Are The Filthy Ever Made Truly Clean Again?

[katherine the great]

NEVER? Why all the extreme polorized exagerated statements of assumption?

Because one extreme, polarized, exaggerated statement of assumption deserves another.

[Hammer]

Because one extreme, polarized, exaggerated statement of assumption deserves another.

Well then my answer should have been a whole lot more extreme, polarized, and exaggerated statement of assumption.

[katherine the great]

Well then my answer should have been a whole lot more extreme, polarized, and exaggerated statement of assumption.

No. It was perfect the way it was.

[Luigi]

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.

Are they active? That is surprising. Granted my experience may be tainted since I was single at BYU. While I was an RM myself it seemed like the guys that hadn't gone on missions (which, granted, at BYU there weren't a lot) generally had difficulty getting dates.

[katherine the great]

Are they active? That is surprising. Granted my experience may be tainted since I was single at BYU. While I was an RM myself it seemed like the guys that hadn't gone on missions (which, granted, at BYU there weren't a lot) generally had difficulty getting dates.

I was so full of myself then that I wouldn't ever consider marrying a man who had not been on a mission. (what a snob I was!)

[Hammer]

No. It was perfect the way it was.

Really--

[Hammer]

Are they active? That is surprising. Granted my experience may be tainted since I was single at BYU. While I was an RM myself it seemed like the guys that hadn't gone on missions (which, granted, at BYU there weren't a lot) generally had difficulty getting dates.

Absolutely active. All but one of the sister in laws was relief society pres and MIA pres and Primary pres. All but one of the guys was in high postions as well. The one was less active but he had other issues from before marriage that seemed to weight him down. But he was a great guy.

[consiglieri]

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 think this may play into what I posted earlier regarding common Mormon thinking about repentance as something that can be planned; that I will have fun now and repent later; the error being that if you really think it is fun, the odds are you won't be repenting, because there will be no remorse over your conduct to lead you there.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[cinepro]

I think this may play into what I posted earlier regarding common Mormon thinking about repentance as something that can be planned; that I will have fun now and repent later; the error being that if you really think it is fun, the odds are you won't be repenting, because there will be no remorse over your conduct to lead you there.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

This "common" Mormon thought is interesting when contrasted with the other "common" Mormon thought that people leave the Church from a desire to sin. I've always thought that was silly, because you don't need to leave the Church to sin. You can do what many others do: either repent, try to hide it, or wait until you get kicked out. Leaving the Church doesn't make it any easier to sin (other than freeing up 10% of your income and 3 hours on sunday, but you can still remain a member and not pay tithing or attend meetings, so even that doesn't hold up).

So sin would never be the rational cause for leaving in the first place.

[consiglieri]

I'm still in the "try to hide it" phase.

[wenglund]

So sin would never be the rational cause for leaving in the first place.

...except, perhaps, according to this rationale:

If it is a sin to leave the Church.

And, if one wishes to leave the Church.

Then, one essentially wishes to sin by leaving the Church. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[ERMD]

I think a lot of the pervasive attitude in the Church (manifested by the bishop's "blooming" statement) comes from what Pres. Kimball said in The Miracle of Forgiveness. One statement he made in the book basically says that someone who never commits a grievous sin is better off than someone who does and then repents. His contention is that it would not be "fair" for the one who did not resist temptation to receive the same reward as one who was faithful until the end. He used the parable of the Prodigal Son to strengthen his argument. He said that the faithful son was promised all that his father had, whereas the prodigal was not.

I'm pulling this from memory, but it was one thing from the book that really stood out in my mind. I find it difficult to agree with his position.

[kawikadave]

One statement he made in the book basically says that someone who never commits a grievous sin is better off than someone who does and then repents.

This is certainly true. Who wouldn't agree that someone is better off not sinning vs. sinning and repenting? Seems like common sense to me.

He used the parable of the Prodigal Son to strengthen his argument. He said that the faithful son was promised all that his father had, whereas the prodigal was not.

The parable is pretty clear on this issue. The prodigal son was forgiven and was welcomed back in the family. However, he had spent his inheritance while the younger son had not.

I'm don't believe the parable applies to our reward in the next life - other scriptures certainly reinforce that the repentant will receive an inheritance, but maybe there will be differences. Who knows.

[Paul Ray]

I think a lot of the pervasive attitude in the Church (manifested by the bishop's "blooming" statement) comes from what Pres. Kimball said in The Miracle of Forgiveness. One statement he made in the book basically says that someone who never commits a grievous sin is better off than someone who does and then repents. His contention is that it would not be "fair" for the one who did not resist temptation to receive the same reward as one who was faithful until the end. He used the parable of the Prodigal Son to strengthen his argument. He said that the faithful son was promised all that his father had, whereas the prodigal was not.

I'm pulling this from memory, but it was one thing from the book that really stood out in my mind. I find it difficult to agree with his position.

