"Sins of Perdition"?

[Mordecai]

Feel free to check out the scripture I provided.

I did. It says "and fully turn away." If you break your covenants and fully turn away, that's unpardonable. You have to really go all out in the sin department to get into sin of perdition territory. Not keeping your priesthood covenant is relatively mundane. Just do better tomorrow and don't procrastinate. Not that it's not serious, because if you don't repent, you go to hell. But it's not a sin of perdition.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I did. It says "and fully turn away." If you break your covenants and fully turn away, that's unpardonable. You have to really go all out in the sin department to get into sin of perdition territory. Not keeping your priesthood covenant is relatively mundane. Just do better tomorrow and don't procrastinate. Not that it's not serious, because if you don't repent, you go to hell. But it's not a sin of perdition.

Well if you seek to get into every hypothetical you can make anythings seem like it is trivial and don't worry about it. The problem is we have not guarantee of tomorrow, we only have the guarantee of today to prepare for eternity. The mind set of putting of one's day of repentance is a deception of Lucifer, and one that every prophet from Adam to Thomas S. Monson has constantly admonished us to never do. We must repent today because tomorrow is unknown, Christ could return tomorrow, or this day could be the last before our Father in Heaven calls us home. Either way procrastination is a tactic of the deception and damnation not of salvation.

Which is the work of a deceiver not a redeemer, IMO, we need to prepare now not expect a tomorrow to make up for our failures today. If we are not doing our very best personally to fulfill of Oath and Covenant to the Priesthood we are fully turned away from it, and at risk should we not repent and make restitution before our period of probation ends, of the second death of Outer Darkness. To act like this is not the case is to willingly and intentionally decieve people about the duty of the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood, IMO.

[TAO]

If the Bible and modern revelations come from the same source, I fail to see how they could contradict one another.

How do the relevant Gospel passages read in the JST?

If Jesus says (in the Gospels) that all but one sin will be forgiven, how can there be multiple unpardonable sins?

This is because technichally they are all the same thing when you get down to it. Murder under full knowledge is nearly the same, (but not precisely) in comparison to denial of the holy ghost. Both consist of sinning against the Holy Ghost with a high degree of knowledge, which when you get down to it, that is the most dangerous part of the sin. I figure wit such a direct contradiction of the spirit, it is close to impossible to go backwards after hat point. BTW... nurse is only a sin unto death to those with a full or very close to full (perhaps) degree of knowledge who shed innocent blood. Unless you qualify under those terms, murder is forgivable, though very very very hard to forgive of. Cannot emphasize th veriea enough, I think :/. But it is forgivable eventually (Alma).

Best Wishes,

TAO

[LDS Guy 1986]

If the Bible and modern revelations come from the same source, I fail to see how they could contradict one another.

How do the relevant Gospel passages read in the JST?

If Jesus says (in the Gospels) that all but one sin will be forgiven, how can there be multiple unpardonable sins?

Because as I said while it is three separate actions they are all same transgression, which is open and willing rebellion against God.

If you blasphemy against the Holy Ghost your are rebelling against God.

If you commit premeditated murder in cold blood after becoming a member of Christ's Church and taking the sacred covenants of Baptism by Water and by the Spirit, you are rebelling against God.

If you take upon yourself the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood and break that vow to the Lord and never repent nor make restitution for that transgression, you are rebelling against God.

A sin is an action if I force and adult woman to have sexual relations that is a criminal action, if I have sex with an underage girl that is a criminal action, both of these criminal actions break the law against rape.

Each action breaks the law in a different way but both cases the law is broken.

The same applies here each of these actions break the celestial law of obedience to a degree that you are in open rebellion against Heavenly Father just like Lucifer was and you are no longer capable of receiving the atonement.

