Atonement

[teddyaware]

Yeah, we'll that didn't strike me as off, what struck me as racy was the reference to them laying with other men, kind of an in your face sort of thing with women being handed around...that is what seemed kind of racy.

Hopefully, David's former wives had some say in the matter before they were handed over to the "neighbor," whomever he might be.

[Stone holm]

Hopefully, David's former wives had some say in the matter before they were handed over to the "neighbor," whomever he might be.

Um, I think they had quite a bit less say back then than they do now especially amongst the nobility.

[teddyaware]

Um, I think they had quite a bit less say back then than they do now especially amongst the nobility.

Nevertheless, because they had the law, the scriptures and actual living prophets in their midst, they were likely not quite as barbaric as their heathen neighbors.

[dgd]

11 Thus saith the Lord, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house, and I will take thy wives before thine eyes, and give them unto thy neighbour, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun." (2 Samuel 12)

Do you find the last part of the last verse a bit strange in a religion that places family values as the be all end all?

I've always taken v 11 to mean something along these lines. While David intended to hide his actions through deceit, what would happen to him because of his sins would be for all to see.

[Stone holm]

Nevertheless, because they had the law, the scriptures and actual living prophets in their midst, they were likely not quite as barbaric as their heathen neighbors.

Want to elaborate about the various degrees of barbarism?

[Questing Beast]

David had his wives given to him, yet he and Solomon committed sin by having "many wives and concubines" and it was "abominable before [the Lord]" (Jacob 2:24). No inconsistency in the scripture there, no sir.

Clearly, the scriptures are not reliable in judging David as a murderer or of being "abominable" in the sight of God. So leave it to God. David's sin was inarguable adultery and betrayal of a subject to death instead of protection as was the king's duty. That is why he is accused of killing Uriah. But anyone not a king, who had created that scenario outside the walls of the enemy city would have been at most found guilty of manslaughter. David was not judged by the standards of "lesser" men, and of course he was found wanting. But to extend his fate into the afterlife is not for any mortal to do. So, speculate away. If Jesus Christ said David was a "man after the Lord's own heart", I find it inconceivable that he was guilty of actual murder in his heart....

[Stone holm]

David had his wives given to him, yet he and Solomon committed sin by having "many wives and concubines" and it was "abominable before [the Lord]" (Jacob 2:24). No inconsistency in the scripture there, no sir.

Clearly, the scriptures are not reliable in judging David as a murderer or of being "abominable" in the sight of God. So leave it to God. David's sin was inarguable adultery and betrayal of a subject to death instead of protection as was the king's duty. That is why he is accused of killing Uriah. But anyone not a king, who had created that scenario outside the walls of the enemy city would have been at most found guilty of manslaughter. David was not judged by the standards of "lesser" men, and of course he was found wanting. But to extend his fate into the afterlife is not for any mortal to do. So, speculate away. If Jesus Christ said David was a "man after the Lord's own heart", I find it inconceivable that he was guilty of actual murder in his heart....

It is clearly stated that while it was given to him to have multiple wives, he took additional wives merely to satisfy his own lust. It is not given that all men have multiple wives, or that they have howsoever many as they choose. You may find it that he did not have murder in his heart, but the scriptures disagree.

[SamIam]

David did not murder Uriah. He created a scenario where death was highly likely, but David left it up to chance, to "God". David's sin was taking another man's wife. The death of Uriah was an "accident", a chance thing. Murder of Uriah would have involved assassination, not death in battle.

I have never felt comfortable with all the judgments of David by those who were not there. Even

