiveness—but only after the soul has been ground down, reformed, and proven its sincerity through suffering.

This approach to repentance is undoubtedly what made Kimball’s book controversial. Modern clinical psychology generally regards excessive guilt and shame as risk factors for a range of mental health problems—depression, anxiety, self-harm, even suicidal ideation. Psychology generally views guilt as potentially healthy when it motivates restitution or change, but shame—especially when chronic—is seen as toxic and destructive. Psychologists often recommend self-compassion and structured behavioral change rather than emotional self-flagellation. There’s also wide recognition that religiously induced guilt, particularly in high-demand religious environments, can become pathological.

My personal experience as an LDS youth leader would agree with the concerns above. I remember that in my ward (parish/congregation), there was a young man who had schizophrenia, was suicidal, and emotionally vulnerable. He had trauma and PTSD. He had been subject to physical abuse from his parents, who weren’t together, and as a young child, he used to witness his father beat his mother. If he tried to intervene, he became the subject of the beatings. He struggled with compulsive pornography use and masturbation, likely as a form of self-soothing and stress management. He was already feeling very ashamed and guilt-ridden. He told me that he had been praying for forgiveness and was going to talk to his bishop (i.e., local congregation Pastor) about it. I didn’t think that was a good idea, but I didn’t try to stop him b/c, from an LDS perspective, that’s the right thing to do.

When he went to talk to his bishop (Pastor), the Pastor castigated him quite harshly and told him that his porn and masturbation sins would result in him becoming a homosexual and going straight to hell (this is a teaching right out of Kimball’s book.) He was also disfellowshipped (a form of social shunning that includes restricted church participation) for a few months. He was restricted from blessing or passing “the sacrament” - something he was usually involved with. His removal would be noticed by everyone, who wouldn’t say anything to him directly, but of course, everyone would be thinking, “what awful things did he do to get removed from his duties? Must have been bad.” Tactics like this are explained as being loving restrictions to prevent one from attempting to use God’s priesthood authority in sin (which would be a sin), and to help one repent and feel God’s forgiveness. Sometimes they will try to soft sell it as not a punishment but “To give you the space and focus you need to fully repent and come closer to the Savior. Sometimes when we’re carrying serious sin, continuing to participate in certain ordinances—like taking the sacrament—can actually prevent us from feeling the full power of repentance and the cleansing of the Spirit.” But, in my opinion, these are just ways to shame and guilt people publicly, even if they say things like: “It’s an act of love, not condemnation.” “You’ll come back even stronger in the gospel.” “This is the Lord’s pattern for helping us change.” I’m so angry writing this as I remember this incident. I have some choice [harsh] things [I’d like] to say, but I’m going to refrain and I'll only say that I don’t think Christ would agree with this type of approach.

After this meeting with his “confessor”, this young man was emotionally distraught, bawling and sobbing, and full of despair. He confided in me that after this, he again began having suicidal ideations. I was livid, enraged, and furious. The pastor knew that this boy (he was maybe 15 at the time) had serious mental health problems and was taking anti-psychotic medication. How he reacted to this kid was unconscionable. Not only was I furious, but I was totally and utterly disgusted (this incident “poisoned the well” for me wrt the LDS church.) I confronted this supposed “bishop” about it, and he weakly tried to justify himself, saying that this was also the attitude and perspective of the stake president! When I pushed him on the boy’s mental health, he admitted that he knew he had mental health problems! Sacrebleu! Then why the bloody hell did you say that shit to him? WTF is wrong with you? I actually said that to him, but I was skating on thin ice because technically this idiot was also my “bishop.” (lol, I can’t even call him a Bishop now - even though that was his LDS official title and ecclesiastical office. Calling him a Bishop is now, to me, so absurd that I can’t bring myself to do it anymore.) Note that this is the same stake president who effectively blurted out a strong insinuation at a Christmas party that he and his wife use sex toys, so wtf?

“Criss de marde! C’t’une mentalité d’épais pis de crosseur! Ça me fait rager en sacrament! Ostifi qu’ça me lève le cœur!” Roughly translated tone-wise (not literally) as “Holy fucking shit! That’s an idiotic mentality! It makes me rage like hell! Damn, that makes me sick to my stomach!”

And…. now you’ve learned some Canadian swearing in Quebecois French (called joual.) I tried to tone it down w/o losing the flavor. All Joual swear words are essentially blasphemies against the roman catholic church (specifically the Eucharist, chalice, tabernacle, church steeple, etc.), so I tried to keep it more audience appropriate :) It seems odd to English speakers, but considering the French history with the roman catholic church, it’s understandable. For modern Quebecois French speakers, the religious/blasphemous intents are not literal; they are just expressions of anger. They are technically desacralized profanities. Ok, now I will go repent and add this to the list for my next confession.

I feel like my Orthodox priest would agree with the objections/concerns of modern psychology. St. Porphyrios is emphatic that dwelling excessively on your sins is harmful and even counterproductive.

My response to the distraught young man when he told me all of this was to tell him that dwelling on it would make it worse. It would increase his stress and anxiety, which would make the temptations worse. I urged him to give himself a break and pray for help in overcoming it, but I did not expect that he could go cold turkey all at once. Instead, I suggested de-escalating his pornography use to less explicit material when he masturbated as a way to begin to wean himself off of porn. It's not easy, but it's much more realistic than a fear and guilt-motivated cold turkey.

