Jump to content

Three unpardonable sins?


inquiringmind

Recommended Posts

According to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there are 3 unpardonable sins:

1) Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (See Matthew 12:30-32, Mark 3:28-30, Luke 12:8-10, Hebrews 6:4-8, Hebrews 10:26-29)

2) For a member of the Church to commit murder (See D&C 42:18 http://lds.org/scrip....18?lang=eng#17)

3) To break your Priesthood Covenants with God (See D&C 84:40-41 http://lds.org/scrip...-41?lang=eng#39)

Is this one sin, or three?

Link to comment

Is this one sin, or three?

They are three individual actions that all fall under the same general category, which is to betray Heavenly Father and his Plan of Salvation, IMO.

So ultimately they are all one sin, we just define it three different ways, based upon actions taken.

Link to comment

According to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints there are 3 unpardonable sins:

1) Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (See Matthew 12:30-32, Mark 3:28-30, Luke 12:8-10, Hebrews 6:4-8, Hebrews 10:26-29)

2) For a member of the Church to commit murder (See D&C 42:18 http://lds.org/scrip....18?lang=eng#17)

3) To break your Priesthood Covenants with God (See D&C 84:40-41 http://lds.org/scrip...-41?lang=eng#39)

Is this one sin, or three?

The list above is incorrect, and LDS Guy 1986, in previous threads, has been corrected. The church will baptize a murderer, and even re-baptize a murderer, at the discretion of the First Presidency (negating the claim that one is permanently lost as a Son of Perdition if they commit murder).

The following sections from the 2010 Handbooks state clearly:

A person who has been convicted of murder, or who has confessed to it even in private confessions to a priesthood leader, may not be baptized and confirmed unless the First Presidency gives permission. The request for permission must include all pertinent details as determined during a personal interview by the mission president (if the person is seeking baptism for the first time) or the bishop (if a former member is seeking readmission). As used here, murder does not include police or military action in the line of duty. Abortion is not defined as murder for this purpose.

and further:

If the person was disfellowshipped or excommunicated for any of the following reasons, or if he committed any of these transgressions after being disfellowshipped or excommunicated, the approval of the First Presidency is required before he may be reinstated to full fellowship or readmitted by baptism and confirmation. For the purposes of Church discipline, some of the following terms are defined in 6.7.3.

1. Murder

2. Incest

3. Sexual offense against a child or serious physical abuse of a child by an adult or by a youth who is several years older than the child

4. Apostasy

5. Committing a serious transgression while holding a prominent Church position

6. An elective transsexual operation

7. Embezzlement of Church funds or property

In these circumstances, the presiding officer conducts the disciplinary council as stated previously. Preauthorization from the First Presidency is not required to convene the council. If the disciplinary council recommends a change in status, the presiding officer may notify the person of this recommendation. However, he explains that the status cannot be changed until the First Presidency gives written approval of the recommendation.

H.

Link to comment

Is this one sin, or three?

See here for the LDS identification of the unpardonable sin:

http://lds.org/scrip...le-sin?lang=eng

Definition given in link: "The sin of denying the Holy Ghost, a sin that cannot be forgiven."

The "murder" or "shedding of innocent blood" spoken of is Christ's, basically doing that which would amount to crucifying him (if they had the chance) after having received a knowledge of him as their Saviour, etc through the New and Everlasting Covenant:

  • [*]They have no forgiveness, having denied the Only Begotten Son, having crucified him unto themselves, D&C 76:30
Link to comment

The list above is incorrect, and LDS Guy 1986, in previous threads, has been corrected. The church will baptize a murderer, and even re-baptize a murderer, at the discretion of the First Presidency (negating the claim that one is permanently lost as a Son of Perdition if they commit murder).

The following sections from the 2010 Handbooks state clearly:

and further:

H.

If the first presidency receives revelation about the decision then it wasn't murder according to the celestial law, even if it is considered murder by man's law.

The First Presidency approval is needed because murder is unforgivable and only revelatory approval from the First Presidency can allow someone who has committed the crime of murder previously from being baptized.

But also you leave out that one cannot be baptized if they are on probation or incarcerated, so your point is moot and derails the conversation since most if not all convicted first degree murders are either incarcerated or no parlor or probation and cannot be baptized anyway, without a exception from the First Presidency (which is rarely granted).

Your false statement that I was corrected is not more false now than it was when it was first made, a member that murders is excommunicated and is pretty much guaranteed to never be re-baptized.

Also note that you fail to acknowledge that this applies only to members of the Church according to the D&C.

