Are The Filthy Ever Made Truly Clean Again?

[jwhitlock]

Unless you can show me a case were "they are", I will stick with my "over-generalization".

As Wade notes, murder is one. Abortions of convenience are another. Lung disease from years of smoking. Chronic disability from heavy drug use. Physical transmission of disease from promiscuity.

Sinful behavior can lead to all of the things you mentioned. Those things can also be the result of other causes. Hence the need to avoid over-generalizations on either end of the spectrum.

[wenglund]

Right. Just like "homosexuality is sexual attraction disorder, not unlike two keys or two locks trying to unlock each other" right?

Yes, that too is a gross oversimplification of what I said. Seems you found your talent. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Tchild2]

The problem here are the pejorative descriptions. "filthy" is an artificial creation made by the believer. All sin keeps a person from living in God's presence according to Mormon doctrine, so, what does it matter if the "sin" is stealing a pencil or whoring it up? The end result is the same (remember, thieves inherit the Telestial just as the sexually active do), and the ability to repent and the repentative process is likewise, the same.

[jwhitlock]

However, no one has ever demonstrated that those who believe their actions to be sinful have a high likelihood of pregnancy.

I think it has been well demonstrated that those who engage in "sinful" behavior - as defined - have higher incidences of the things you mention.

This isn't the either-or kind of situation you're trying to make it out to be. There are negative things that can occur from living a righteous life. Sometimes people who lead very sinful lives don't have anything particularly bad happen to them. Hence, a generalization on either end of the spectrum is not valid.

However, statistically, you're better off generally in life if you try to avoid the kinds of sins we're talking about.

[kawikadave]

There are also those who are blind because their mothers contracted syphilis, and those whose years of adultery had no adverse effect on their lives. You proposition of a karmic after effect of sin does not hold in the real world. Many sin and prosper, others behave and suffer. Physical consequence such as disease, cancer, disability or the weather are not a result of any sinful action.

I don't think you're understanding Wade's post. He wasn't talking about karma. He was showing that some sins have natural consequences that aren't always reversed when we repent.

Read his post again:

For example, I knew of a member of the Church who, through illicite sexual relations, contracted a severe case of syphilis and was wheel-chair bound for the remainder of his life. He had truly repented and was cleansed of sin, yet the consequences of his sins remained--that is, I suppose, until rectified through the resurrection.

It wasn't karma that caused him to contract syphilis. It was his sexual risk-taking. Obviously some contract syphilis. Some don't. It doesn't lessen or increase the seriousness of the sin or somehow demonstrate "God's wrath" on his poor behavior.

There are also those who are blind because their mothers contracted syphilis, and those whose years of adultery had no adverse effect on their lives. You proposition of a karmic after effect of sin does not hold in the real world. Many sin and prosper, others behave and suffer. Physical consequence such as disease, cancer, disability or the weather are not a result of any sinful action.

Again, this is completely beside the point. No one is claiming that there is always a physical punishment for sin.

[kawikadave]

The problem here are the pejorative descriptions. "filthy" is an artificial creation made by the believer. All sin keeps a person from living in God's presence according to Mormon doctrine, so, what does it matter if the "sin" is stealing a pencil or whoring it up? The end result is the same (remember, thieves inherit the Telestial just as the sexually active do), and the ability to repent and the repentative process is likewise, the same.

TChild, I think this is an EV perspective, not an LDS one.

Certainly all of us fall short and are sinners. That does not mean that all sins carry the same weight.

If foolish humans can distinguish between a traffic ticket, theft, and murder, certainly a wise God is even more likely to see similar distinctions.

[wenglund]

It is true there is causal reaction to certain action--but this has nothing to do with the concept of sin. The idea that some actions are sinful has no influence on the outcome. You can show statistically that a certain number of individuals who have unprotected sex will become pregnant. However, no one has ever demonstrated that those who believe their actions to be sinful have a high likelihood of pregnancy.

I don't think you are asserting that actions that cause negative social effects are necessarily sin. If I demonstrated that the amount of time a bishop spends away from his children has a deleterious social effect, I doubt you would call it sin.

Were I to have suggested that sin will invariably, or highly likely, result in a noticable negative affect, then you may have a point. But, since that is not what I am suggesting, you don't have a point (at least not in relation to what I said).

Were I to have been speaking to the "concept of sin" as having a negative affect (Karma?), or whether or not the negative concequences are contingient upon the person viewing the offending action as "sin" or not, then you may have a point. But, I didn't. Rather, I was speaking to actions that I and other religious believers deem to be sins, which actions may have consequence (noticable or otherwise).

Were I to have suggested that the consequences of sin may only be physical in nature, then you may have a point. But, again, I didn't. I also believe there are negative spiritual affects as well--which may subsequently affect the physical.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

The problem here are the pejorative descriptions. "filthy" is an artificial creation made by the believer. All sin keeps a person from living in God's presence according to Mormon doctrine, so, what does it matter if the "sin" is stealing a pencil or whoring it up? The end result is the same (remember, thieves inherit the Telestial just as the sexually active do), and the ability to repent and the repentative process is likewise, the same.