What some fail to ultimately grasp here is that only the Lord knows who has committed a sin of perdition, just because someone is convicted of murder in a court of law does not mean they have automatically committed an unpardonable sin. It does mean that they are barred from baptism if an investigator (or if a member they are excommunicated and barred from re-baptism) there is exceptions that can be made by the decision of the First Presidency, and some think that this means that there is no way to commit an unpardonable sin when you commit murder, this is a mistaken position though. The laws of men vary greatly from one jurisdiction to another, and no law of man is perfect like the celestial law of our Heavenly Father. This is why the First Presidency must grant an EXCEPTION to the Church policy that murders cannot be baptized, after much prayer and fasting they can receive the will of the Lord on the situation and if they receive revelation that this person has not committed an unpardonable sin, then they grant and EXCEPTION to the policy and allow him/her to be baptized.

You also ask about the contradiction from KJV Bible to D&C, I can see how this can be confusing for a non member, in our faith nothing is taken as being inerrant, our revelations our scriptures, everything we have is done by the hands on men and women, mortal men and women who make mistakes. So if there is a doctrinal contradiction between scriptures we accept the most current revelation as the will of the Lord, and understand the previous revelation had error in it.

Remember that even though these words are accepted as the words of Christ, they are not recorded by Christ, but by a mortal man recalling his words decades after his resurrection, which means these words were recorded at least 40+ years after they were spoken, by men that were either very old eye witnesses or received the message second hand. One cannot expect inerrancy to exist in such a setting,

We accept all scriptures as the word of God while understanding that they do and will contain errors because the only infallible man to ever walk the Earth was Jesus Christ. As far as we know he never wrote any records by his own hand, even if he did and those original manuscripts survived till this day, we would have to have them translated into our languages and then again enters the hand of man making the work capable of error through translation mistakes.

Many non-LDS Christians believe that the scriptures are inerrant so I can understand how this would perplex a non LDS Christian, but I hope when you take into consideration that LDS do not believe that any work of mortal persons hands is inerrant you will understand why there can be conflict in the scriptures. This is blessing of continual revelation, we can receive further revelation to correct and build upon the scriptures we currently have.

We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God. (9th Article of Faith of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints)

[LDS Guy 1986]

This is because technichally they are all the same thing when you get down to it. Murder under full knowledge is nearly the same, (but not precisely) in comparison to denial of the holy ghost. Both consist of sinning against the Holy Ghost with a high degree of knowledge, which when you get down to it, that is the most dangerous part of the sin. I figure wit such a direct contradiction of the spirit, it is close to impossible to go backwards after hat point. BTW... nurse is only a sin unto death to those with a full or very close to full (perhaps) degree of knowledge who shed innocent blood. Unless you qualify under those terms, murder is forgivable, though very very very hard to forgive of. Cannot emphasize th veriea enough, I think :/. But it is forgivable eventually (Alma).

Best Wishes,

TAO

This what I have been saying all along, murder is a big no no, at best you are looking at a very hard repentance process, and worst you cannot ever be forgiven.

Unpardonable sins are not straight forward, ultimate only Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ know what is an unpardonable sin and what isn't, this is why only the First Presidency can grant an exception for baptism or re-baptism for someone who has potentially committed one of these sins. They have to seek revelation from the Father to know if the sin was forgivable or not, if it is forgivable then the exception can be granted, in it is not forgivable than the exception cannot be granted.

The same goes for male members who after being sealed in the temple have affairs or sexually abuse their children, in most cases they are going to be excommunicated for such a terrible sin especially if they are unrepentant, they betrayed there Oath to the Priesthood (which can be an unpardonable sin) and there duty and covenant as a husband and/or father (once again a potentially unpardonable sin). Once excommunicated such person needs an exception from the First Presidency to be able to be re-baptized, and further exceptions to have there priesthood and temple blessings restored to them.

An exception isn't granted because these sins are not unforgivable in the first place, an exception is granted because the Lord reveals that in that individual case an unpardonable sin wasn't committed by the individual in question.