A non member who murders has a better chance because they were ignorant of the law before receiving the gospel message and the Lord has mercy on those without the law, a member has no excuse they willingly took innocent life after knowing the consequences of doing so.

If you refuse to truthfully present the facts of the argument without bias, I politely suggest you recluse yourself from the discussion.

Link to comment

If the first presidency receives revelation about the decision then it wasn't murder according to the celestial law, even if it is considered murder by man's law.

CFR. I see nothing that suggests that in the Handbook.

But also you leave out that one cannot be baptized if they are on probation or incarcerated, so your point is moot and derails the conversation since most if not all convicted first degree murders are either incarcerated or no parlor or probation and cannot be baptized anyway, without a exception from the First Presidency (which is rarely granted).

Perhaps, but there are also convicted murderers who have served their time and are releases. But, I'd like a CFR on how you know that such baptisms are rarely granted.

Your false statement that I was corrected is not more false now than it was when it was first made, a member that murders is excommunicated and is pretty much guaranteed to never be re-baptized.

Really? Pretty much guaranteed? Does that leave room in your mind? What if I told you that I've seen a person, who was convicted of murder, who admitted to that murder, and who honestly repented before God, be allowed entry into the waters of baptism? How could you explain that? And no, I can't provide names/places/dates.

Also note that you fail to acknowledge that this applies only to members of the Church according to the D&C.

Incorrect. Section 6.12.10 deals with members who have received church discipline for murder. Re-read the quote.

If you refuse to truthfully present the facts of the argument without bias, I politely suggest you recluse yourself from the discussion.

I truthfully presented the Church Handbook of Instructions with respect to the sin of murder and baptism and re-admittance, and said little else. Unless you are stating that the Handbook is biased and false....

H.

Link to comment

Didn't Brigham Young, and some general authorities, pretty much say what LDS guy is saying here (and add adultery and fornication, at least when commited by LDS church members) to his list?

And didn't they also say that it was possible for the offenders to (voluntarily) atone for these "unpardonable sins" with their own blood?

(I seem to remember Gary Gilmore choosing death by firing squard, because he wanted to atone for a string of murders.)

Link to comment

CFR. I see nothing that suggests that in the Handbook.

No handbook overrides the scriptures, the First Presidency receives renovation from God, just as Moses would receive revelation from God to judge difficult cases in the OT and the Apostles receive revelations from God to make decisions in the NT.

When dealing with one who committed the crime of murder, they seek the will of the Lord to see what he wants done, if the man is a murder in the Lords eyes then they cannot grant him a baptism.

Perhaps, but there are also convicted murderers who have served their time and are releases.

This isn't impossible but very unlikely in the US convicted murders tend to stay in jail or if they are released are on probation or parole for life.

But, I'd like a CFR on how you know that such baptisms are rarely granted.

I never said that I had any reference to this, only my understanding of the Church system as it has been explained to me, if you can refute this with evidence I will gladly admit I was misinformed and retract the statement.

Really? Pretty much guaranteed? Does that leave room in your mind? What if I told you that I've seen a person, who was convicted of murder, who admitted to that murder, and who honestly repented before God, be allowed entry into the waters of baptism? How could you explain that? And no, I can't provide names/places/dates.

As I said before, what the law defines as murder is not always what the Lord defines as murder, also if you would take your head out of the sand on one point it would be this, understand that murder as an unforgivable sin APPLIES ONLY TO MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH. Non members are not held to the same standard by Heavenly Father because they didn't have the law, and since they were without the law they can not be judged by the law.

As I said before please fine me any case every, of a member who commits premeditated murder, ever being re-baptized after excommunication. If you do I will admit I was wrong, if not then my point still stands as I stated it, even though you continuously take it out of context and refuse to acknowledge that.

Link to comment

Didn't Brigham Young, and some general authorities, pretty much say what LDS guy is saying here (and add adultery and fornication, at least when commited by LDS church members) to his list?

Yes, but some like to place dog house lawyer and say that since non members who have committed murder are the possibility of baptism, that I am wrong.

What they fail to realize is I am only taking about members of the LDS Church who commit premeditated murder, not non members. If anyone can produce even one verifiable case of any First Presidency allowing a member excommunicated for premeditated murder being re-baptized I will consider retracting my statements till then it's only people who seek to derail doing there worst to attack gospel truths.

Link to comment

And didn't they also say that it was possible for the offenders to (voluntarily) atone for these "unpardonable sins" with their own blood?

(I seem to remember Gary Gilmore choosing death by firing squard, because he wanted to atone for a string of murders.)

Yes, Brigham Young did support the idea of blood atonement for murder but later prophets have refuted this and the policy no longer stands or is taught by the Church.