There are a few passages of scripture and statements from former Church leaders which, when read in isolation, can leave some people with that impression.

However, as a faithful Mormon, I don't feel obliged to "whore it up" because I may have lied on occasion throughout my life or stole a pencil or two. Nor, have I felt "filthy" even prior to repentence (though undoubtably a bit guilt-riden). And, I doubt that my perception is all that uncommon.

But, if that was your perspective while as a member, I can somewhat understand why you may have left the Church.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[John Larsen]

Were I to have suggeste that sin will invariably, or highly likely, result in a noticable negative affect, then you may have a point. But, since that is not what I am suggesting, you don't have a point (at least not in relation to what I said).

Were I to have been speaking to the "concept of sin" as having a negative affect, or whether or not the negative concequences are contingient upon the person viewing the offending action as "sin" or not, then you may have a point. But, I didn't. Rather, I was speaking to actions that I and other religious believers deem to be sins, which actions have consequence (noticable or otherwise).

Were I to have suggested that the consequences of sin were only physical in nature, then you may have a point. But, again, I didn't. I also believe there are negative spiritual affects as well--which may subsequently affect the physical as well.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This might help us reconcile our view: could you please define "sin"?

[katherine the great]

Or the demonstration about a white cloth that is made filthy and then goes through repeated washing, but is always dirtier and dingier than the white cloth that never got filthy in the first place.

What good is a perfectly white cloth? Cloth is made to be used for clothing or other things that are for everyday use. It's a bad analogy anyway because no amount of laundry detergent has the cleaning power of the atonement.

[wenglund]

This might help us reconcile our view: could you please define "sin"?

To me, sin is: that which is contrary to the will and commands of God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[MJNSW]

There was a question brought up by Paul - About remembering sins and if we will ever forget. I just wanted to state that our remembering the sins do help to some degree for the reasons you stated, but it could also be that forgiveness has not fully taken place. Often we remember, and remember clearly because we still have to forgive ourselves. (You don't have to have committed a crime to learn how to forgive yourself. Some people are just more prone at being harder on themselves than others.)

Forgiveness has so many faces - just as repentance does. Each stage serves a unique and redeeming purpose. It is your task to learn that and move forward with your life.

I think that it does make you completely white - (with BLEACH! Repentance!) If you think of it... taking full advantage of the repentance process and truly applying it to your life or circumstance only makes a person more learned, humble, teachable, and more celestial. So yes - completely WHITE!

[John Larsen]

To me, sin is: that which is contrary to the will and commands of God.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Great definition. Now we come full circle to the original poster's question. There is no intrinsic sin, sin is only manifest in disobeying god. No particular action makes one unclean for "that which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." Since we all disobey God all of the time we are all equally filthy in His eyes. No one is justified by their own actions.

So we can quit worrying if some people are dirtier than others because of their history. It's too pharasitical and pompous and frankly, I find many things that are suggested quite offensive.

[cinepro]

It is my understanding that young men and women who are guilty of fornication can no longer serve a full-time mission, regardless of whatever steps they take to repent.

If this is true, what are the implications for this discussion? Does this mean there is a spiritual difference between someone who has sinned and repented, and someone who didn't sin in the first place? As far as I know, the sin itself is the only thing taken into consideration. Whether or not the sin resulted in a pregnancy or other ramifications aren't considered.

If this isn't true, I apologize for my misunderstanding.

Here is a quote from Elder Ballard that seems to support that idea:

"The day of the 'repent and go' missionary is over," Ballard said in the "raising the bar" speech. "Some young men have the mistaken idea that they can be involved in sinful behavior and then repent when they're 18 1/2 so they can go on their mission at 19. While it is true that you can repent of sins, you may or you may not qualify to serve."

Unintended Consequences of Church's Raising the Bar

I wonder if the Lord will ever "raise the bar" on those wishing to enter the Celestial Kingdom.

[Hammer]

It is my understanding that young men and women who are guilty of fornication can no longer serve a full-time mission, regardless of whatever steps they take to repent.

If this is true, what are the implications for this discussion? Does this mean there is a spiritual difference between someone who has sinned and repented, and someone who didn't sin in the first place? As far as I know, the sin itself is the only thing taken into consideration. Whether or not the sin resulted in a pregnancy or other ramifications aren't considered.

If this isn't true, I apologize for my misunderstanding.

Here is a quote from Elder Ballard that seems to support that idea:

The way I see it, a young man who can't handle himselve before he takes on the covenants of the temple and mantle of a missionary certainly can't handle the increased forces of evil that attend those endowed and called to serve.

[wenglund]

Great definition.