Exceptions are granted because they person didn't commit the unpardonable sin and only because of that. The misinformed idea from some that just because some was convicted of murder in a mortal court of law and granted an exception to receive baptism later in life means murder isn't unforgivable, is doing so out of the pride and ignorance they place in the flawed and imperfect law of man, and thinking that God must follow the laws that man make instead of man follow the laws of God.

[David T]

The only unforgivable sin is choosing not to accept the Atonement. While you're not accepting it, you are choosing not to be forgiven. You are chosing be lost, which is literally what Perdition means.

There is nothing you can do that takes you out of the power of the Atonement except for choosing not to accept it.

Once you accept it, you're no longer Lost. Remember, God is always searching after the One.

[LDS Guy 1986]

The only unforgivable sin is choosing not to accept the Atonement. While you're not accepting it, you are choosing not to be forgiven. You are chosing be lost, which is literally what Perdition means.

There is nothing you can do that takes you out of the power of the Atonement except for choosing not to accept it.

Once you accept it, you're no longer Lost. Remember, God is always searching after the One.

Yes and there is actions you can take that by doing so means you have denied the Atonement, like blasphemy against the holy ghost, committing murder in Heavenly Fathers eye's, and breaking the Oath of the Priesthood and never repenting or making restitution.

This is why we have the scriptures and the modern prophets, to help us understand what things constitute a denial of the atonement. This is also why people committing certain crimes can only be baptized after receiving an exemption from the First Presidency because the nature of there crime mean that they might of committed an unpardonable sin.

[frankenstein]

The only unforgivable sin is choosing not to accept the Atonement. While you're not accepting it, you are choosing not to be forgiven. You are chosing be lost, which is literally what Perdition means.

There is nothing you can do that takes you out of the power of the Atonement except for choosing not to accept it.

Once you accept it, you're no longer Lost. Remember, God is always searching after the One.

Based on LDS teachings that is not a good explanation. The LDS teach that some, in the pre-judgment afterlife will not accept Christ, thus, they will suffer for their own sins. So I would say what you present does not mesh with LDS teachings.

[David T]

Yes and there is actions you can take that by doing so means you have denied the Atonement, like blasphemy against the holy ghost, committing murder in Heavenly Fathers eye's, and breaking the Oath of the Priesthood and never repenting or making restitution.

This is why we have the scriptures and the modern prophets, to help us understand what things constitute a denial of the atonement. This is also why people committing certain crimes can only be baptized after receiving an exemption from the First Presidency because the nature of there crime mean that they might of committed an unpardonable sin.

"Never repenting" is the key. If you repent, you're forgiven. Not repenting is the unpardonable sin. Not repenting is what literally denies the Atonement. That includes in the World to Come.

People are far more willing to everlastingly damn someone than God is.

[David T]

Based on LDS teachings that is not a good explanation. The LDS teach that some, in the pre-judgment afterlife will not accept Christ, thus, they will suffer for their own sins. So I would say what you present does not mesh with LDS teachings.

Suffering for one's sins is not incompatible with an eventual (if even extraordinarily prolonged) return to accept the Atonement and God's Love and his open arms.

[frankenstein]

Suffering for one's sins is not incompatible with an eventual (if even extraordinarily prolonged) return to accept the Atonement and God's Love and his open arms.

they suffer because they reject. In the end the knee will bow, but they have rejected the atonement, hence they suffer for their own sins.

[Mordecai]

The mind set of putting of one's day of repentance is a deception of Lucifer...

That's what I said. I also pointed out that you misrepresented the scriptures. Few will keep their priesthood covenants all the time. It's just a reality. If our faith waivers, or we just feel overwhelmed or just lose motivation, we can break priesthood covenants. But, according to you, that would make you a son of Perdition. I'm just sayin', you misquoted the scriptures. You'd have to "fully turn away" for it to be unforgivable.

