Sin

[nicolasconnault]

I thought a sin was "any behaviour forbidden by God" (from what you wrote in the OP). Is a sin the behavior forbidden by God or the attitude (since you said an attitude is not a sin but here you say the attitude makes a behavior a sin)?

It would be of great help for all of us trying to figure what you are saying in this thread for you to define these critical terms, please. Examples are just as important, if you don't mind.

To start with, you misunderstood the intent of the OP. The points I listed are progressive, from a coarse, rather incorrect view of sin, to a more refined, hopefully accurate view. It seems like you tried to understand my idea of sin by grouping these all together. I'm not sure if you read all the posts in this thread either. Anyway, I will try to clarify things.

One idea I'm putting forward is that the attitude or intent is the necessary qualifier for a behaviour to be classed as sin. This is exemplified by the difference between accidental manslaughter and wilful murder, both of which can share exactly the same behaviours and consequences, but differ in their intent, knowledge and/or attitude. Another example which I shared earlier in this thread is that of Nephi's killing of Laban. Nephi's intent and attitude was not one of pride, hatred or greed, but of devotion, humility, obedience and wisdom. It is not only the fact that his behaviour was commanded by God which exempts it from the status of sin, but the intention that Nephi had.

Let's have yet another example. As revealed in Doctrine and Covenants, God sanctions the use of deadly force and war when our nation is under attack. Does this make any soldier's behaviour of taking the life of an enemy sin-less? No, it depends on the soldier's attitude and intent while performing the act. A soldier who delights in the shedding of blood and is full of hatred towards his enemies is committing a sin when taking the life of his enemy, regardless of whether or not God sanctioned war.

Be mindful that by behaviour, I mean any action that is observable. This is completely divorced from context or consequences.

I also don't see how an ex-mormon as myself, by rejecting mormonism, could qualify as sinning under my conditions. I have the knowledge that mormonism is not true at its core, the motivation to do a greater good outside mormonism, and I guess my attitude is one of good intentions. How can I be sinning by reject LDS teachings and core practices (e.g. praying, temple) other than by God forbidding the action (not the knowledge I have, not the motivation I have, and not the attitude I have; just the action)?

I never intimated that rejecting Mormonism was sinful, and I don't think any LDS doctrines support that idea. As is made clear in our articles of faith:

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

[CV75]

If John Doe never heard of the Gospel and wasn't under the law, will he get punished by the law? Did Mr. Doe sin by having sex before marriage (he never saw anything wrong with it)?

Not having the doctrines, covenants and ordinances of the Gospel, Mr. Doe is only punished by his conscience for whatever infraction he incurs against it. Sometimes this induces repentance (the sting of conscience is heeded), but not repenting erodes its ability to prompt him at higher levels of sensitivity, and this is a form of punishment because he loses out. Everyone at some fundamental point offends their conscience, which constitutes sin because even without a specific knowledge of Christ, we willfully reject some instincts and embrace only certain others, when all kinds of instinct are designed to be mutually beneficial to self and others. The continued erosion of conscience without regaining it through repentance, even without the Gospel, is sin.

[elguanteloko]

To start with, you misunderstood the intent of the OP. The points I listed are progressive, from a coarse, rather incorrect view of sin, to a more refined, hopefully accurate view. It seems like you tried to understand my idea of sin by grouping these all together. I'm not sure if you read all the posts in this thread either. Anyway, I will try to clarify things.

Are you saying here that the first of your statements is not really correct (that sin is behavior forbidden by God)? Since you said that the OP was your line of reasoning, I thought it was correct to talk about that line of reasoning. Here's the thing: you put something forward as YOUR line of reasoning... and then, when I attack it, you say the first ones (which ones? I don't know which ones to pick and you will consider them as being valid premises or points) are not really correct.

One idea I'm putting forward is that the attitude or intent is the necessary qualifier for a behaviour to be classed as sin.

Then your first point is truly NOT correct (sin as behavior forbidden by God).

This is exemplified by the difference between accidental manslaughter and wilful murder, both of which can share exactly the same behaviours and consequences, but differ in their intent, knowledge and/or attitude.

