Are The Filthy Ever Made Truly Clean Again?

[alter idem]

The sin is gone but can you show me where it teaches the 'effects' are gone? What of a child born from such a sin? Does he just disappear?

Every child is a gift from God. Every soul is of profound worth and they are never sent as a punishment. Our children are precious gifts bestowed on us by a loving Father in Heaven. If you think otherwise, you need to repent, otherwise, IMO, you are in the gall of bitterness.

Of course the "effects" aren't gone. That's why we are here on earth. To learn and to experience. We are given weaknesses so that we can learn through trials and difficulties--and we will all fall short--we will all sin. The Atonement was set up, not to take away our learning experiences or the "effects", but to remove the spiritual consequences which would keep us from enjoying the full benefits of exhaltation in the world to come.

And for those who repent and call upon the power of the Atonement to save them, the FULL BENEFITS of exhaltation will be their reward. The scriptures teach this clearly.

[Luigi]

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

Woo hooo! I'm going to Vegas!

[consiglieri]

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

Oh, yes, it's-ah very nice! (I told him he we already got one!)--outrageous French accent

Actually, after making that comment, I tried to explain what I meant by it, including the idea that, if there is a nicer place in the celestial kingdom for those who have never sinned, it is going to be pretty empty!

Unless we say that those who sin and are forgiven are made as though they never sinned at all.

Which would find some scriptural support, I think.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Woo hooo! I'm going to Vegas!

Not on 5% of my income.

Maybe Barstow.

[kawikadave]

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.

I think we need to define what we mean when we say "better off." Certainly all of us are "better off" by not committing sin - especially serious sin. Meaning that we avoid putting our spiritual life in jeopardy, we don't set ourselves back spiritually, we avoid the pain, anguish, remorse, and consequences of sin, etc.

To not sin is better than sinning and repenting. I think everyone can agree on that.

If by "better off", we mean that we will receive some sort of greater reward in the next life, I don't have much to say about that. Christ said "In my Father's house are many mansions." He also said that "if a person gains more knowledge and intelligence in this life through his diligence and obedience than another, he will have so much the advantage in the world to come."

I don't know what gradations will exist in the next life, but it appears there were differences in worthiness and nobility in our previous life and responsibilities and callings were given partly based on our previous life - "Now the Lord had shown unto me, Abraham, the intelligences that were organized before the world was; and among all these there were many of the noble and great ones."

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.

In my comments on this scripture and its application, I pointed out that I didn't believe that this parable applied directly to the next life and that the main focus was on repentance and forgiveness. Here's what I said exactly:

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.

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?

The older brother certainly sinned also and I've heard a few excellent talks pointing that out. Regardless of his sin, however, he is identified as the rightful heir in the story and the prodigal son is not. He had spent his inheritance. With that, I think the parable is very apt - we can repent and return to God, but not everything can be put exactly as it was when we sin. We can return to his love and to the right path, but sin has consequences even after we repent.

EDITED TO ADD LINK TO TALK:

I found the talk I was thinking of regarding the older son in the parable of the prodigal son. It's by Jeff Holland (of course - he's my favorite) and is titled "The Other Prodigal" http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

Certainly this younger brother had been a prisoner—a prisoner of sin, stupidity, and a pigsty. But the older brother lives in some confinement, too. He has, as yet, been unable to break out of the prison of himself. He is haunted by the green-eyed monster of jealousy. 2 He feels taken for granted by his father and disenfranchised by his brother, when neither is the case. He has fallen victim to a fictional affront. As such he is like Tantalus of Greek mythology—he is up to his chin in water, but he remains thirsty nevertheless. One who has heretofore presumably been very happy with his life and content with his good fortune suddenly feels very unhappy simply because another has had some good fortune as well.

[Paloma]

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.

I've been interested to see that there are various views on this, and that for many LDS posters here, the full efficacy of the Atonement is alive and well.

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.

I'm thinking of a statement by a Theology professor of mine several years ago. It really struck me when he said that in some ways we are more blessed than Adam and Eve who walked with God in the Garden. Though sin is tragic and devastating, we experience redemption. Being the recipients of God's transforming power and of His amazing grace and overcoming love is HUGE!

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.

AMEN

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).

I love the parable of the Prodigal Son. One of my favourite books is The Return of the Prodigal Son by Brennan Manning. I can't recommend it highly enough! He speaks of how we all exhibit qualities of the Prodigal Son, and we all exhibit qualities of the elder son ... and as Christians we are called to exhibit qualities of our loving, generous and gracious Heavenly Father.