St. Porphyrios often warns against morbid introspection and encourages turning one’s mind toward Christ’s love and light, rather than obsessing over one’s fallenness.

“You won’t become saints by hounding after evil. Ignore evil. Look toward Christ and He will save you. This is what is meant by ‘with the mind we go to God.’”

(Wounded by Love, ch. “On the Mystery of Repentance”)

He speaks openly about his own sins and failures, but never indulges in despair:

“Whenever I sinned I went and confessed and everything went away. I would jump for joy… I resort to God’s compassion and I am saved; I become calm and I forget everything.”

(Wounded by Love, ch. “On the Mystery of Repentance”)

The Saint warns that excessive guilt and sorrow can be a temptation from the devil, especially if they lead to despair, self-hatred, or abandonment of hope in God’s mercy.

St. John Climacus in The Ladder of Divine Ascent distinguishes between godly grief, which leads to humility and joy, and worldly grief, which leads to despondency and death.

“Despondency… is a paralysis of the soul, a neglect of asceticism… it is the trap of the devil.”

(Ladder of Divine Ascent, Step 13)

Kimball: God will forgive all sins, except the sin against the Holy Spirit, but some sins are more difficult to receive forgiveness for.

“There is no sin so great that it cannot be forgiven — except the unpardonable sin — but there is no forgiveness without real and total repentance.”

(The Miracle of Forgiveness, Chapter 1)

Throughout The Miracle of Forgiveness, Kimball underscores the seriousness of sin with a stern-sounding compassion: God is willing to forgive, but only if we are truly penitent, and that penitence must be proven.

While Porphyrios does state that your desire for repentance needs to be authentic, he does not go so far as to say that penitence must be proven. “The preconditions are humility, love, prayer, prostrations and labour for Christ. If the sentiment is not pure, if there is no simplicity and if the soul is moved by self-interest, then divine grace does not come.”

Kimball famously warned against an attitude of taking sin lightly. He criticized those who say they will “try to do better next time”:

‘Trying’ is not sufficient. Nor is repentance complete when one merely tries to abandon sin… To ‘try’ is weak. To ‘do the best I can’ is not strong… Those who feel that they can sin and be forgiven and then return to sin and be forgiven again and again must straighten out their thinking. Each previously forgiven sin is added to the new one and the whole gets to be a heavy load.”

This passage conveys a heavy tone of warning and accountability – it implies that the sinner should feel the accumulating weight of guilt if they relapse.

The emotional tenor here is one of somber resolve: true repentance may involve tears of regret, even a period of inner darkness, as one comprehends the damage of sin. Kimball even suggested that for grave sins, a penitent might suffer for a long time before feeling forgiven. In one counseling anecdote, he told a despairing woman, “You can be forgiven for this heinous sin, but it will take much sincere repentance to accomplish it.”

He offers hope, but only paired with an emphatic insistence on long, hard effort. It’s not that Kimball wanted people to live in perpetual misery – he did aim to guide them to the “miracle” of forgiveness and the peace that follows. Indeed, he wrote, “The essence of the miracle of forgiveness is that it brings peace to the previously anxious, restless, frustrated, perhaps tormented soul.” But to reach that peace, one must travel “a long road spiked with thorns and briars.” Kimball carries a tone of gravity and urgency – repentance is portrayed as difficult but necessary, and the penitent is meant to feel keen guilt, shame, and remorse (and not a little fear of God’s judgment) as a catalyst to fully forsake sin. (I’d say this is Kimball’s inner Calvinist coming out!) Compassion is present, but it is the compassion of one who must deliver a hard diagnosis so that the patient will undertake a serious cure.

Where Porphyrios would say, “Don’t be afraid, God loves you, just come back to Him,” Kimball might say, “Do not delay or make excuses, your soul is in peril until you fully repent.” Both care for the sinner’s return, but the emotional flavor is different – tender encouragement versus strong exhortation.

The Goal of Repentance

Orthodoxy – Repentance as Healing and Sanctification: In Eastern Orthodox theology, the ultimate objective of repentance is not to have one’s sins forgiven in a sense of justice, but to be healed of the spiritual sickness that caused the sin and to grow in holiness (sanctification.) It is part of the lifelong process of theosis, the transformation of a person into the likeness of God by His grace. St. Porphyrios repeatedly highlights that true repentance leads to holiness. “True repentance will bring sanctification. Repentance will sanctify us,” he taught. The idea is that by continuously turning back to God, the soul is purified and united more closely with Him.

I.e., at the risk of being repetitive, God acts as the physician, providing both strength and healing. The person cooperates (by “making a move” of will to turn to God), but ultimately it is God who grants repentance and renewal. Thus, the aim is a restored relationship with God here and now, and the continual healing of the heart from passions and attachments that lead us astray (remember that sin is to miss the mark.)

When Porphyrios went to confession and felt joy, it wasn’t because a legal debt was canceled; his soul was put at peace and made healthy again by reuniting with God. For Orthodoxy, repentance is oriented toward inner transformation and union with God.

LDS - Repentance as receiving Forgiveness.

We come to earth for the purpose of growing and progressing. This is a lifelong process. Repentance is the way provided for us to become free from our sins and receive forgiveness for them. Sins slow our spiritual progression and can even stop it. Repentance makes it possible for us to grow and develop spiritually again.

(Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball).

