Three unpardonable sins?

[Curtis Weber]

Ehat & Cook, The Words of Joseph Smith, 335 (10 March 1844, Franklin D. Richards

[LDSToronto]

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.

...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.

I disagree with you, but not because of pride. Please refrain from judgment and stick to what I've actually said, rather than guessing at what sin motivates my disagreement.

H.

[Curtis Weber]

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 see this rhetoric as hyperbolic; even Joseph Smith said the same of the apostates in his day in 1841:

The speaker then contrasted the charity of the sects, in denouncing all who disagree with them in opinion, and in joining in persecuting the saints, with the faith of the saints, who believe that even such may be saved in this world and in the world to come, (murderers and apostates excepted.) [WJS, 78])

And again in 1844:

What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin they must receive the Holy Ghost have the heavens opened unto them, & know God, & then sin against him, this is the case with many apostates in this Church (WJS, 347)

Was he saying that the apostates were all sons of perdition? That can hardly be the case given the very high qualifications he specified for becoming such, and we know the names of those who received the fulness of the priesthood in the Prophet's lifetime. Again, I take such comments as hyperbolic in nature.

[LDS Guy 1986]

I disagree with you, but not because of pride. Please refrain from judgment and stick to what I've actually said, rather than guessing at what sin motivates my disagreement.

H.

There is no judgement only observation of actions I have seen, you are completely disingenuous and blatantly ignore the core of what I have said, so by the observations I see I made a statement of my interpretation for your observable actions. Any judgement if only there because you want it to be, I do not judge any person only state the observed behaviors, judgement is between you and the Lord, as I have constantly stated.

If you could take off your blinders for a second and see that then you would understand everything I have been saying all along. Men can only observe actions and take steps according to our understanding of the Gospel, Jesus Christ is the only one that can determine is any action has made the person unforgivable, which is why disciplinary councils must seek the approval of the prophet when someone has potentially committed an unforgivable sin. Still fail to see any reason for you arguing against besides the pride and stubbornness of your responses.

I apologize that your cannot see that I am not casting any judgement only stating what I observe to the best of my ability, if you ever figure that out you will understand what I have been saying all along.

[LDS Guy 1986]

The oath and covenant passage in D&C 84, despite commonly-held belief, applies to persons who have received this fulness, not to 19-year-olds who leave the Church and abandon its teachings completely after being ordained elders.

I agree, as I have said repeatedly but many seem to rather not look at what I present and instead make useless hypothetical situation, where what I have presented is proven not refuted.

[LDS Guy 1986]

No.

It's two question and one has to present somethings besides no. Why do you say no?

No that blood atonement was a policy under Brigham Young (which is wrong)

or No that it is a current practice of the Church (which is right)

[LDSToronto]

There is no judgement only observation of actions I have seen, you are completely disingenuous and blatantly ignore the core of what I have said, so by the observations I see I made a statement of my interpretation for your observable actions. Any judgement if only there because you want it to be, I do not judge any person only state the observed behaviors, judgement is between you and the Lord, as I have constantly stated.

If you could take off your blinders for a second and see that then you would understand everything I have been saying all along. Men can only observe actions and take steps according to our understanding of the Gospel, Jesus Christ is the only one that can determine is any action has made the person unforgivable, which is why disciplinary councils must seek the approval of the prophet when someone has potentially committed an unforgivable sin. Still fail to see any reason for you arguing against besides the pride and stubbornness of your responses.

I apologize that your cannot see that I am not casting any judgement only stating what I observe to the best of my ability, if you ever figure that out you will understand what I have been saying all along.

Just a hint - saying someone is prideful based on what they write, that's judgmental.

H.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Just a hint - saying someone is prideful based on what they write, that's judgmental.

H.

Only to one who fails to differentiate actions from people, I can say you are acting prideful and admit that this is an observation and I lack the ability to see and understand your motives and reasons.

If such is the case, I accept that you are unable to differentiate, but being about to differentiate between actions of a person and the person themselves doesn't make you right.

I can comment on the nature of your actions while admitting that such actions may not reflect your inner character and only reflect your current actions as I observe.

[LDSToronto]

Only to one who fails to differentiate actions from people, I can say you are acting prideful and admit that this is an observation and I lack the ability to see and understand your motives and reasons.

If such is the case, I accept that you are unable to differentiate, but being about to differentiate between actions of a person and the person themselves doesn't make you right.

I can comment on the nature of your actions while admitting that such actions may not reflect your inner character and only reflect your current actions as I observe.

Ah, so it's perfectly valid for me to say that you are acting like someone who can't comprehend basic doctrines of the LDS, while at the same time admit that it is possible that you are a gospel scholar. And further, this idea that you are ignorant of basic doctrines is only a reflection of your current actions as I observe?

OK, I'm good with that.

H.

[LDS Guy 1986]

Ah, so it's perfectly valid for me to say that you are acting like someone who can't comprehend basic doctrines of the LDS, while at the same time admit that it is possible that you are a gospel scholar. And further, this idea that you are ignorant of basic doctrines is only a reflection of your current actions as I observe?

OK, I'm good with that.

H.

If that is what you precieve based upon my actions that is fine, you can no more make judgment only state what you observe, now your example seems unlikely though because you do have knowledge through discourses with me that I have a understanding of the Gospel just that my understanding differs from yours, so if you were to present this it would be false witness since you know other wise.

Disagreeing with my interpretation is not grounds for your theoretical observation.

I would say you saying that my interpretation of the Gospel appears to be based in a lack of context to the entirety of the scriptures would be a more appropriate response.

I would also accept that I appear to be an ignoramus, wither works.

Added by Edit:

Why use the word valid?

As you state this is the internet the concept of anything being valid went out the window the second you click on the icon to open your browser.

The internet has nothing to do with validity and everything to do with opinion and "proof"!