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?

Ah yes. How we tend toward self-righteousness and toward standing on our rights without understanding Jesus' path of selfless love.

[consiglieri]

In my comments on this scripture and its application, I pointed out that I didn't believe that this parable applied directly to the next life and that the main focus was on repentance and forgiveness. Here's what I said exactly:

Your comments are excellent, as usual. Just so you know, I wasn't arguing with what you said about the parable necessarily as what I generally hear said about the parable in LDS circles.

Good for Elder Holland for pointing out that the older brother is also a prodigal, which I assume without actually having read the talk is the gist of the title.

And it should probably not go unmentioned that the older son in the parable was probably a not-so-veiled reference by Jesus to the Pharisees.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I love the parable of the Prodigal Son.

I really like your comments here, Paloma. I think you can tell a lot about where a person (or Church) is coming from by the parables of Jesus they love the most, and those that receive the most attention.

Without doing an exhaustive analysis, based on my General Conference attendance, I would submit that the most loved and frequently used parable amongst LDS is that of the ten virgins; and how they got called out in the middle of the night; and how 5 had oil in their lamps and the other 5 did not.

This is always given with the standard (though not necessarily scriptural) interpretation that the oil in their lamps represents their good works.

I do not know whether Jesus would have agreed with that interpretation of the oil, but it is clearly the definition favored by the Mormons!

The Prodigal Son parable is also mentioned often, though less frequently than the ten virgins, and once again it seems that virtually whenever it is mentioned, great emphasis is laid upon the older brother who stayed home and never did anything wrong and how it was he who got all the father had (while studiously ignoring what an unforgiving and unchristian cad he is!). (The exception to this last would appear to be Elder Holland's excellent address linked to above from the 2002 Ensign.)

Least favored parable among LDS? Well, let's put it this way.

When was the last time you heard mentioned the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Paloma]

When was the last time you heard mentioned the parable of the Laborers in the Vineyard?

I'm not LDS, but I get your drift!

I love the parable of the Labourers in the Vineyard. But I also recognize that I have to temper my enthusiasm for embracing God's unconditional love and acceptance with His call to service. I like to think that my wholehearted desire is to be faithful to Him, as He is to me. But then I feel twinges of guilt when I read the parable of the Talents (sadly, not one of my favourite parables, though it's good and true!) And I think of all the ways I've buried rather than use and invest what I've been given.

That reminds me that I need to return calls and tend to some needs of people that God has laid on my heart!

[kawikadave]

I have never asserted to be an expert in the bible.

John, when you make comments like, "But it is pretty clear that the New Testament teaches that salvation comes through grace alone" you certainly set yourself up as an expert in the Bible. You're making an absolute statement about what the New Testament teaches and declaring it as if it were a "fait acompli."

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

That's an interesting statement that would be worth exploring, but I won't sidetrack the thread by asking what you do believe, if not in salvation.

You comments are unduly harsh.

When you decided to enter the thread a make a tangential comment about Arthur Kane's possibly being someone's "God", then I think my comments haven't been harsh. Maybe you should look at your contribution - or lack thereof - instead.

It appears you have an axe to grind and enjoy poisoning the well. If you have something applicable and real to contribute, please do. Until then, please don't complain that you're being picked on.

[kawikadave]

Thank you for the kind comments Consiglieri. I'm one of the least educated here on the boards, but I learn a lot here.

This is always given with the standard (though not necessarily scriptural) interpretation that the oil in their lamps represents their good works.

I do not know whether Jesus would have agreed with that interpretation of the oil, but it is clearly the definition favored by the Mormons!

Actually, Jesus did provide an interpretation of the Parable of the Ten Virgins here:

D&C 45

56 And at that day, when I shall come in my glory, shall the parable be fulfilled which I spake concerning the ten virgins.

57 For they that are wise and have received the truth, and have taken the Holy Spirit for their guide, and have not been deceivedâ??verily I say unto you, they shall not be hewn down and cast into the fire, but shall abide the day.

The conference talks I've seen emphasize having the Spirit and building up a relationship with God as an analogy for the oil vs. good works. Jesus clearly pointed out that good works can be shallow and worthless if our hearts are not right. http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgne..._&hideNav=1

However, I think some LDS do make the mistake of thinking that their works solely qualifies them as being prepared for His coming.