LDS have a concept similar to Theosis that they call Exaltation. With this understanding of Exaltation (which is the end state), they also have a theological concept called “eternal progression.” Which is the eternal process of coming closer to God. In these understandings, both Orthodoxy and LDS perspectives are aligned. The quote above says, “for the purpose of growing and progressing. This is a lifelong process.” This is what they are referencing. Here, the understandings of what repentance is for, to allow us to continue on the path of eternal progression or theosis, are very well aligned between the two faiths. I would note that, as far as I’m aware (and I’m not an expert on the beliefs of all protestant denominations), this is a very different understanding than what is found in the Protestant world. So, point for the Mormons, I’m, strangely, proud to be able to point out that they got this one right. They don’t use the same language around sanctification and holiness, but the basic understanding is the same.

This is Confusing. What exactly is being forgiven?

This is all well and good, sounds nice, kumbaya and all, but for an LDS person, this can also be very confusing. Many passages in scripture speak about “Forgiveness of sins.” If we are speaking about God forgiving our sins, how do we understand this? The very concept of forgiveness implies that there is something that the person granting forgiveness is remitting or absolving (like a debt, obligation, or offense.) So, how do we make sense of this?

The Greek word used in the New Testament is ἄφεσις (aphesis), which means to release, let go, remission, or liberation. This word doesn’t just mean “pardon” like in a courtroom—it means to set free, to let go, or to cancel.

How can we understand the Scriptures in this context?

Let’s look at a couple of examples.

“Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness (aphesis) of your sins.” - Acts 2:38

Forgiveness is tied to baptism and entry into the Church—the beginning of healing by releasing or letting go of your sins (i.e. letting go of your errors that cause you to move out of communion and alignment with God.)

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” - 1 John 1:9

Forgiveness and cleansing are paired because release of our sins bring cleansing and healing, a restorative medicine.

“Son, your sins are forgiven.” - Mark 2:5 (Paralytic)

In this scripture, Christ heals and forgives in one act—again connecting forgiveness with restoration.

In all these passages:

• Forgiveness (aphesis) = release, remission, liberation.

• Often paired with cleansing, healing, and restoration.

• Not presented as a strict legal acquittal. (This interpretation became common in later Western theology, especially as a result of following the ideas of Augustine. I.e. The origin of this view is not solely the protestant reformers themselves, but also has roots in the Latin church (the Roman Catholic church.)

However, the New Testament clearly speaks of God forgiving sins.

But what forgiveness means in context is:

• God is releasing us from sin’s power.

• God is restoring us to communion.

• God heals the damage sin caused. (Providing liberation from the harmful effects)

This is why Orthodox theology links repentance and forgiveness with therapy (healing) and theosis (sanctification).

Being forgiven is part of repentance (indeed, in confession, the priest declares God’s forgiveness), but the emphasis is on being spiritually healed and changed. A repentant person is not just absolved; they are meant to become a new creation, little by little. As a result, Orthodox teaching on repentance often blends with the language of therapy and growth – one becomes more sanctified (holy) each time one genuinely repents. St. Porphyrios’s stress on sanctification shows that for him, the “success” of repentance is measured in terms of the soul’s renewal and proximity to God, rather than a checkbox that a sin is forgiven and punishment has been avoided.

LDS – Repentance as Atonement and Forgiveness (Justification): The primary objective of repentance is to qualify for and obtain forgiveness from God through the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. LDS leaders certainly hope that people are improved and changed by repentance, the language Kimball uses frames the outcome as being cleansed from sin and averting divine punishment. President Kimball describes this miracle in almost dramatic terms of rescue: “When souls are reborn, when lives are changed—then comes the great miracle… Repentance and forgiveness make a brilliant day of the darkest night.” This is about moving from a state of guilt (darkness) to a state of pardon and peace (light.) Without that forgiveness, progress is no longer possible, which leads to being stuck or damned. Kimball taught that no unclean thing can dwell with God, thus every sin must be repented of or its guilt remains on the soul.

Repentance also ensures that at the Judgment, one’s sins have been washed away by Christ – essentially, repentance is the condition we must fulfill for Christ’s atoning sacrifice to be applied to us. He put it succinctly: “This earthly life is the time to repent. We cannot afford to take any chances of dying an enemy to God.” A successful repentance results in the person being forgiven by God and re-admitted to full fellowship (both with God and in the Church community). Kimball describes the outcome with words like “forgiven,” “cleansed,” and “purified”. For example, he wrote:

“What relief! What comfort! What joy! Those laden with transgressions and sorrows and sin may be forgiven and cleansed and purified if they will return to their Lord, learn of him, and keep his commandments.”

• Kimball - Miracle of forgiveness

When full repentance is achieved, the atonement of Christ removes the stain of sin (“though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be white as snow” is a favorite scripture quoted.)

Kimball frequently reminds readers that forgiveness is not automatic:

“It depends upon you whether or not you are forgiven, and when. It could be weeks, it could be years, it could be centuries… That depends on your humility, your sincerity, your works, your attitudes.”

This statement highlights the perspective that repentance is to satisfy the conditions upon which Christ’s forgiveness is granted. If the conditions aren’t met, the sin remains. Ultimately, the goal is to stand clean before God, which is necessary to enter God’s kingdom and partake of eternal life. While spiritual growth is a hoped-for byproduct, the doctrinal focus is on justification, i.e., being absolved from guilt by aligning with the laws of God.