Link to comment

No handbook overrides the scriptures, the First Presidency receives renovation from God, just as Moses would receive revelation from God to judge difficult cases in the OT and the Apostles receive revelations from God to make decisions in the NT.

When dealing with one who committed the crime of murder, they seek the will of the Lord to see what he wants done, if the man is a murder in the Lords eyes then they cannot grant him a baptism.

You might want to look up repentance...

This isn't impossible but very unlikely in the US convicted murders tend to stay in jail or if they are released are on probation or parole for life.

The world is bigger than the USA.

I never said that I had any reference to this, only my understanding of the Church system as it has been explained to me, if you can refute this with evidence I will gladly admit I was misinformed and retract the statement.

You're understanding is incorrect, and whoever explained this concept to you is incorrect. I've presented you with factual statements from the Handbook. You have presented me with opinion, and incorrect opinion at that. Poor form.

As I said before, what the law defines as murder is not always what the Lord defines as murder, also if you would take your head out of the sand on one point it would be this, understand that murder as an unforgivable sin APPLIES ONLY TO MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH. Non members are not held to the same standard by Heavenly Father because they didn't have the law, and since they were without the law they can not be judged by the law.

Did you read the section I quote, about MEMBERS applying for re-admittance, after they've committed murder?

As I said before please fine me any case every, of a member who commits premeditated murder, ever being re-baptized after excommunication. If you do I will admit I was wrong, if not then my point still stands as I stated it, even though you continuously take it out of context and refuse to acknowledge that.

I offered you an example of from personal experience. You know as well as I that the church doesn't publish records of excommunication.

LDS Guy, I think you are trying too hard to prove me wrong, but it's not me you are fighting against, it's your own incorrect view of the way the church works.

H.

Link to comment

Didn't Brigham Young, and some general authorities, pretty much say what LDS guy is saying here (and add adultery and fornication, at least when commited by LDS church members) to his list?

And didn't they also say that it was possible for the offenders to (voluntarily) atone for these "unpardonable sins" with their own blood?

(I seem to remember Gary Gilmore choosing death by firing squard, because he wanted to atone for a string of murders.)

Yes, this is why well-meaning people like LDS Guy get confused, because there are historical practices that conflict with current practices. The current, official church stance on blood atonement is found here.

H.

Link to comment

It's a whole lot easier than one would think:

Unpardonable Sin

See also Blaspheme, Blasphemy; Holy Ghost; Murder; Sons of Perdition.

The sin of denying the Holy Ghost, a sin that cannot be forgiven.

Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men, Matt. 12:31

Link to comment

Yes, this is why well-meaning people like LDS Guy get confused, because there are historical practices that conflict with current practices. The current, official church stance on blood atonement is found here.

H.

The only one confuse is your toronto, unfortunately you refuse to listen to anyone that disagrees with you it appears. I have plenty of support across multiple threads but you have either not read any of those posts or ignore them because you rather twist reality than look at it for what it really is.

Here is a link to the other thread this is currently discussed on: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/53879-sins-of-perdition/page__pid__1208994436__st__20#entry1208994436

Link to comment

The only one confuse is your toronto, unfortunately you refuse to listen to anyone that disagrees with you it appears. I have plenty of support across multiple threads but you have either not read any of those posts or ignore them because you rather twist reality than look at it for what it really is.

Here is a link to the other thread this is currently discussed on: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/53879-sins-of-perdition/page__pid__1208994436__st__20#entry1208994436

I've read the other thread and posted here because you asked that the other thread not be derailed. And while some support your line of thinking, others don't. I'd suggest that while you are referring to scripture, you also have to refer to modern prophets and what they have spoken on the matter. The handbook is approved by the Office of the First Presidency. If there are contradictions with scripture, then it is a matter you have to take up with them, not me.

There is no confusion on my part - over the years, I've sat in on over 20 disciplinary councils for expulsion and re-admittance, and have had to abide by the handbook in every single case. If we'd used the expansive view of unpardonable sin that you are are advocating for, we'd never have re-admitted a single person.

Take, for example, the case of a sealed and endowed high priest who breaks the law of chastity. In the "sins of perdition" thread you claim that this is an unpardonable sin, because of violation of a temple covenant and violation of the oath and covenant of the priesthood. You also claim that, if the First Presidency approves re-admittance of this brother, that the sin wasn't unpardonable in the Lord's eyes.

What I struggle to understand is how you know that the Lord views the same sin pardonable and unpardonable, dependent on instance. I've never come across this teaching; perhaps you could expand on it. If this teaching is just a statement of opinion, then please state unequivocally that it is your opinion and that it is not founded on any tenet of LDS theology. But, if you can link it to LDS theology, please show how it is linked.