[stn9]

He did say "sins of perdition" but even if that is what he initially wrote, it is clearly the sons of perdition that he is referring to a they are the ones who commit sins of perdition. I bet the published version reads "sons."

[Curtis Weber]

Are you talking about the Aaronic priesthood, or the Melcheszedek priesthood?

The Aaronic Priesthood is a subset of the Melchizedek Priesthood, to be technical, but the oath and covenant applies to the fulness of the Melchizedek Priesthood, not merely to the Melchizedek Priesthood.

And what are the words of the oath that is taken?

Are the words the same for both orders of the priesthood?

The words of the oath may not be set, judging by the few places where the oath has been recorded.

There is no verbal oath recited, you take upon yourself the Oath of the Priesthood when you are ordained into the Priesthood, all of this is found in D&C 84, ...

Technically, this is not true and doubly so: first, there is an oath that is apparently spoken; and second, one technically cannot ever take upon oneself the oath and covenant, let alone when one is ordained an elder in the Melchizedek Priesthood.

The oath and covenant is the conferral of the highest order of the Priesthood—the highest of the three orders of priesthood, according to Joseph Smith(see The Words of Joseph Smith, 243-247)—and comes "by the calling of his [God's] own voice, according to his [God's] own will" and cannot be obtained "by man, nor the will of man; neither by father nor mother; neither by beginning of days nor end of years" (JST Gen. 14:28-29). "For God having sworn unto Enoch and unto his seed with an oath by himself..." (JST Gen. 14:30).

That being ordained an elder in the Melchizedek Priesthood does not constitute the conferral of the highest order, and is therefore not equivalent to receiving the oath and covenant of the priesthood, is evident from Joseph Smith's teachings. President Joseph Fielding Smith, in an only slightly oblique manner, taught exactly what it means during the April 1970 Priesthood session of general conference:

...in 1841 the Lord revealed to the Prophet that "the fullness of the priesthood" was available to men only in the temple in "a house" built to his name. (See D&C 124.) And in 1843 the Prophet said: "If a man gets a fullness of the priesthood of God he has to get it in the same way that Jesus Christ obtained it and that was by keeping all the commandments and obeying all the ordinances of the house of the Lord." (D.H.C., Vol 5:244)

Let me put this in a little different way. I do not care what office you hold in the Church—you may be an apostle, you may be a patriarch, a high priest or anything else—but you cannot receive the fullness of the priesthood and the fullness of eternal reward unless you receive the ordinances of the house of the Lord; and when you receive these ordinances, the door is then open so you can obtain all the blessings which any man can gain.

Do not think because someone has a higher office in the Church than you have that you are barred from receiving the fullness of the Lord's blessings. You can have them sealed upon you as an elder if you are faithful; and when you receive them, and live faithfully and keep these covenants you then have all that any man can get. There is no exaltation in the kingdom of God without the fullness of the priesthood, and every man who receives the Melchizedek Priesthood does so with an oath and a covenant that he shall be exalted.

In other words:

1. Exaltation—which is to receive all that the Father has—cannot come without receiving the fulness of the priesthood.

2. The ordinance pertaining to the fulness of the priesthood—the required earthly component—is performed in the temple.

3. The oath and covenant—the required heavenly conferral of the fulness of the priesthood—can only come by the calling of God's own voice out of the heavens.

I think the confusion over this issue stems from a number of things: being unaware of all of the ordinances of the temple; being unaware that "Melchizedek Priesthood" can refer to both the highest order of the priesthood as well as the commonly-encountered Church priesthood of the offices of elders, seventies, high priests and apostles; and being unaware of what Joseph Smith taught about these things.

[inquiringmind]

Irrespective of how one understands the "unforgivable sin", it is interesting to me that, of all the religions in the world, only The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that only its members are candidates for Hell.

But is that the teaching of the Church?

LDS Guy says there are three unforgivable sins.

Two seem to be possible only for Church members, but I'm unclear on how The LDS Church actually defines the first (i.e. the blasphemy of The Spirit)?