President Kimball’s writings reflect this focus by meticulously outlining what is required to be forgiven. In sum, the LDS perspective sees repentance as the means by which the atonement of Jesus Christ is activated in an individual’s life. The joy and peace come mainly after one has done all that is required and receives the assurance of pardon. Thus, repentance in Kimball’s eyes seems to be about clearing one’s standing before God and thereby qualifying for salvation and attaining a state of cleanliness.

I have a couple of concerns about this approach (Just a couple, ya say? Yes, a couple; despite the tone that seems to be punitive, at the fundamental level, I find some critical challenges that I think can be dangerous.) I’m trying to be fair and not overly biased - I obviously have an approach I favor and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out which one that might be, but my analytical brain can’t help itself, so I’m only going to point out a couple fundamentals that I think need to be highlighted.

• It seems that there is no assurance of when you may actually receive forgiveness, so thoughts about the sin, struggles with the guilt and shame may persist for long periods of time, making it difficult for one to move on mentally and emotionally.

• While we are all ultimately responsible for our actions and repentance, I am concerned that the apparently contingent nature of this process puts any “failure” for not attaining forgiveness back on the individual. Combined with my first concern, I see this as problematic. You never know if you have been forgiven, and if, for some reason, you don’t feel like you’ve achieved forgiveness, it’s ultimately your fault. This could cause an anxious person who is in pain or suffering emotional or psychological distress to spiral as these two things together are likely to cause a feedback loop that takes the individual deeper and deeper into guilt/shame and ultimately despair.

In Practice

Perhaps the most concrete differences emerge in how repentance is practiced in daily religious life. Given how central repentance is to Christian theology, this practice is inevitably going to be something people engage in regularly.

Orthodox Practice – The Mystery of Confession. In Eastern Orthodoxy, repentance is intimately tied to the Sacrament of Confession (also called Holy Confession). This sacrament is a private encounter between the penitent and a priest (often one’s spiritual father), in which prayers are said in the church, and then, in private, the person confesses sins and receives forgiveness through the prayer of the priest, who acts by the authority Christ gave to His Apostles. I won’t describe every bit in detail, but at a high level, this is generally how it works; I typically meet my priest at the church. We start by saying some prayers in front of the altar doors (which are open, IIRC.) This includes many petitions to God for mercy. The prayers are read by both the priest and me. We take turns as we go through the book. Once the prayers are complete, we move to a private room at the side of the church. This part is similar to the LDS experience of meeting “the bishop” in his office. We take seats across from each other (my priest has never sat behind a desk with me on the other side), and I confess all my sins and issues. Mostly, he listens and may provide some encouragement if I’m feeling bad, and at the end, may provide some advice and help counsel me through certain things or help me navigate certain issues. Sometimes he helps me reframe how I’m thinking about things, and that’s very helpful too. I wrote about my first confession experience in detail in the following article. If you would like more details on how this went and my experience with it, I would encourage you to read it.

The conclusion of the Orthodox repentance experience is the prayer of absolution, which is understood to wipe away your sins by the power of Christ. After that moment, you are considered completely forgiven before God; You don’t have to worry and wonder whether or not you have actually been forgiven. Saint Porphyrios extolled confession as a great gift that ensures no repentant soul is trapped in despair. “In the Orthodox Church there is no impasse. There is no dead-end because of the existence of the confessor who has the gift of grace to forgive,” he explains. This means that no matter how grievous one’s sins, there is always a path back through confession – the priest, by God’s grace, can declare the person forgiven, lifting the burden immediately.

Orthodox Christians are encouraged to examine their conscience regularly (often as part of our daily prayer rule) and go to confession frequently – this could be monthly, during each fasting season, or whenever we feel the need to reconcile with God. St. Porphyrios himself confessed often; as he said, it was his habit from boyhood to run to confession whenever he fell, so that he could quickly stand up again in joy. The process is not codified in a strict checklist, but generally involves: acknowledging one’s sins (usually done in personal prayer first, asking God for help to see one’s faults), then feeling contrition (Orthodoxy speaks of “compunction,” a sorrow for sin that is balanced by hope in God’s mercy), and then verbally confessing to a priest. The priest may give counsel or assign a penance (epitimia), which is not seen as punishment but as medicine – for example, your priest might ask you to pray a particular prayer, read Scripture, or do an act of charity as a way to help heal your soul.

What remains is the healing process – overcoming any lingering tendencies to sin (which is an ongoing effort in the spiritual life). Orthodox spiritual practice encourages us to “bear fruits worthy of repentance” (Luke 3:8) by actively engaging in ascetic efforts: prayer, fasting, restitution if needed (e.g., returning something stolen), and seeking to reconcile with anyone we harmed. These efforts are done in a spirit of gratitude and cooperation with God’s grace. This is illustrative of an approach that encourages a release of any guilt or shame we may be experiencing through the sacrament, followed by positive action (prayer, virtue) to continue in communion with God. In real life, an Orthodox Christian might, for example, go to their priest troubled and heavy-laden, spend some time confessing sins and receiving gentle guidance, and leave feeling a weight off their shoulders – perhaps told to say certain prayers or read a psalm each day as a therapeutic measure, but essentially assured that God’s forgiveness is already given. It is common for our liturgical lives to include prayers like “Lord, have mercy” and hymns of repentance, so that repentance is woven into our daily worship.