H.

Link to comment

Take, for example, the case of a sealed and endowed high priest who breaks the law of chastity. In the "sins of perdition" thread you claim that this is an unpardonable sin, because of violation of a temple covenant and violation of the oath and covenant of the priesthood. You also claim that, if the First Presidency approves re-admittance of this brother, that the sin wasn't unpardonable in the Lord's eyes.

H.

from what LDSguy has posted, this scenario would not fall within unpardonable. About a week or so ago LDSguy said he asked a visiting authority about section 42 "receive covenants, break, and altogether turn away therefrom", LDSguy said the visiting Authority said that verse pertains to unrepentant persons. So in the scenario above, on person did receive and break, but did not altogether turn away therefrom, but rather repented.

Link to comment

from what LDSguy has posted, this scenario would not fall within unpardonable. About a week or so ago LDSguy said he asked a visiting authority about section 42 "receive covenants, break, and altogether turn away therefrom", LDSguy said the visiting Authority said that verse pertains to unrepentant persons. So in the scenario above, on person did receive and break, but did not altogether turn away therefrom, but rather repented.

At least I am not the only one that sees how stubbornly close minded Toronto is when disagrees. The fact that he can't produce anything that contradicts what I have said in context is the vetting of my position, IMO. Not that I need the truth of the gospel to be vetted by men, of course, it is just nice to see that I am not the only one who see's that Toronto tends to ignore key parts of arguments against him.

*Small correction though it was section 84 not section 42, from the thread regarding the visiting authority. *

Link to comment

Is this one sin, or three?

This is the Trinity of Unpardonable Sins. The Unpardonable Sin exists as three hypostases, but it is one sin, that is, it has a single sinful nature. This way we can believe in a multiplicity of sins, and yet continue to call ourselves "monosinists." </tongue in cheek> :P

Link to comment

What I struggle to understand is how you know that the Lord views the same sin pardonable and unpardonable, dependent on instance. I've never come across this teaching; perhaps you could expand on it. If this teaching is just a statement of opinion, then please state unequivocally that it is your opinion and that it is not founded on any tenet of LDS theology. But, if you can link it to LDS theology, please show how it is linked.

Toronto the problem has been and will be is that you cannot learn what I am saying if you keep your pride from letting you see the full case I am presenting. As I have said again and again, men cannot decide what is unpardonable or not because we lack the entire understanding to make such decisions, only Christ sits worthy to make such judgement. As Christ has revealed to his Prophet Joseph Smith in D&C 84:41 if someone breaks the Oath of the Priesthood and never repents and make restitution they have committed an unpardonable sin. This case you present the brother repented and made restitution for the sin was not unpardonable.

In the case of murder though, one must understand that a murder in Toronto is not the same a murder in Raleigh North Carolina, each jurisdiction has there own definitions and varying degrees of murder because our laws are not the same as God laws one can commit the crime of murder according to the law of man, but not be a murdered according to the celestial law of God. This is why murders must receive an exemption from the prohibition against murders being baptized by the First Presidency, as the Living Prophet Thomas S. Monson can receive the will of the Lord on this matter and know if the person is eligible for baptism. The decision isn't President Monson's to make but for the Savior Jesus Christ to make and reveal to Thomas S. Monson his chosen prophet for our day.

The same thing has happened throughout the scriptures, when the lower authorities lack the wisdom or right to decide a case they would bring it to the prophet and he would petition God for an answer. Moses did this when he was in charge of Israel in the wilderness, the Church would bring complex and difficult issues to Peter to seek the will of the Lord in the New Testament, why does the Living Prophet all of a sudden lose this power to discover the will of the lord in your opinion?

So the ultimate answer to your question is you are misguided here, the Lord is not saying anything is unpardonable then saying it is not, you in your stubborn pride are not looking at what I am saying and in your bias have disregarded much of the core of my position. Which in reality is not very different than yours, if you would simply look at it without pride or bias.

The only difference here is you say the prophet cannot receive the Will of the Lord to find out if a crime committed which may be a unpardonable sin has broken the celestial law and is a unpardonable sin, and I say as the Living Prophet that he can receive such knowledge.

Link to comment

Didn't Brigham Young, and some general authorities, pretty much say what LDS guy is saying here (and add adultery and fornication, at least when commited by LDS church members) to his list?

And didn't they also say that it was possible for the offenders to (voluntarily) atone for these "unpardonable sins" with their own blood?

(I seem to remember Gary Gilmore choosing death by firing squard, because he wanted to atone for a string of murders.)

No.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...