From those three we can discard attitude (you told me that is not a sin, whatever it is) and knowledge. I still would like you to tell me if having an evil intention for person X to die, without killing anyone, is a sin. If it isn't, then I don't get how these three can be counted as having something to do with sin.

Another example which I shared earlier in this thread is that of Nephi's killing of Laban. Nephi's intent and attitude was not one of pride, hatred or greed, but of devotion, humility, obedience and wisdom. It is not only the fact that his behaviour was commanded by God which exempts it from the status of sin, but the intention that Nephi had.

Again, why do you even mention attitude if it isn't a sin? Seems like you are saying here an "intent" of pride, hatred or greed may be a sin, correct? So, again, if I have sex before marriage with an intent of devotion, humility, and love, AND the knowledge that God said not to do it (though I don't believe in God), will that be a sin?

Let's have yet another example. As revealed in Doctrine and Covenants, God sanctions the use of deadly force and war when our nation is under attack. Does this make any soldier's behaviour of taking the life of an enemy sin-less? No, it depends on the soldier's attitude and intent while performing the act. A soldier who delights in the shedding of blood and is full of hatred towards his enemies is committing a sin when taking the life of his enemy, regardless of whether or not God sanctioned war.

NOT WAR, BUT HATRED. Did God sanction hatred, brother? Is that an intent?

Be mindful that by behaviour, I mean any action that is observable. This is completely divorced from context or consequences.

amm... sure.

I never intimated that rejecting Mormonism was sinful, and I don't think any LDS doctrines support that idea. As is made clear in our articles of faith:

"We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."

Really? So apostasy is not a sin? "Apostasy: When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy." "Sin: To commit sin is to willfully disobey God's commandments or to fail to act righteously despite a knowledge of the truth." (Both quotes taken from lds.org)

Secondly, that AoF does NOT exclude rejecting Mormonism (or anything except the freedom to worship) as a sin. That I believe in your freedom to cheat on your wife does not mean I don't consider it a sin.

[nicolasconnault]

Are you saying here that the first of your statements is not really correct (that sin is behavior forbidden by God)? Since you said that the OP was your line of reasoning, I thought it was correct to talk about that line of reasoning. Here's the thing: you put something forward as YOUR line of reasoning... and then, when I attack it, you say the first ones (which ones? I don't know which ones to pick and you will consider them as being valid premises or points) are not really correct.

Then your first point is truly NOT correct (sin as behavior forbidden by God).

You are purposefully leaving out some of my explanations. If you want to engage in respectful, intelligent debate with me, please be honest and don't just try to attack individual statements isolated from the rest. I did say:

The points I listed are progressive, from a coarse, rather incorrect view of sin, to a more refined, hopefully accurate view.

My use of the expression "line of reasoning" is probably incorrect. Each point in this list does not support the next, but it provides ideas for the development of a better understanding of sin. So point 2 does not necessarily follow from point 1. To simplify things, imagine that point 1 represented my beliefs 10 years ago, and that I have gradually developed a better view of "sin" since then. This is the basis for that list of points. Is that clear enough?

From those three we can discard attitude (you told me that is not a sin, whatever it is) and knowledge. I still would like you to tell me if having an evil intention for person X to die, without killing anyone, is a sin. If it isn't, then I don't get how these three can be counted as having something to do with sin.

"Evil intention" is the necessary prerequisite for the planning of wilful murder. It is the planning (in thought) that is a sin, made sin by the intention. In saying this I need to revise my definition of "behaviour" and include thoughts in them, because I do believe that cogent thoughts can be sinful. Thoughts, however, are not the same as intentions or attitudes. Hatred is not a thought, but is the soil from which hateful thoughts and actions sprout.

Again, why do you even mention attitude if it isn't a sin? Seems like you are saying here an "intent" of pride, hatred or greed may be a sin, correct? So, again, if I have sex before marriage with an intent of devotion, humility, and love, AND the knowledge that God said not to do it (though I don't believe in God), will that be a sin?

Yes, it will be a sin. I can't deny this, therefore my definition must be incorrect. Note that I am admitting being wrong here, I am not being sarcastic. The whole point of this thread is for me to explore the concept of sin and develop a better understanding of it. Thanks for helping me.

NOT WAR, BUT HATRED. Did God sanction hatred, brother? Is that an intent?