being there would not allow a judgment. The prophet spoke for God in condemning David's adultery and duplicity and exposing both to the world. Then David's "payment", his comeupance began. They lost the baby. They lost their peaceful family life and his life after that was hounded to the grave by intrigues, crimes perpetrated by his children, wars and finally death almost in exile. After that we have no knowledge of his state. Adultery can be repented of and the CK obtained. Wanting someone to die and having it happen can be repented of and the CK obtained. Wanton murder cannot, as far as I know. But how many wanton murderers are there out of all those who kill? A wanton murderer would have to be doing it knowingly as the ultimate crime, and relish in it, and multiply examples to their dark heart's content. They would blow up the world if they could, slowly, agonizingly, torturing as many as possible for as long as possible, that's the mindset of the unforgivable murderer, imho, of course. I think such a being is a mythic creature. Even the horrid murderer in Idaho a few years back, who killed the parents, kidnapped the brother and sister, raped both repeatedly, killed the brother, and filmed all of his acts with them, and later showed his videos in court in his own "defense", to judge, jury and any others present, so that he could hurt them forever, destroy their peace: even that guy does not fit the criteria of what I described as the unrepentant murderer mentality. So far as I know, anyway. And he comes about as close to it as I can recollect. David, on the other hand, is almost entirely lacking in any of the "requirements" for such a darkened personality....

Joseph Smith also was not there either but he weighs in on the David issue, perhaps his observations will be compelling to you.

Murder not Forgiven in this Life - Why? Because they were murderers, and no murderer hath eternal life. Even David, must wait for those times of refreshing, before he can come forth and his sins be blotted out; for Peter speaking of him says, "David hath not yet ascended into Heaven, for his sepulchre is with us to this day:" His remains were then in the tomb. Now we read that many bodies of the saints arose, at Christ's resurrection, probably all the saints, but it seems that David did not. 13 Why? Because he had been a murderer…

If the ministers of religion had a proper understanding of the doctrine of eternal judgment, they would not be found attending the man who had forfeited his life to the injured laws of his country by shedding innocent blood; for such characters cannot be forgiven, until they have paid the last farthing. 14 The prayers of all the ministers in the world could never close the gates of hell against a murderer.(Joseph Smith, The Words of Joseph Smith: compiled and edited by Andrew F. Ehat and Lyndon W. Cook [Provo: BYU Religious Studies Center, 1980], 72-73.)

Edited April 24, 2013 by SamIam

[teddyaware]

Want to elaborate about the various degrees of barbarism?

Not in the mood to do the research required.

Edited April 24, 2013 by teddyaware

[teddyaware]

David had his wives given to him, yet he and Solomon committed sin by having "many wives and concubines" and it was "abominable before [the Lord]" (Jacob 2:24). No inconsistency in the scripture there, no sir.

Clearly, the scriptures are not reliable in judging David as a murderer or of being "abominable" in the sight of God. So leave it to God. David's sin was inarguable adultery and betrayal of a subject to death instead of protection as was the king's duty. That is why he is accused of killing Uriah. But anyone not a king, who had created that scenario outside the walls of the enemy city would have been at most found guilty of manslaughter. David was not judged by the standards of "lesser" men, and of course he was found wanting. But to extend his fate into the afterlife is not for any mortal to do. So, speculate away. If Jesus Christ said David was a "man after the Lord's own heart", I find it inconceivable that he was guilty of actual murder in his heart....

I've noticed there are a number of participants on this board who, with great confidence, posit opinions without doing the legwork to make sure the opinions so posited are accurate.

There is no such inconsistency in the scriptures on this point as you assert. Pay particular attention to the highlighted portions of the following scripture quote:

"38 David also received many wives and concubines, and also Solomon and Moses my servants, as also many others of my servants, from the beginning of creation until this time; and in nothing did they sin save in those things which they received not of me.

39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord." (D&C 132)

David's plural wives did not become an abomination until he sinned in the case of Uriah and Bathsheba. That sin tainted the sanctity of his marriages to the others because he committed adultry on all of them when he took Bathsheba in unrighteousness.

Edited April 25, 2013 by teddyaware

[savedbygrace]

It is my understanding and belief that Christ atoned for all sins ever committed. However, that doesn't mean His atonement will cover all the ones He paid for. Why? Because His atonement will not redeem us unless we repent. It requires the use of agency to accept His sacrifice.

What is the sin that God cannot forgive?

The sin that God cannot forgive is the sin not repented of.

That makes sense thankyou

[savedbygrace]

It is clearly stated that while it was given to him to have multiple wives, he took additional wives merely to satisfy his own lust. It is not given that all men have multiple wives, or that they have howsoever many as they choose. You may find it that he did not have murder in his heart, but the scriptures disagree.