I think my favorite parable is the Unmerciful Servant:

Matthew 18

23 Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants.

24 And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents.

25 But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.

26 The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

27 Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt.

28 But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellowservants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest.

29 And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all.

30 And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt.

31 So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done.

32 Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me:

33 Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee?

34 And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him.

35 So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.

I have teenagers. I have to remember to forgive.

[consiglieri]

But then I feel twinges of guilt when I read the parable of the Talents (sadly, not one of my favourite parables, though it's good and true!) And I think of all the ways I've buried rather than use and invest what I've been given.

That reminds me that I need to return calls and tend to some needs of people that God has laid on my heart!

The Parable of the Talents!

Of course. That's the other parable the LDS are big on!

But you are right that we have to temper parables and not rely exclusively on any one or we can get a one-sided view of salvation.

And if all this thread has done is to remind you of a need to return calls and tend to some needs of people that God has laid on your heart, then I think it has been well worth the effort!

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[John Larsen]

John, when you make comments like, "But it is pretty clear that the New Testament teaches that salvation comes through grace alone" you certainly set yourself up as an expert in the Bible. You're making an absolute statement about what the New Testament teaches and declaring it as if it were a "fait acompli."

If I said that "It is pretty clear that the Book of Mormon teaches that the practice of polygamy is prohibited unless God commanded otherwise" I doubt your reaction would be that I was setting myself up as a BOM expert. I think your reaction has more to do with my position than my delivery.

[ERMD]

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.

If you don't believe we are saved at all, then any further discussion along these lines is pointless.

[John Larsen]

If you don't believe we are saved at all, then any further discussion along these lines is pointless.

One need not believe a topic to be literally true to find it interesting. Ask any Star Trek fan.

[ERMD]

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.

Sorry, but if I had a copy of the book, I would have quoted it. Like I said, I'm relying on memory for this. It isn't something I "found", but rather recalled.

If you disagree, why not elaborate? Too difficult to do in public?

One need not believe a topic to be literally true to find it interesting. Ask any Star Trek fan.

Touche'

[kawikadave]

I think your reaction has more to do with my position than my delivery.

I think my reaction has more to do with your posting history and the complexity of the doctrine in question (grace vs. works).

[consiglieri]

Sorry, but if I had a copy of the book, I would have quoted it. Like I said, I'm relying on memory for this. It isn't something I "found", but rather recalled.

If you disagree, why not elaborate? Too difficult to do in public?

Perhaps this quote from Spencer W. Kimball will further the discussion:

Man can transform himself and he must. Man has in himself the seeds of godhood, which can germinate and grow and develop. As the acorn becomes the oak, the mortal man becomes a god. It is within his power to lift himself by his very bootstraps from the plane on which he finds himself to the plane on which he should be. It may be a long, hard lift with many obstacles, but it is a real possibility.

Be Ye Therefore Perfect

SPENCER W. KIMBALL

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Spencer W. Kimball was President of The Church of

Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints when this devotional address

was given at Brigham Young University on 17 September 1974.

[Teancum]

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-

Yes wade I was judgmental which can be a sin as well. I am sure you do not care as you failed to address the points I made that certainly are scriptural. Too bad that is all you got out of my remarks.

I am not surprised.

So I will repent of my sin of judging. I am sorry for that. But this nonsense about sexual sin having some special thing that forever taints the repentant really needs to be dropped. Christ brought good news, not bad. He said to the woman taking in adultery that he did not condemn her and to go and sion no more. He did not say, oh and by the way you are forever tainted and damaged goods.

[Teancum]

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: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.

Everyone has sinned so there is not one that can say I have never sinned. Break one commandment and you are going straight to hell. Sex, lie, steal, sins of omission, does not matter. If you do one you are guilty of all. You need the savior as bad as anyone else.

The issue really is consequences. Yes there are consequences. Murder has greated consequences than lying about something, or cheating on a test. Sex sin is has more consequences due to perhaps a pregnancy. Also the degree of sexual sin depends greatly. Young teens who sin in heat of the moment may not bring as grevious consequences as the man sealed in the temple who cheats on his wife.

What we do is confuse consequence with standing before God. THe scriptures are cleat. Those born of God are new creatures. In God's eyes they are new and all old things are gone, period. In heaven they will be is as good as a position as anyone else. Sure in this life they may have some consequences. The daughter of a good friend of mine got pregnant at 18 and she opted tyo raise her child. She remained single for 12 years before she got married. So sure she had consequences. She has a child though her child is lovely and loved. I hope she not viewed as a consequence.