I believe I've given sufficient explanations above. God does not sanction hatred, obviously, and no, hatred is not an intent. You may call it an attitude or a motivational factor, but it is not an intent.

Really? So apostasy is not a sin? "Apostasy: When individuals or groups of people turn away from the principles of the gospel, they are in a state of apostasy." "Sin: To commit sin is to willfully disobey God's commandments or to fail to act righteously despite a knowledge of the truth." (Both quotes taken from lds.org)

Secondly, that AoF does NOT exclude rejecting Mormonism (or anything except the freedom to worship) as a sin. That I believe in your freedom to cheat on your wife does not mean I don't consider it a sin.

If you reject LDS beliefs without having any testimony of its truth, it cannot be a sin. If, however, you have received a spiritual witness of its truth but have decided to act against it, then it is a sin. Therefore this proviso doesn't apply to members who once believed, then reject it (apostasy).

Note that in the official LDS definition of Sin, the words "willfully disobey" and "despite a knowledge of the truth" support the idea that intent and knowledge are necessary qualifiers for the sinfulness of a behaviour.

[elguanteloko]

You are purposefully leaving out some of my explanations. If you want to engage in respectful, intelligent debate with me, please be honest and don't just try to attack individual statements isolated from the rest. I did say:

Your ideas in the OP are scattered and disconnected (by your own admission) and you clearly couldn't have expected me to talk about them as somehow being interconnected. Being consistent seems to not be a purpose in your comments.

My use of the expression "line of reasoning" is probably incorrect.

...but you still dare to call me dishonest when you admit having made this mistake since the OP.

Each point in this list does not support the next, but it provides ideas for the development of a better understanding of sin. So point 2 does not necessarily follow from point 1. To simplify things, imagine that point 1 represented my beliefs 10 years ago, and that I have gradually developed a better view of "sin" since then. This is the basis for that list of points. Is that clear enough?

It's clear, and I hope you see this, that you haven't been clear. Stating positions you had 10 years ago mixed with some you seem to have now and not expecting someone to find an inconsistency... and calling them dishonest when they do is nothing short of silly.

"Evil intention" is the necessary prerequisite for the planning of wilful murder.

but not sufficient so you're not answering the question. Again, is the "evil intention" to kill X a sin by itself? If it isn's then NONE of your 'three conditions' for sinful behavior are sins by themselves. If they are NOT sins by themselves, but you say they are conditions for sin, you have to explain how non-sinful conditions can give rise to a sin (and make sense).

It is the planning (in thought) that is a sin, made sin by the intention.

I'm not talking about the planning! Is the intention by itself not a sin? Don't you realize you are not answering anything of what I'm asking here?

In saying this I need to revise my definition of "behaviour" and include thoughts in them,because I do believe that cogent thoughts can be sinful.

I don't have a problem with you correcting things down the road; just don't pretend to not make these mistakes and defend them.

I have to do some things right now but I'll come back to what is left of your post.

Thoughts, however, are not the same as intentions or attitudes. Hatred is not a thought, but is the soil from which hateful thoughts and actions sprout.

Yes, it will be a sin. I can't deny this, therefore my definition must be incorrect. Note that I am admitting being wrong here, I am not being sarcastic. The whole point of this thread is for me to explore the concept of sin and develop a better understanding of it. Thanks for helping me.

I believe I've given sufficient explanations above. God does not sanction hatred, obviously, and no, hatred is not an intent. You may call it an attitude or a motivational factor, but it is not an intent.

If you reject LDS beliefs without having any testimony of its truth, it cannot be a sin. If, however, you have received a spiritual witness of its truth but have decided to act against it, then it is a sin. Therefore this proviso doesn't apply to members who once believed, then reject it (apostasy).

Note that in the official LDS definition of Sin, the words "willfully disobey" and "despite a knowledge of the truth" support the idea that intent and knowledge are necessary qualifiers for the sinfulness of a behaviour.

[nicolasconnault]

Your ideas in the OP are scattered and disconnected (by your own admission) and you clearly couldn't have expected me to talk about them as somehow being interconnected. Being consistent seems to not be a purpose in your comments.

...but you still dare to call me dishonest when you admit having made this mistake since the OP.