Orthodox repentance is relational and sacramental: it’s about mending the relationship with God here and now through the Church’s ministering, and experiencing the grace of forgiveness immediately, which then empowers us to live differently. It’s not spelled out in steps; rather, it’s a cyclical, ongoing practice – falling and getting back up, again and again, within a community of support and grace.

Relapse

Because sin is primarily understood not as a legal infraction, but as a spiritual illness or distortion of our soul’s proper orientation toward God, lapses and repeated sins are treated not with legal condemnation or punitive measures but with the concern of a physician toward a patient.

“Do not be ashamed to enter again into the Church. Be ashamed when you sin, not when you repent.” - St. John Chrysostom

The Orthodox Church approaches sinful lapses and repeated sins with a theological and pastoral framework that is deeply rooted in compassion, realism about human weakness, and a call to continual transformation. At its heart is the understanding that repentance (metanoia) is not a one-time event, but a lifelong process of returning to God again and again, however many times one falls.

It is not falling that damns a soul, but refusing to rise again. The Fathers teach that God’s mercy is inexhaustible for the repentant heart, even if that heart has fallen a thousand times.

• Falling is expected—what matters is rising with humility.

• God’s mercy is unlimited; repeated sin is not an excuse to despair.

• Confession is key—not just for forgiveness, but as medicine for healing.

• The goal is transformation, not avoiding punishment.

• Despair and giving up are worse than falling again.

• Compassionate, fatherly guidance is the norm, not shaming or condemnation.

The Orthodox Church does not treat repeated sins as evidence of failure, but as a sign that the spiritual struggle is ongoing. We are encouraged to see ourselves not as condemned criminals, but as wounded soldiers on the battlefield, tended to by a merciful Lord who understands our weakness and desires our healing.

Patient Struggle

While repetition of sin is not ideal, it is also unsurprising to Orthodox pastors. The Church teaches that the Christian life is a struggle, and that some passions (like lust, anger, gluttony, etc.) may take a lifetime to overcome. The Orthodox emphasis is on direction and desire, not instant perfection.

“Just as the treasure of the sea is limitless, so is the mercy of God. Do not say: ‘I have sinned much, and so there is no forgiveness for me.’ For God has not appointed repentance for the righteous, but for sinners.” - St. Isaac the Syrian

It is expected that our spiritual life will be marked by cycles of falling and rising, and the Orthodox Church encourages us to confess sincerely, even if it is the hundredth time we’ve fallen into the same sin. What matters is the humility to acknowledge one’s weakness and the desire to struggle on. The key is not to make peace with sin or excuse it, but also not to despair because of it.

Pastoral Practice: Confession and Encouragement

In practical pastoral care, Orthodox priests are trained to deal with repeated sins with compassion and patience. Repeated lapses will rarely scandalize an experienced confessor. Instead, they will:

• Encourage us to continue confessing without giving up.

• Help us examine what leads to the fall (e.g., triggers, temptations, lack of prayer).

• Offer spiritual exercises or disciplines (such as fasting, prayers, and practices tailored to help improve our spiritual strength.

• Emphasize that God sees the effort and struggle, even if progress is slow.

Regardless, a priest will always seek to preserve our hope and drive towards communion with God.

“God is watching over us and rejoices when we repent and turn to Him… We are weak, but God is strong. If we fall a hundred times, let us get up a hundred times again.”

• Elder Thaddeus of Vitovnica

Despair as the Greater Sin

Despair or hopelessness after a lapse is more dangerous than the lapse itself. The devil, it is said, tempts first to sin—and then to despair of God’s mercy afterward. Orthodox saints frequently warn against letting shame or discouragement drive one away from God.

“Keep your mind in hell and despair not.”

• St. Silouan the Athonite

Meaning that even if you see the depths of your sin and unworthiness, you must never lose faith in God’s love and readiness to forgive.

LDS Practice

In the LDS tradition, repentance is often taught in a structured manner, frequently outlined as a series of steps or elements that one must go through to be fully repentant.

“There is no royal road to repentance, no privileged path to forgiveness. Every man must follow the same course whether he be rich or poor, educated or untrained, tall or short, prince or pauper, king or commoner” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Spencer W. Kimball [2006], 38; italics in original).

President Kimball’s teachings have heavily influenced this step-by-step understanding. A common LDS enumeration of the “steps of repentance” (from the LDS Gospel Principles lesson manual) includes:

1. Recognize the sin – Acknowledge that we have done wrong, without excuses or denial.

2. Feel sincere sorrow (godly sorrow) – Experience genuine remorse and guilt for our sin, enough to change our hearts (not just regret consequences, but sorrow that we have displeased God.)

3. Forsake the sin – Stop the sinful behavior immediately and permanently. This means abandoning the sin and not repeating it. Kimball stressed this as an “unyielding, permanent resolve” to never commit the sin again. The Lord revealed to the Prophet Joseph Smith, “By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins—behold, he will confess them and forsake them” (D&C 58:43).

4. Confess the sin – “I, the Lord, forgive sins, and am merciful unto those who confess their sins with humble hearts” (D&C 61:2).

   We must confess all our sins to the Lord. In addition, we must confess serious sins—such as adultery, fornication, homosexual relations, spouse or child abuse, and the sale or use of illegal drugs—which might affect our standing in the Church, to the proper priesthood authority (LDS belief holds that certain major sins require confession to a bishop [presbyter] who can help guide the process and determine when the person is ready for full fellowship again.) If we have sinned against another person, we should confess to the person we have injured. Some less serious sins involve no one but ourselves and the Lord. These may be confessed privately to the Lord.