Clearly Christ showed that it is possible to commit serious sin in the heart, as for David's sin, he clearly repents in psalm 51 and begs God to renew him. I think his sin was lust, and for that reason put Uriah in harm's way WISHING him to be killed, but not actually dong the killing. So God knew his motive, and David knew he had sinned and repented. Where David is right now is God's business, not for us to speculate on, because we have all sinned and fallen short, and if we break the law at any point then we have broken it all, makes us equal I suppose.

[savedbygrace]

Can murder and the sin against the Holy Ghost not be repented of?

' Wherefore I say unto you. All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men. And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him, but whosever speaketh against the Holy Ghost ,it shall not be forgiven in this world neither in the world to come' Matt 12:31-32.

In view of the above words of our Lord, all manner of sin shall be forgiven, he doesn't single out any other unforgivable sin than that which is mentioned. So where did the belief that certain sins were beyond Christ's atonement come from?

Edited April 25, 2013 by savedbygrace

[CASteinman]

So where did the belief that certain sins were beyond Christ's atonement come from?

If you think that sin against the Holy Ghost is not what is being spoken of, how about you give an example?

Edited April 25, 2013 by CASteinman

[savedbygrace]

If you think that sin against the Holy Ghost is not what is being spoken of, how about you give an example?

I'm sorry, I can't have made myself clear, according To Christ's words, he states that all manner of sins will be forgiven excpept sin against the Holy Ghost. In relation to the OP which was a question about the doctrine within the LDS church that certain sins were beyond Christ's atonement, and could only be atoned for by the shedding of the sinners own blood. I believe those sins were apostasy, the shedding of innocent blood and women commiting adultery. My last post was the question where did this belief come from, on what was it based?

[Bikeemikey]

Let me preface my response that my experience with agency as been that every action we take changes us, one way or another.

It is my belief that when scriptures refer to those sins as unpardonable, or sins from which there is no repentance, that they mean that the guilty party becomes so hardened that they will never ask forgiveness nor follow the repentance process.

The act of taking another life, in cold blood, is so cruel, inhumane, and evil, that the result is not only loss of life but loss of connection to the Spirit (on the part of the guilty), which loss hardens their heart, permanently.

The act of sinning against the Holy Ghost, of rejecting so great a light and knowledge that you would crucify Jesus Christ again, if you could, is a sign of a heart so hard and unfeeling that they too would never ask God to forgive them, because they want nothing to do with Him.

Does that make sense?

My take on when scriptures or prophets point to sins that cannot be repented of is that they aren't indicating that God wouldn't forgive them for doing so, but rather they would not ask Him to do so, thus nullifying His ability to redeem them, by their agency.

Edit: I am not saying that all people guilty of killing someone else are unpardonable. to me, it depends on their accountability, as well as their spiritual state before it happened. I'm not the judge of how hard one's heart is or isn't.

Scriptural CFR for murder is even suggested as being unforgivable.

People throw this idea around... That shedding of innocent blood is possibly unpardonable- i have yet to see a scripture that comes close to supporting this idea.

[CASteinman]

In relation to the OP which was a question about the doctrine within the LDS church that certain sins were beyond Christ's atonement, and could only be atoned for by the shedding of the sinners own blood. I believe those sins were apostasy, the shedding of innocent blood and women commiting adultery.

Well, out of interest I would like to see a citation for where apostasy and "women commiting adultery" were such sins.

[CASteinman]

Scriptural CFR for murder is even suggested as being unforgivable.

People throw this idea around... That shedding of innocent blood is possibly unpardonable- i have yet to see a scripture that comes close to supporting this idea.

Try D&C 132:19. You would have seen it if you had read it.

Edited April 25, 2013 by CASteinman

[Bikeemikey]

The Book of Mormon helps clarify our understanding of this issue...

"5 Know ye not, my son, that these things (the sins of adultery and fornication) are an abomination in the sight of the Lord; yea, most abominable above all sins save it be the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy Ghost?