It's clear, and I hope you see this, that you haven't been clear. Stating positions you had 10 years ago mixed with some you seem to have now and not expecting someone to find an inconsistency... and calling them dishonest when they do is nothing short of silly.

I have no intention of discussing things with you if you are confrontational. You have clearly misunderstood me from the start, where all other posters have not, but you don't seem willing to reconsider your initial interpretation of my OP. Let's drop that part of the conversation. The rest is what the thread is about.

[evangelist]

Sense this is a thread on sin can someone explain or understand this verse??

1Jo:3:9: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Also compare these scriptures with these:

1Jo:1:8: If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.

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

1Jo:1:10: If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

one love

[TAO]

Sense this is a thread on sin can someone explain or understand this verse??

1 John 3:9 - Whosoever is ^aborn of God ^bdoth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

Take a look at the JST, it gives good information:

JST 1 John 3:9 - Whosoever is ^aborn of God doth not continue in sin; for the Spirit of God remaineth in him; and he cannot continue in sin, because he is born of God, having received that holy Spirit of promise.

Who is born of God doesn't commit sin. Since we are all sinners, it would make sense that we are not born of God, or that when we do sin, we cease to be born of God until we repent.

Thus, when we sin, we cease being born of God, until we become it again.

Hope I helped... yes, the JST is an awesome resource! =D

[Libs]

Ok that's good =).

Well hmm... let me explain perhaps... ok... so let's say you have a graph of sin and cosine. They seperate... and then they grow close together... and then they seperate... and then they grow close together... etc. Now, you can go infinitely in the positive direction (moving forward in time), and they will always continue crossing at constant intervals. You can also move in the negative direction (moving backwards in time), and they will always continue crossing at constant intervals.

Now let's imagine it a little bigger. Let's say that the sin and cos graphs represent the average radii of the universe. It opens... and then closes... and then opens... and then closes... repetively for all future. Also repetitively for all time in the past. Each of those intersections in the graph represent 'a decision point'.

In other words, the cycle that has been happening with us will not only happen infinitely in the future... but also has been happening infinitely in the past. The only difference between this, and how other Christians view God is that we view it as a very dynamic cycle, with work being done... whereas other Christians tend to think 'one God, always that way, never changing' before the beginning of the universe... which would mean God would be doing nothing infinitely for the past (in universe time terms).

Perhaps I should post an excel graph... would that be helpful?

I understand the type of graph you're talking about (with the intermittent intersections). I'm just not sure how that relates to (or explains) where eternal laws came from, minus intelligent input.

From what I know, intelligences still had a life they were doing in the pre-pre-existance (before the plan was even made, before they were even spiritually born). But then, their time came (there is a time set for all intelligences just as there is for us), and they became spiritually born (part of the duties of Heavenly Father and Mother)... and then later... some were sent to Earth to get a body (the ones that chose to). Now you might ask... how many intelligences exist? Actually... there is an infinite amount of them. Just as universe-relative time extends infinitely in the past and the future, there is also an infinite number of spirits out there... covering the infinite amount of 'universe space'. The farther we look, the more we find... however, when we look in a limited area of the 'universe space', there is a finite amount of intelligences needing to be 'embodied'.

Hope that didn't get too obscure =P. And it's quite theoretical, so yah... some parts/all of it may be incorrect.

Have to admit, I'm totally lost. (see the blank look on my face? ) lol

If the "intelligences" are pre-soul, pre-person, pre-anything, it doesn't seem they were "organized" enough to partipate in putting together eternal laws (if that was your meaning?).

[TAO]

I understand the type of graph you're talking about (with the intermittent intersections). I'm just not sure how that relates to (or explains) where eternal laws came from, minus intelligent input.

The sin and cos graph stretches infinitely... therefore eternal laws are also infinite. Eternal laws passed from one intersection, to the next, to the next, to the next, generation after generation.

Have to admit, I'm totally lost. (see the blank look on my face? ) lol

If the "intelligences" are pre-soul, pre-person, pre-anything, it doesn't seem they were "organized" enough to partipate in putting together eternal laws (if that was your meaning?).

Essentially, imagine universes on a time graph... they start at different points... and when you compare one universe to another, they have a sort of 'distance', much like we have 'distance' between planets in space. Over time, the universes shrink and expand... and that is what we call universe-time (it isn't comparable to our time).