5. Make restitution – Where possible, repair the damage caused by the sin. This could mean apologizing to someone you hurt, giving back what was stolen, or otherwise making amends (to the extent possible.)

6. Forgive others – An often included step is that we must forgive those who have wronged us, as a condition of receiving God’s forgiveness for our sins (see LDS scripture Doctrine & Covenants 64:9-10).

7. Keep the commandments of God – Demonstrate your repentance by living righteously thereafter. One must “do the works of righteousness” consistently, showing that the sinful behavior has truly been forsaken and replaced by obedience.

These steps are taught in LDS manuals and by leaders as essential elements of complete repentance, and Kimball’s book provides a detailed discussion of many of them (for example, President Kimball spends considerable time on the need to abandon sin completely and the dangers of repeating sins). The process is not instantaneous; Kimball wrote, “True repentance is not easy. It takes time and effort.”

A person seeking repentance in the LDS Church may have to go through a period of probation or church discipline. For instance, if someone confesses a serious sin to a bishop (note that an LDS bishop is essentially the same role as an Orthodox priest. LDS ecclesiology is different from most Christian denominations.) A bishop might counsel you and temporarily restrict you from participating in certain religious activities (such as taking the Sacrament (communion) or entering the Temple) while you prove your repentance. Kimball’s writings indicate that sustained effort over time is needed – one must demonstrate repentance before the full blessings of forgiveness are confirmed. He even suggested that the absence of the tendency to repeat the sin and the passage of time are signs that forgiveness has likely been granted.

In daily life, an LDS member who has sinned significantly may pray fervently for forgiveness, and will continually check themselves to avoid the sin. People may meet with their bishops regularly for counsel and to report progress. An example: a young man who violated the Church’s moral standards (say, had premarital sex) would feel deep remorse, confess to his bishop, be asked to cease the behavior immediately, possibly be prohibited from taking the sacrament for a period of time, and encouraged to immerse himself in scripture study, prayer, and service. He might be told by the bishop that forgiveness will come after he has shown over some months that he has truly changed and feels the Spirit again. The man would work hard to not repeat the sin; if he slips, the process essentially resets and becomes even more difficult (recall Kimball’s warning that repeated sins pile back on.) Eventually, if he remains faithful, he will be told he is cleared and can resume full participation, presumably having received spiritual confirmation of forgiveness through peace in his heart. The mindset in LDS practice is comprehensive and structured to the point of being legalistic: one wants to be sure they have “done all they can” to repent so that Christ will remove the stain of the sin. People are taught not to procrastinate repentance. President Kimball urged members to live in “constant repentance” so as to always be ready to meet God. Thus, practically, an active LDS life involves regular self-assessment, nightly prayers of repentance, weekly taking of the Sacrament with a recommitment to do better, and seeking counsel from leaders if serious sins occur.

Two Visions of Returning to God

In both traditions repentance is fundamentally about turning one’s heart back to God.

Eastern Orthodoxy, with its ethos of compassionate healing, presents repentance as a joyous transformation—like a sick patient restored to health by the Divine Physician. The Orthodox penitent feels God’s mercy, with joy overwhelming guilt upon sincere confession. Focus is on God’s grace sanctifying and lifting us to new life. Forgiveness is assured, regardless of the sin's magnitude, even if this process repeats for the same sin. 

Kimball's approach frames repentance in terms of a personal journey, similar to a prodigal child seeking to rebuild trust with the Father. For many, this process includes experiencing feelings of guilt and shame, which are part of a deeper understanding before forgiveness can be embraced. The emphasis lies on our commitment to sincerely engage in repentance, allowing Christ’s atonement to uplift us, though the timing of forgiveness may vary for each individual.

The Lived Experience

I’m aware that one might read this and come to the conclusion that each position is saying the same thing, even if they are emphasizing different parts. Fair enough. I’m also sure LDS members and apologists will pull from the teachings of other LDS leaders and Scriptures to soften Kimball’s stance. We can pretend that theologically, the ideas are very similar.

However, at the end of the day, they cannot be the same because the LDS and Orthodox views of “the atonement” are very different. These differences are what lead to these different approaches and the resulting lived experiences.

I would stress that both religions believe in a loving God who wants His children to return. Porphyrios and Kimball would both agree that repentance is essential and that it leads to profound peace and joy. Porphyrios would have us run to God because He loves us so much, whereas Kimball would have us flee from sin because it is so abhorrent and has dangerous consequences.

These differences manifest most greatly in the lived experience of the adherent. The Orthodox approach reminds us that no sin is too great for God’s mercy and that as we repent, we should feel hope and love, not despair – repentance is a mystical renewal more than a duty. The LDS approach, while different, is correct to underscore that true repentance is not casual; it requires fundamental change, restitution, and enduring commitment – in other words, repentance is a serious work of faith coupled with the mercy of Christ.

I can only speak about my lived experience, which includes feedback from a small group of other people who have also made the same journey from LDS to Orthodox. You can read about my first confession experience here:

I recommend reading it, but should you choose not to, here is a TLDR summary (since this article is already quite long in the tooth):

TLDR: First Orthodox Confession:

• I felt nervous but welcomed by a kind and gentle priest.

• Confession was a gentle, healing experience, and surprisingly non-judgmental.

• My Priest offered specific, actionable spiritual guidance.