Now we come full circle to the original poster's question. There is no intrinsic sin, sin is only manifest in disobeying god. No particular action makes one unclean for "that which is wrong under one circumstance, may be, and often is, right under another." Since we all disobey God all of the time we are all equally filthy in His eyes. No one is justified by their own actions.

So we can quit worrying if some people are dirtier than others because of their history. It's too pharasitical and pompous and frankly, I find many things that are suggested quite offensive.

While I don't agree with some of your premises, and though I am uncertain what you may ironically be judging as offensive, I am not one to worry whether people are dirtier that others. My concern, instead, is in encouraging attitudes and behaviors that will edify and enable us all to become the very best people possible--which includes diminishing, where possible, instance of deletarious attitudes and behaviors (i.e. "sins"), particularly my own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[katherine the great]

The way I see it, a young man who can't handle himselve before he takes on the covenants of the temple and mantle of a missionary certainly can't handle the increased forces of evil that attend those endowed and called to serve.

Then they should never be allowed to go to the temple.

[Hammer]

Then they should never be allowed to go to the temple.

NEVER? Why all the extreme polorized exagerated statements of assumption? Let him grow up, find someone he can marry and help him stay straight on.

[Paul Ray]

I wonder if the Lord will ever "raise the bar" on those wishing to enter the Celestial Kingdom.

Our Lord expects us to do everything our Father wants us to do, including repenting when necessary.

If our Father later demanded a little more from us than he demands from us right now, would you have any problem with him, or his demands?

I think we're all pretty much in kindergarden, or maybe some elementary grade, with a whole slew of stuff yet to be learned.

[Hammer]

I remember being in a class where the kid in the seat next to me constantly whined about all the homework, no matter whether there was a lot or just a little. Some members remind me of that guy.

[Luigi]

NEVER? Why all the extreme polorized exagerated statements of assumption? Let him grow up, find someone he can marry and help him stay straight on.

If he were a young man who never went on a mission for 'transgression' I would say his chances of finding an active Mormon girl to marry are very small.

[MJNSW]

It is my understanding that young men and women who are guilty of fornication can no longer serve a full-time mission, regardless of whatever steps they take to repent.

If this is true, what are the implications for this discussion? Does this mean there is a spiritual difference between someone who has sinned and repented, and someone who didn't sin in the first place? As far as I know, the sin itself is the only thing taken into consideration. Whether or not the sin resulted in a pregnancy or other ramifications aren't considered.

If this isn't true, I apologize for my misunderstanding.

Here is a quote from Elder Ballard that seems to support that idea:

I wonder if the Lord will ever "raise the bar" on those wishing to enter the Celestial Kingdom.

I don't think it is because of repentance, but because Sexual sins escalate very quickly and very addictive - and the hope that a person is TRULY repentant is too much to ride on when these people are going out to preach about the church. They want people that can be examples of the church and it's principles - not someone that can go find other partners out there. So by not allowing those who have participated in fornication or whatnot before, helps eliminate a huge amount of possible problems out in the field. They don't need to decipher who is truly repentant or who may have an issue... as much.

There will still be problems regardless. Either way - that does not mean they cannot be fully forgiven. It just means the church is taking precautions to protect themselves and the image that is portrayed.

[Hammer]

As a young man who never went on a mission for 'transgression' I would say his chances of finding an active Mormon girl to marry are very small.

Well if in Utah that is probably true. But my 5 sister in laws all in Utah all married guys who did not go on missions.

[ERMD]

My point is that in Mormonism exaltation is the end goal and Mormons can repent in order to achieve this goal. At the end of his live Killer Kane was a temple going Mormon:

There is nothing in Mormonism that would preclude Brother Kane from entering the Celestial Kingdom and achieve his full glory and become the God of future worlds. In a sense, Mormonism offers the ultimate form of redemption because our God may well have been the vilest of sinners during his mortal existence. So one can fully repent and achieve the ultimate goal.

But I do appreciate your contribution to the discussion.

Do you believe that we are saved by grace or works?

[wenglund]

It is my understanding that young men and women who are guilty of fornication can no longer serve a full-time mission, regardless of whatever steps they take to repent.

If this is true, what are the implications for this discussion? Does this mean there is a spiritual difference between someone who has sinned and repented, and someone who didn't sin in the first place? As far as I know, the sin itself is the only thing taken into consideration. Whether or not the sin resulted in a pregnancy or other ramifications aren't considered.

If this isn't true, I apologize for my misunderstanding.

Here is a quote from Elder Ballard that seems to support that idea:

I wonder if the Lord will ever "raise the bar" on those wishing to enter the Celestial Kingdom.

I don't know if this is correct or not, but I do know that people who commit certain sins/crimes, while penatent, are not permitted to act in certain capacities. This is true for the sin/crime of child sexual abuse. The offenders are not permitted to be in a position of authortity over, or in proximaty to, children, and this is the case both in terms of the Church as well as secularly societies. I see wisdom in that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-