Is that something that could only be committed by a member of the Church?

[TAO]

But is that the teaching of the Church?

LDS Guy says there are three unforgivable sins.

Two seem to be possible only for Church members, but I'm unclear on how The LDS Church actually defines the first (i.e. the blasphemy of The Spirit)?

Is that something that could only be committed by a member of the Church?

Blasphemy of the spirit... erm... this is... well... it's hard to find a good example, but let's look at Sherem from the Book of Mormon (in Jacob 7). He was pretty close to it, from the looks of it... I don't know whether he did or did not pass the boundary... it is up to God. This is what he says:

Jacob 7:19

And he said: I ^afear lest I have committed the ^bunpardonable sin, for I have lied unto God; for I denied the Christ, and said that I believed the scriptures; and they truly testify of him. And because I have thus lied unto God I greatly fear lest my case shall be ^cawful; but I confess unto God.

Of course... now that he has admitted it, I would hope that God sees a way for him to be saved... and freed from this awful burden. I trust the Lord will do what is best for the man Sherem, that I do. I do not think he will be unhappy in the end.

Best Wishes,

TAO

EDIT: In truth, this sin is the truly unpardonable one. The rest are pardonable based on conditions of it happening... but this one is unpardonable... guaranteed.... if it happens. We don't know if it happened with Sherem or not... he feared it did... he looks to God and hopes it didn't. =0. =/. I worry for him, alot... he seems to have changed a bit. I hope Christ will know what to do with him that is best. =/. I worry.

[Calm]

The only unforgivable sin is choosing not to accept the Atonement. While you're not accepting it, you are choosing not to be forgiven. You are chosing be lost, which is literally what Perdition means.

There is nothing you can do that takes you out of the power of the Atonement except for choosing not to accept it.

Once you accept it, you're no longer Lost. Remember, God is always searching after the One.

Well said.

[Calm]

But is that the teaching of the Church?

LDS Guy says there are three unforgivable sins.

Two seem to be possible only for Church members, but I'm unclear on how The LDS Church actually defines the first (i.e. the blasphemy of The Spirit)?

Is that something that could only be committed by a member of the Church?

im, the best way to find out what the Church teaches is to go to lds.org and read it for yourself without the interpretations attached by others. There are several manuals online as well as a great "Study by Topic" you can find at http://lds.org/study/topics?lang=eng You'll save time and confusion by going to the source.

Trying link out of sentence to see if that corrects the automatic putting in of the period now:

http://lds.org/study/topics?lang=eng

[inquiringmind]

im, the best way to find out what the Church teaches is to go to lds.org and read it for yourself without the interpretations attached by others. There are several manuals online as well as a great "Study by Topic" you can find at http://lds.org/study/topics?lang=eng. You'll save time and confusion by going to the source.

I followed that link, and I come to a page that says "Study by Topic" (which is what I want to do), but that only working options on that page seem to be "search all lds.org," and "go to classic lds.org."

How do I "search by topic"?

[Rivers]

So as you asked I have done far more than double checked the scriptures, and invite you to read D&C 84: 40-41 as well, the Priesthood is not something that one should treat lightly, failure to fulfill your Oath and Covenant has eternal consequences.

What exactly is the Oath and Covenant which shouldn't be broken?

[inquiringmind]

im, the best way to find out what the Church teaches is to go to lds.org and read it for yourself without the interpretations attached by others. There are several manuals online as well as a great "Study by Topic" you can find at http://lds.org/study/topics?lang=eng. You'll save time and confusion by going to the source.

I created an account, and I still can't figure out how to "study by topic."

LeSellers said "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that only its members are candidates for Hell," and I'd like to know if that's an acurate statement?

The first of LDS Guy's "3 sins of perdition" seems vague to me.

If The Blasphemy of The Spirit is a separate sin from shedding innocent blood after receiving the priesthood, or breaking one's covenant vows, how does the LDS Church define it?