• I experienced an immediate sense of relief, cleansing, and hope afterward, and there was great comfort in knowing my sins were forgiven. This allowed me to move on and move forward to addressing other areas where I felt like I needed to change to become more Christ-like.

• I found it profoundly different and more impactful than previous experiences with confession-like practices in the LDS church.

TLDR: MY LDS Experience:

• LDS repentance felt more focused on making things right and attaining perfection and that I was under some sort of condemnation until forgiveness was finally obtained (although I never knew when exactly that was, so I also felt like I was dragging a cart of my sins behind me wherever I went, waiting for someone else to unload it - with little assurance that that would happen because I still wasn’t always perfect, even though over time I did improve.)

• I very much felt like I was not only carrying the weight of shame and guilt, but that these feelings were being reinforced and enlarged by my “confessor.”

• I felt like confessing to a bishop was more administrative and focused on worthiness for ordinances. He always sat behind his desk with me across from him, setting up a spatial arrangement where he held a position of power and authority, and I was clearly meant to feel subordinate.

• It lacked the direct, personal spiritual guidance and the sense of sacramental healing experienced in Orthodox confession.

I cannot emphasize strongly enough the completely different experience that Orthodox Confession produces.

The former felt like I was being taken care of and helped to heal my brokenness at a fundamental spiritual and personal level. Whenever I think of my LDS experiences with Repentance, I remember feeling like I was being called to the principal’s office to be chastised and punished. Often, I left feeling more deficient and broken than I already felt. I never felt taken care of. There seemed to be extra helpings of guilt and shame ready to be poured on at the slightest hint that I might not be feeling enough guilt or shame, and for repeat offenses, there was disfellowshipping, withdrawal of the sacrament, and restriction from participation in priesthood-related activities or callings. i.e. punishment by temporary shunning.³

I cannot recall a single time when I left an LDS bishop’s office after “repenting/confession” that I felt healed. I have sat and thought about it deeply, seeking to be as fair as possible in relaying my experiences (and in full awareness of my biases), but I cannot think of one. That’s not saying much; my memory is not that great. I often can’t remember what I had for breakfast, or where I put my keys, so it’s quite possible that the LDS experience is not as poor as I’m making it out to be, and of course, everyone will have a different experience and assessment of it.

I am sure that LDS bishops today do the best they can to be compassionate and helpful. But, at the end of the day, I think the differences in theology, approaches, goals, and training mean that the Orthodox experience is structured to be a better experience from the get-go.

If, after a year of being Orthodox, I sit down and ask myself which is the better experience, I have to say that, hands down, the Orthodox sacrament of confession is a much better experience to live through.

Withholding the Sacrament as a Penance

My orthodox confessor has never asked me to refrain from taking the eucharist because of a sin or a repeat “offense.” I did tell him once that I had, on my initiative, excluded myself from taking the eucharist at a couple of liturgies (thinking that this would be necessary.) He instead mentioned that in many cases, that was unnecessary and even unhelpful because the Eucharist is itself a source of significant healing. In retrospect, this makes a lot of sense. Why would you withhold the presence of the Great Physician (Christ) from someone who needs healing? Another reason why the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is necessary and essential for our salvation. If it’s just a symbol or only a remembrance, then it has no power and is unimportant relative to our salvation.

Ecclesial Guidelines regarding Sin

This is not to say that a priest won’t ask someone to withhold from taking the Eucharist. Both Orthodox Priests and LDS bishops have church guidelines they have to follow regarding certain sins and the prescription of certain penances. These are, of course, well within the rights of both Priests and LDS Bishops to assign based on their guidelines and personal assessments, but being that the goal is healing and that healing entails reunification with Christ, the approach and decision-making are ultimately going to be different.

If the Eucharist is healing and one is being asked to refrain from taking it, how does that work? That would seem to be a contradiction. Here is how I understand it.

An Orthodox priest may ask a person to refrain from taking the Eucharist in cases of serious, unrepentant sin that separates them from communion with God and the Church, or due to other impediments related to their spiritual preparation and standing within the Church.

Conclusion

Whether one resonates more with the compassionate healer model or the just judge model, the key is that repentance, in any Christian tradition, is ultimately about coming home to God. As Kimball wrote, echoing scriptural promise: “Those laden with transgressions… may be forgiven and cleansed… if they will return to their Lord” – and as Porphyrios would add, in returning we find a Father who lifts us on our feet and fills us with rejoicing. Thus, both paths, though different in tone and technique, lead to the same miracle: a sinner changed and redeemed.

Sources:

• Porphyrios (Bairaktaris) of Kavsokalyvia, Wounded by Love: The Life and the Wisdom of Elder Porphyrios. Especially the chapter “On the Mystery of Repentance.” (Quotes as marked above from this text illustrate his views on joy in confession and the role of divine grace in repentance .)

• Spencer W. Kimball, The Miracle of Forgiveness (Bookcraft, 1969). Kimball’s teachings on repentance are also summarized in LDS Church manuals and speeches. Key quotes from Kimball used above include his insistence on complete abandonment of sin and the difficulty of the repentance road, as well as his assurances of the peace that follows forgiveness.

• Doctrine and Practice Resources: Orthodox perspectives on repentance drawn from Orthodox spiritual literature and the sacramental practice of confession. LDS steps of repentance drawn from Church manuals (e.g., Gospel Principles and Teachings of Presidents: Spencer W. Kimball), which cite Kimball’s words.