I challenge you to back up your statement with a direct quote from that book.

I don't believe President Kimball meant what you think he meant.

... and yes, I know, I can look it up for myself, but I'd like you to do that and cite what you found on this thread since you have made this statement on this thread, in public.

[John Larsen]

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

I don't believe we are "saved" at all. But it is pretty clear that the New Testament teaches that salvation comes through grace alone.

[kawikadave]

I don't believe we are "saved" at all. But it is pretty clear that the New Testament teaches that salvation comes through grace alone.

That's one of the funniest things I've read on this board. You don't believe any of it, but you're the expert in understanding what the New Testament teaches. Riiiiiiight.

[Teancum]

I suggest a careful read of 2 Corinthians 5:17 as well as the chapters in Mosiah about the Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah.

I seem to recall language about being a NEW CREATURE when one is Born of God. I seem to recall that Paul says those new creatures are new persons that old things are dead and gone. I seem to recall that Alma who was labeled along with the Sons of Mosiah as some of the most VILE sinners went on to become that Hight Priest and Prophet of the Church. And Ammon, Omner, Aaron and Himni went on the be some of the greatest missionaries of all time.

Good thing they did not have Raise the Bar back then. Alma and his friends may never have been the great missionaries and preachers that they became.

And what of Paul? Another of the greatest missionaries of all time. And he condoned at least one murder that we know of.

I seem to recall language in D&C 58 I think about the Lord remembering sin no more. And Isaiah said something about sins like scarlet becoming white as the snow.

It saddens me that the Church has given teachings about sexual sin maybe more in the past, but that some want to carry on, that give undue burden and guilt. Shame on that bishop who denied Christ, yes, he did, when he told that young woman she forever be tainted. Shame on him.

Shame on all of you who want to use poor teachings to create undue burdens of guilt that should not forever be carried when one repents.

I am all for sexual morals and purity. I also understand some will fail. I believe the atonement puts them back to what they were before and they are just as perfect as you or me who may not have sinned in such a way.

Why is it we want to emphasize the taint of this sin. According to scripture all have sinned. You break one and James says you break them all, the whole law. So you are just as guilty and going straight hell as the sexual sinner for whatever hang up you have unless you have Christ.

Teach chastity in a proper and healthy way. Drop the use of false teachings that deny Christ and may put you in jeopardy of judgment.

[Hammer]

...except, perhaps, according to this rationale:

If it is a sin to leave the Church.

And, if one wishes to leave the Church.

Then, one essentially wishes to sin by leaving the Church. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I knew a young woman in the Church many years back who had consensual sex with her boyfriend and went to her bishop with tears of repentance.

She was told that she was "a flower that would never bloom" She has not forgotten that comment after 30-years.

She was also given the line that, even with sincere repentance, she would never be as clean as she would have been had she not engaged in that activity.

Forgive me; but that Bishop was a fool, and does not understand the atonement. I wonder if he had the same opinions concerning his own sins?

[John Larsen]

That's one of the funniest things I've read on this board. You don't believe any of it, but you're the expert in understanding what the New Testament teaches. Riiiiiiight.

I didn't say I didn't believe any of it, only that I don't believe in the concept of salvation.

I have never asserted to be an expert in the bible. I don't know why there are a few apologists (not most) that feel the necessity to ridicule the positions of those with whom they disagree. It is often hard to engage in discussion on even the simplest concepts that have legitimate difference in point of view without someone sarcastically belittling those with a different view.

This is the same arguement that many Christians use against Mormons. Namely, since Mormons do not accept "the same" Jesus that they do, Mormons do not have right to comment or participate in the dialog. Since believers are normally the target of such a fallacy, I would expect you to not dish it out. To follow your line of reasoning, no one could legitimately comment on the the Odyssey or the Myth of Hercules if they did not first accept it as factually true.

You comments are unduly harsh.

[wenglund]

I suggest a careful read of 2 Corinthians 5:17 as well as the chapters in Mosiah about the Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah.

I seem to recall language about being a NEW CREATURE when one is Born of God. I seem to recall that Paul says those new creatures are new persons that old things are dead and gone. I seem to recall that Alma who was labeled along with the Sons of Mosiah as some of the most VILE sinners went on to become that Hight Priest and Prophet of the Church. And Ammon, Omner, Aaron and Himni went on the be some of the greatest missionaries of all time.

Good thing they did not have Raise the Bar back then. Alma and his friends may never have been the great missionaries and preachers that they became.

And what of Paul? Another of the greatest missionaries of all time. And he condoned at least one murder that we know of.

I seem to recall language in D&C 58 I think about the Lord remembering sin no more. And Isaiah said something about sins like scarlet becoming white as the snow.

It saddens me that the Church has given teachings about sexual sin maybe more in the past, but that some want to carry on, that give undue burden and guilt. Shame on that bishop who denied Christ, yes, he did, when he told that young woman she forever be tainted. Shame on him.