6 For behold, if ye deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place in you, and ye know that ye deny it, behold, this is a sin which is unpardonable; yea, and whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness." (Alma 39:5-6)

So let's analyze the Prophet Alma's words of fatherly counsel to his wayward son, Corianton:

Point 1. Alma explains to his son that the misuse of the sacred powers of procreation by someone illuminated through the power of the Holy Ghost to know that Jesus is the Christ and the gospel is true is the second most serious sin in the eyes of God.

Point 2. The two most serious sins are similar in spirit: The first of these is the denial of and Holy Ghost through the rejection of his holy companionship, and a total turning to Satan and the dark side by someone who has received many confirmatory revelations and mighty, continuous outpourings of divine spiritual power. It is said that those who succumb to this sin develop a spirit that wishes to crucify the Son of God afresh and, if at all possible, dethrone God.

Point 3. The second of these greatest of sins is the cold-blooded taking of an innocent human life while the still powerfully indwelling Gift of the Holy Ghost shouts in the soon-to-be murderer's spiritual ears that he is about to do something so terrible that it will totally sever his relationship with God; and then that individual goes ahead and commits the murder anyway.

Point 4. In order for your question to be properly answered, please carefully consider the following words of Alma: "whosoever murdereth against the light and knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea, I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a forgiveness." Please note that while Alma says it is very difficult for one who has enjoyed great light and knowledge from God to be forgiven of murder, he does not say that it is impossible to receive the forgiveness of God fo such.

Point 5. The greater the degree of light and knowledge from God, the more difficult it is to be forgiven by God for murder. Why? Obtaining the forgiveness of God through the atonement of Christ requires a genuine broken heart and contrite spirit on the part of the penitent. Therefore, it requires a very great degree of contrition and broken heartedness on the part of the once spiritually enlightened murderer so as to assure the full sincerity of his repentance.

Point 6. In light of the above, the complete willingness on the part of this kind of murderer to give up his life (rather than to beg and plead to be given life in prison) is one way to show God he is truly sorry and fully repentant. If there is any shedding of the murderer's blood present when the capital punishment is carried out, it is only emblematic of the atoning blood of Christ the sinner hopes will be applied to his soul, there is no atoning power in the blood of the guilty murderer.

I think your interpretation of this verse is the dominant one in the church... I also do not think it is incorrect.

Reading this chapter without the chapter heading makes it hard to directly link it to either fornication or murder...

It seems far more likely to me that he his greatest sin was the impact his actions had on belief-testimony of others.

[Bikeemikey]

If you read Pres. Kimball's two works, "The miracle of Forgiveness" and "Faith Precedes the Miracle " . It is pretty clear about the fate of murderers. When we talk about murder we are talking about something other than the Celestial Kingdom.

It is certainly clear that was his view in the miracle of forgiveness... I am not sure that this is clear from scriptural sources.

[Bikeemikey]

Yeah, its pretty clear that the Prophet at the time considered it murder, but I wouldn't want to say whether he got a ticket to the Telestial or the Terrestial -- just that he lost his Exaltation

CFR from scripture for this...

Given that the bible is full of examples of armies commanded to kill all them that pisseth against the wall - down to the youngest infant - it seems these assertions against David lack a little credibility...

Even if David were excluded from exaltation... It is more likely is relationship of favor with The Lord, which he betrayed, is at least an important component of the weighting.

Just as the denial of the HG is hard to commit... So to may be the shedding of innocent blood... It will be a much more subtle judgement than did you kill someone.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[savedbygrace]

There are many references to blood atonement volume 4 Journal of Discources

[CASteinman]

There are many references to blood atonement volume 4 Journal of Discources

So what? There are also many references to blood atonement in the Bible. What is your point? How does it pertain?

[CASteinman]

CFR from scripture for this...

You know.. its a small thing to read the scriptures for yourself. This is the second time in a few minutes that you have asked for a call for reference from the scriptures and both of them come from the same section of the D&C. Maybe you should read it and get acquainted with it.

Here is verse 39 from D&C 132:

David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord.

[savedbygrace]

So what? There are also many references to blood atonement in the Bible. What is your point? How does it pertain?

Not a point, the question as stated before, where did it come from on what is it based, please clarify re blood atonement in the bible

Edited April 25, 2013 by savedbygrace