Na, the point is... there has always been organization... just as there has always been a God (albight, not always the same God). Each God keeps reorganizing matter that was organized in a different manner beforehand.

The intelligences as well... they have always existed too... but the further you go away from our point in 'universe space' the more you encounter them. But no, intelligences don't organize eternal laws... intelligences have been being made into exalted bodies for infinitely in the past, and will infinitely in the future.

[nicolasconnault]

Take a look at the JST, it gives good information:

Who is born of God doesn't commit sin. Since we are all sinners, it would make sense that we are not born of God, or that when we do sin, we cease to be born of God until we repent.

Thus, when we sin, we cease being born of God, until we become it again.

Hope I helped... yes, the JST is an awesome resource! =D

That's right, we must be born of God again and again. That is essentially the outcome of the process of repentance. We die in sin and are reborn in Christ by giving up our sins and re-committing ourselves to following him. His grace accomplishes the rebirth and purges us from the desire to sin, but this is not a permanent effect, because our free agency and fallen nature are still with us.

[evangelist]

Take a look at the JST, it gives good information:

Who is born of God doesn't commit sin. Since we are all sinners, it would make sense that we are not born of God, or that when we do sin, we cease to be born of God until we repent.

Thus, when we sin, we cease being born of God, until we become it again.

Hope I helped... yes, the JST is an awesome resource! =D

The scripture say we can not sin or it is impossible to sin , so how can someone do what is impossible??

Can a person fly like superman and do the exact things superman did on tv??

one love

[nicolasconnault]

The scripture say we can not sin or it is impossible to sin , so how can someone do what is impossible??

Can a person fly like superman and do the exact things superman did on tv??

one love

The realities of life should tell you that your interpretation is mistaken. It's OK to be wrong sometimes, you know, it happens to me rather frequently. It's the only way to learn.

[TAO]

The scripture say we can not sin or it is impossible to sin , so how can someone do what is impossible??

Read it more slowly... the clauses don't mean that. Let's do a step-by-step analysis, because the clauses aren't the most well laid out of most verses.

JST 1 John 3:9 - Whosoever is ^aborn of God doth not continue in sin...

Whoever is born of God does not continue in sin... in other words, they choose not to sin.

...for the Spirit of God remaineth in him; and he cannot continue in sin...

The reason he must choose not to sin is because the Spirit of God is in him, and it would be oh-so-painful to try and sin.

...because he is born of God, having received that holy Spirit of promise

He has been born of God... he will listen and obey the Spirit in all instances... this is what being born of God means. We aren't born of God till we stop sinning.

[paulpatter]

Actually I don't believe attitudes are sins, but they can lead to sins. Regarding death in ignorance, which applies to young children, I think that Christ's atonement is required to overcome their fallen state inherent to the human condition, but not to overcome any sins they have committed.

Defining "attitude" can get complicated. In psychological terms, "attitude" is: "an organismic state of readiness to act that is often accompanied by considerable affect and that may be activated by an appropriate stimulus into significant or meaningful behavior; a persistent disposition to act either positively or negatively toward a person, group, object, situation, or value" (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, 2002, p. 141). Based on these definitions, it seems reasonable to argue that it is possible for "attitude" to, indeed, constitute sin. Thus, the definitions I have cited dovetail almost perfectly with the Savior's admonition re. looking upon a woman lustfully. I am remiinded of the adage, "She [or he] is chaste who has not been tempted."

[nicolasconnault]

Defining "attitude" can get complicated. In psychological terms, "attitude" is: "an organismic state of readiness to act that is often accompanied by considerable affect and that may be activated by an appropriate stimulus into significant or meaningful behavior; a persistent disposition to act either positively or negatively toward a person, group, object, situation, or value" (Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged, 2002, p. 141). Based on these definitions, it seems reasonable to argue that it is possible for "attitude" to, indeed, constitute sin. Thus, the definitions I have cited dovetail almost perfectly with the Savior's admonition re. looking upon a woman lustfully. I am remiinded of the adage, "She [or he] is chaste who has not been tempted."