1. The phrase "Better dead clean than alive unclean," while not in his book and likely not a direct quote, is often associated with Kimball and his attitudes regarding moral cleanliness and virtue.

2. To me, this is an indication that this work is a product of its times. Conservative religious communities in the 1960s viewed the sexual revolution with profound alarm, perceiving it as a direct challenge to traditional moral values and societal norms. The rapid liberalization of attitudes toward sex, marriage, and gender roles was seen not merely as cultural change but as a moral crisis.

• Moral Panic and Institutional Responses: Religious institutions, particularly within evangelical and Catholic circles, responded to the sexual revolution with initiatives aimed at reaffirming traditional sexual ethics. This included the publication of literature condemning the perceived moral decline and the establishment of organizations dedicated to promoting conservative values.

• Opposition to Sex Education: The introduction of comprehensive sex education in schools was met with fierce resistance from conservative groups. Organizations like Mothers Organized for Moral Stability (MOMS) emerged to combat what they saw as the indoctrination of youth into permissive sexual attitudes. They argued that such education undermined parental authority and religious teachings.

• Political Mobilization: The perceived threats of the sexual revolution galvanized conservative religious groups into political action. This period saw the rise of the Religious Right, which sought to influence public policy on issues like abortion, homosexuality, and the role of religion in public life. The movement aimed to restore what it considered traditional moral order through legislative and political means.

When I ask Chat GTP if Kimball’s approach in his book is likely reactionary to the 1960’s sexual revolution, this is what it says.

Yes—very possible, and in fact, quite likely.

Timeline Context

• 1950s: American religious culture still upheld strong taboos on sexual immorality, but most church leaders didn’t need to define it at length, because cultural norms mostly aligned with Christian sexual ethics.

• 1960s-early 1970s:

• The sexual revolution (birth control, premarital sex, public discussion of homosexuality, casual nudity, and pornography becoming mainstream).

• The Stonewall Riots (1969) put gay rights into national public discourse.

• Divorce rates began to soar.

• Pornographic films like Deep Throat became publicly discussed phenomena.

• The “free love” movement openly challenged religious chastity norms.

• 1969-1970: LDS leadership starts making explicit statements condemning homosexuality and masturbation in more forceful terms than previously seen.

• 1969: Kimball publishes a pamphlet called “New Horizons for Homosexuals” pamphlet published—it explicitly claims that homosexuality can and must be “cured.”

• 1970: Kimball releases The Miracle of Forgiveness.

The Book’s Content Matches the Moral Panic of the Time

Kimball’s book:

• Obsesses over sexual purity, spending more chapters and more explicit language on sexual sin than on any other topic.

• Condemns masturbation, fornication, adultery, homosexuality, pornography, and even passionate kissing in extremely strong terms.

• Frames sexual sin as not just morally wrong, but a society-destroying cancer.

• Claims that certain sins (especially sexual sins) can take a lifetime to repent of or may never be fully repented of.

This directly mirrors the tone of other conservative religious leaders of the 60s and early 70s who were alarmed at what they saw as the collapse of Christian sexual morality.

It’s no coincidence that evangelical leaders like Jerry Falwell Sr., Catholic bishops, and Orthodox Jewish rabbis at the time were also issuing stern warnings about:

• The Pill (leading to promiscuity)

• Gay rights

• No-fault divorce laws

• Sex education in schools

• Pornography “addiction”

Kimball’s book fits this broader conservative religious backlash against the 60s-70s sexual revolution.

Homosexuality Specifically? Yes.

• Kimball talks about homosexuality extensively and much more harshly than earlier LDS leaders had done.

• He insists it is curable.

• He links masturbation to the development of homosexuality (which became a repeated LDS teaching through the 80s and 90s).

• He singles it out alongside murder and adultery as among the gravest sins.

This reflects growing LDS leadership's fear at the time that societal acceptance of homosexuality would pressure the Church’s strict teachings.

Conclusion

It is very plausible—and almost certain—that The Miracle of Forgiveness was not just a general moral treatise, but a direct response to the sexual revolution and the growing public visibility and acceptance of homosexuality.

Kimball’s personal preoccupation with sexual purity, his public statements from the late 60s, and the timing of the book all line up with a period of deep anxiety among conservative religious leaders about losing the moral and cultural battles on sex, marriage, and family.

3. This is a common tactic, and unfortunately, some of the ideas presented in this book, combined with odd notions in LDS culture, may have combined to create further issues. Some have accused the attitudes in the book of creating a culture that allowed rape culture to flourish unchallenged in the 1970’s-90’s. They do note that the LDS church currently takes a much healthier approach, but that it created a difficult to eradicate culture that did more damage than good especially with regards to victims of rape.
https://www.sltrib.com/religion/local/2017/07/27/how-outdated-mormon-teachings-may-be-aiding-and-abetting-rape-culture/

In 1998, an 18-year-old Mormon convert in New York was raped by her boyfriend.

She went to her LDS bishop, seeking money for a pregnancy test. He gave her the money — and a copy of [Kimball’s book, the'] Miracle [of Forgiveness.]

The now-36-year-old says she was “disfellowshipped” by her bishop, who had known her since her baptism four years earlier. She was forbidden from taking the sacrament, or Communion, speaking in church, serving in a church position or performing temple rituals.

The woman, who now lives in Salt Lake City, says she had trouble enough forgiving herself, but Kimball’s book made it worse.