Any way, it is sad that Mormons seem to want to be punative and taint those with sin and we especially seem hung up about sexual sin. are we as hung up about other types?

[Teancum]

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

This is a false idea. All have sinned. LDS just seem to think that sex sin is really really bad and it puts you in a position that other may not apparently. Lie, steal, cheat, embezzle, I guess all those can be forgiven and the person can be guilt free maybe. But no sex sin we want the person to suffer forever.

[urroner]

This is a false idea. All have sinned. LDS just seem to think that sex sin is really really bad and it puts you in a position that other may not apparently. Lie, steal, cheat, embezzle, I guess all those can be forgiven and the person can be guilt free maybe. But no sex sin we want the person to suffer forever.

During this life, the consequences of some sins are much worse than other. Generallyb speaking, are the consequences of telling a simple lie the same as the consequences of pedophilia? There has to be consequences to sins, else there would be no reason to keep the commandments.

Besides, isn't you last sentence is little over the top, but then again I guess that there are those who want to be able to choose their actions and then choose their consequences or try to make those who disagree with them look as silly and as awful as possible.

Even if God forgives me completely for all my sins, there are still consequences that I have to suffer in spite of that forgiveness. Suppose that I'm married and I commit adultery, God can forgive me, but will my wife ever trust me? Just because God forgives me doesn't mean that God will force her to trust me.

Suppose I do drugs, drive my car, and kill part of a family in another vehicle, will God, after forgiving me eliminate all the consequences of my actions?

Suppose I abuse one of my children and I repent of it, does that mean that my child will ever trust me again and if I do any type of permanent damage to my child, does that mean that God, after forgiving me, will miraculously heal that child of all damage? I don't think so.

[Hammer]

During this life, the consequences of some sins are much worse than other. Generallyb speaking, are the consequences of telling a simple lie the same as the consequences of pedophilia? There has to be consequences to sins, else there would be no reason to keep the commandments.

Besides, isn't you last sentence is little over the top, but then again I guess that there are those who want to be able to choose their actions and then choose their consequences or try to make those who disagree with them look as silly and as awful as possible.

Even if God forgives me completely for all my sins, there are still consequences that I have to suffer in spite of that forgiveness. Suppose that I'm married and I commit adultery, God can forgive me, but will my wife ever trust me? Just because God forgives me doesn't mean that God will force her to trust me.

Suppose I do drugs, drive my car, and kill part of a family in another vehicle, will God, after forgiving me eliminate all the consequences of my actions?

Suppose I abuse one of my children and I repent of it, does that mean that my child will ever trust me again and if I do any type of permanent damage to my child, does that mean that God, after forgiving me, will miraculously heal that child of all damage? I don't think so.

I agree. We cannot side tract the natural consequences to some sins. It would be extremely selfish and sinful to even consider ignoring the effects of our actions on others and think only of ourselves.

[Anijen]

We are diverging from the OP. Are The Filthy Ever Made Truly Clean Again?

Sin is bad. Sin has consequences...

Bottom line the truly repentant are made truly clean again through the Atonement and Grace of Christ.

[MJNSW]

We are diverging from the OP. Are The Filthy Ever Made Truly Clean Again?

Sin is bad. Sin has consequences...

Bottom line the truly repentant are made truly clean again through the Atonement and Grace of Christ.

I agree...

[Teancum]

I agree. We cannot side tract the natural consequences to some sins. It would be extremely selfish and sinful to even consider ignoring the effects of our actions on others and think only of ourselves.

Apparently you and Urronor missed the post where I said there are consequences. Nobody can escape consequences for actions. Some sins result in more severe consequences than others. I gave examples above. Even with sexual sin there are degrees.

The problem I have is that you and Paul Ray seem to want to forever taint someone with the personal or spirirual impact of sin and if I recall debates with you on this before, even into the eternities. But the good news of the gospel is clear. One Born of God is a new creature. The old man is dead. Thus a sinner, including sexual sinner, is not tainted and forever damaged. It is clear. To state otherwise is to deny the good news of Christ and his atonement. To put undue burden on the sinner with heavy handed rhetoric is simply wrong. I believe previous GAs that used such language and those that may continue to do so are very wrong and need to understand that undue emotional burdens and guilt they have heaped on many members is wrong.