The definition is important, indeed. However, in common usage, it is very difficult to change one's attitude. Depending on which attitude we are talking about, the process could be nearly instantaneous, or could take years. Some attitudes are ingrained in us since childhood, and changing them is extremely hard. If attitudes were sinful in the general sense, then even baptism, repentance and taking the sacrament would not be effective in cleansing sin until the attitude has completely changed. We all know that, in practice, this doesn't happen. If being born of God completely removed all our "sinful" attitudes, we would effectively become perfect, at least in a behavioural sense. None of our actions would be motivated by greed, hatred or selfishness, since these attitudes would have been cleansed.

[evangelist]

The realities of life should tell you that your interpretation is mistaken. It's OK to be wrong sometimes, you know, it happens to me rather frequently. It's the only way to learn.

I asked about the scripture not about our lives!

if you don't know the answer ask your infallible apostles!

1Jo:3:9: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

one love

[nicolasconnault]

I asked about the scripture not about our lives!

And I gave you an answer.

if you don't know the answer ask your infallible apostles!

We don't have any, please get informed.

1Jo:3:9: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

We explained several times that we believe this scripture. We also believe that we must repeatedly be born of God. Being born of God doesn't make you an eternal holy infant any more than being physically born makes you innocent and pure forever. You may be pure and holy at the time you are born of God, but this scripture doesn't tell us that we remain in that state.

Birth is an event, not a condition.

one love

There's not much love in your comments, you know...

[Hestia]

if you don't know the answer ask your infallible apostles!

Do not insult another's beliefs.

[Libs]

1Jo:3:9: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

I think the obvious answer to what appears to be an impossibility is that when we are born in Jesus Christ, he wipes away our sins (past, present, future). That would be an evangelical interpretation.

I don't think that is too far from what LDS believe, really. The only difference I can see is that LDS believe that each and every sin must be repented of and forgiven, whereas an evangelical would believe that "in Christ" sins are forgiven, even those we are not aware of and perhaps never repented of (individually). Repent, yes, but we are reborn only once, not continually, and continue in that state of rebirth forever. It's not something that comes and goes.

[evangelist]

And I gave you an answer.

We don't have any, please get informed.

We explained several times that we believe this scripture. We also believe that we must repeatedly be born of God. Being born of God doesn't make you an eternal holy infant any more than being physically born makes you innocent and pure forever. You may be pure and holy at the time you are born of God, but this scripture doesn't tell us that we remain in that state.

Birth is an event, not a condition.

There's not much love in your comments, you know...

Can you get born again and again and go back into your mother womb after birth?

So if a person get born again then it is better to just kill that person or baby as soon as they get born so they can't sin and the scripture can mean what it says, but that is not biblical which you also said you agree with the scripture unless you are lieing about your agreement?

one love

[evangelist]

Do not insult another's beliefs.

It is not an assult it is an advice!

It is ok for a mormon to say the bible is not infallible true or false??

one love

[evangelist]

1Jo:3:9: Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

I think the obvious answer to what appears to be an impossibility is that when we are born in Jesus Christ, he wipes away our sins (past, present, future). That would be an evangelical interpretation.

I don't think that is too far from what LDS believe, really. The only difference I can see is that LDS believe that each and every sin must be repented of and forgiven, whereas an evangelical would believe that "in Christ" sins are forgiven, even those we are not aware of and perhaps never repented of (individually). Repent, yes, but we are reborn only once, not continually, and continue in that state of rebirth forever. It's not something that comes and goes.

AMEN!

What happen if a mormon forget a sin or two do they go to hell, and are not forgiven?

Jesus died once for the whole world sinner too, so how does a mormon deal with this??

one love

[nicolasconnault]

Can you get born again and again and go back into your mother womb after birth?

Why are you asking this?

So if a person get born again then it is better to just kill that person or baby as soon as they get born so they can't sin

It's better (than dying while unrepentant) for the person who is just born again, yes. It's not very good for the person that kills him/her though. I strongly advise against that course of action.

and the scripture can mean what it says, but that is not biblical which you also said you agree with the scripture unless you are lieing about your agreement?

I agree with my interpretation of the scripture, and disagree with yours.

[nicolasconnault]

Evangelist, what exactly is your intention in posting here? What is your purpose? What are you trying to achieve?