(I did a keyword search on lds.org, on "The Blasphemy of The Spirit" and got no results.)

Did the Pharisees commit this sin when they accused Jesus of casting out demons by the king of demons?

Were they "Church members"?

I'm confussed here and I'd like some help..

[rameumptom]

To be a Son of Perdition, one must blaspheme against the Holy Ghost. To do this does not just mean you use HG as a cuss word.

One must hold proper priesthood authority and have a witness of Christ born of the Holy Ghost. Some GAs have suggested that this witness must be a sure witness (having seen Christ). Then the person must fully and completely forsake all goodness and Christ's atonement, and embrace Satan and his darkness. Finally, he seals it by murdering an innocent, just as Cain slew Abel, and then rejoiced.

Sherem probably is not eligible as a son of perdition. Chances are he was not a priesthood holder. He was not fully rejecting God and his ways. He seemed repentant at the end of his life, and he had not murdered an innocent. It is more likely he misunderstood the concept of the unpardonable sin. It is unpardonable only because the individual refuses to be forgive of Christ through repenting.

[frankenstein]

LeSellers said "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints teaches that only its members are candidates for Hell," and I'd like to know if that's an acurate statement?

In general principle yes, the statements the LDS do have about Outer Darkness (Hell), are from LDS Apostles who say "I am the only one in the room who needs to worry about going there" or something to that affect. Is it possible for a Non-LDS person to experience the Heavens open and see Christ and God, then have that scene confirmed as truth by the Holy Ghost, it is possible. Not something the world has heard of for a very long time, but it is possible. So generally, Lehi (Lesellers was correct).

If The Blasphemy of The Spirit is a separate sin from shedding innocent blood after receiving the priesthood, or breaking one's covenant vows, how does the LDS Church define it?

Jospeh Smith, King Follet discourse:

"All sins shall be forgiven, except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it."

Did the Pharisees commit this sin when they accused Jesus of casting out demons by the king of demons?

I will say No they did not, and it is likely that Judas did not commit this sin either.

[inquiringmind]

In general principle yes, the statements the LDS do have about Outer Darkness (Hell), are from LDS Apostles who say "I am the only one in the room who needs to worry about going there" or something to that affect. Is it possible for a Non-LDS person to experience the Heavens open and see Christ and God, then have that scene confirmed as truth by the Holy Ghost, it is possible. Not something the world has heard of for a very long time, but it is possible. So generally, Lehi (Lesellers was correct).

Jospeh Smith, King Follet discourse:

"All sins shall be forgiven, except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it."

I will say No they did not, and it is likely that Judas did not commit this sin either.

But what does "the heavens being open" mean?

The Pharisees saw Jesus cast out demons and heal the sick, and Judas saw Him calm the sea and raise Lazarus.

Did they have "the heavens opened to them"?

What about David?

He slew a 9 ft. Giant with a sling shot, and saw a man struck dead when he reached out and touched the ark of the covenant.

Did he have the heavens opened to him?

What about someone outside the LDS Church, who has observed unusual circumstances in his life, and thought (at one time) that he had received the answers to prayers?

Would he have had "the heavens opened unto him"?

[frankenstein]

But what does "the heavens being open" mean?

I would the scripture provide ample commentary. Saul/Paul I think would be a good example. Isiah would be another example - he saw God, and angles and his and a hot coal was placed on his tongue. Alma another example.

As for casting out demons or slaying a giant.

Slaying a giant could have been a lucky shot. I know someone who killed a cow by tossing a small stone at its head. As for touching the ark, could have been "baghdad batteries"

If the take the OT literally, then Pharaohs people had some sort of "power" over the elements. So, seeing a "demon" cast out would not be the "Heavens open". Just look things on the movie "Exercist" some claim the affliction was all in the head of the individual and that there is no evidence of God from the situation.