Shame on all of you who want to use poor teachings to create undue burdens of guilt that should not forever be carried when one repents.

I am all for sexual morals and purity. I also understand some will fail. I believe the atonement puts them back to what they were before and they are just as perfect as you or me who may not have sinned in such a way.

Why is it we want to emphasize the taint of this sin. According to scripture all have sinned. You break one and James says you break them all, the whole law. So you are just as guilty and going straight hell as the sexual sinner for whatever hang up you have unless you have Christ.

Teach chastity in a proper and healthy way. Drop the use of false teachings that deny Christ and may put you in jeopardy of judgment.

It evidently put us in jeapardy of your judgementalism--for all we care (I'll take my chances with Christ, who actually is in a position to judge me and what I say). ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Luigi]

...except, perhaps, according to this rationale:

If it is a sin to leave the Church.

And, if one wishes to leave the Church.

Then, one essentially wishes to sin by leaving the Church. ;-)

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I have also established the religion of Luigians. The first commandment is to give 5% of one's income to me. So far everyone has refused to join because they wish to keep on sinning by keeping their income. People are so superficial

[consiglieri]

The parable is pretty clear on this issue. The prodigal son was forgiven and was welcomed back in the family. However, he had spent his inheritance while the younger son had not.

This is an important point that should not be overlooked, because I think it plays into the LDS view of things; that those who have never sinned are better off than those who have sinned and repented.

Because this is the position of the LDS Church, the parable of the prodigal son has often received exactly the interpretation you refer to, kawikadave; that the older son was better off for never having sinned.

This interpretation seems to me to focus on a tag-line at the very end, rather than the overwhelming message of the parable that even the grossest sinner who completely repents is accepted lovingly and joyously by God with celebration and ceremony; with a ring and a robe.

The LDS Church tends to look at the elder son who did not sin as being in a better position than the prodigal son, while seeming to overlook the fact that in reality nobody qualifies to be the older brother in the parable, but that in fact all of us are the prodigal son (or daughter).

And how is it, I have often wondered, that an "older brother" who did no sin in the parable should be so contracted of spirit as to not rejoice with his father over the repentant younger brother, but actually be jealous of all the forgiveness and attention he got? Would that alone not constitute a rather gross sin?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

P.S. The check's in the mail, Luigi.

[Lightbearer]

Okay time to be "devil's advocate" so to speak. While it is true that all manner of sin and blasphemy may be forgiven (in the sense of being able to be exalted in the Celestial Kingdom) yet there are some unavoidable consequences of sin in this life that do "taint" us perhaps forever. I know there has been some discussion of "raise the bar" for Missionaries regarding moral transgression, but think of a completely different sin... Say bank robbery! While we can be forgiven and we can "pay our debt to society" but our mortal life is changed forever because of this sin. For one thing we could never get a job in Law Enforcement, or as a Bank manager, or many other positions of trust. Is this right? Is it proper? Is it just? I think that some consequences are unavoidable, and permanent (as far as this life) so to say we can wave a magic wand and make everything right and the same as it was before the sin is just a tad naive. If avoiding sin had no merit, then why not just live according to this idea:

(2 Nephi 28:8-9) "And there shall also be many which shall say: Eat, drink, and be merry; nevertheless, fear Godâ??he will justify in committing a little sin; yea, lie a little, take the advantage of one because of his words, dig a pit for thy neighbor; there is no harm in this; and do all these things, for tomorrow we die; and if it so be that we are guilty, God will beat us with a few stripes, and at last we shall be saved in the kingdom of God. Yea, and there shall be many which shall teach after this manner, false and vain and foolish doctrines, and shall be puffed up in their hearts, and shall seek deep to hide their counsels from the Lord; and their works shall be in the dark."

We cannot get to the point of thinking we can commit any sin and then plan to repent... it does not work that way. Another example, let us say I decide, I want to drink and drive... let us also say I in a drunken stupor run over a child on a bike and kill him. Yes God can forgive me, even the kid can forgive me, but I also face some real fearful consequences of breaking the Word of Wisdom... things that while God will show His love and mercy, yet my life will be changed forever... I cannot bring about any restitution, the child is dead. The law hopefully will follow it's just course and I am not going to probably get my driving license back... at least not for a very long time, it I ever get it back when and if I get out of jail. So you see God is merciful and just and forgiveness is available to all that have not committed the unpardonable sin. But those earthly consequences still "taint" my mortal life and the conditions that I must endure here. Remember that God chastens use because of His love for us. We can be forgiven completely and become holy and pure before God, but that does not mean we are excused from all the consequences of our actions.

[Tchild2]

This is an important point that should not be overlooked, because I think it plays into the LDS view of things; that those who have never sinned are better off than those who have sinned and repented.

How exactly? How are those who have never sinned "better off". Is there a nicer place in the CK waiting?