Atonement

[SamIam]

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.

Here are a couple of quotes that seem to be somewhat in agreement with the way you are trying to say things. However, concerning David it is hard to determine what you are really saying. You seem to be couching your observations in terms of opinion without supporting references.

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.)

But they who reject the Gospel here, and put off the day of their salvation, and have to be preached to in the spirit world, where their spirits will go, as did the spirits of the antediluvians, those who were swept off by the flood, and to whom Christ in the spirit went and preached, even to "the spirits in prison"—they who put off the day of their salvation, and think "we will have a good time here and will obey the Gospel hereafter," they must answer for this neglect, and after they have answered for it and realized what they have lost, they will be saved—not in the celestial kingdom, but in a lesser kingdom called the terrestrial, the difference between which and the celestial world is as the difference between the moon that rules the night and the sun that is king of day. The heathen nations that were never given the Gospel, and consequently never sinned against it, are also heirs of the terrestrial kingdom. But those who reject the Gospel altogether and are besotted and crime-stained—what of them? It is written that they will be thrust down to hell; even the murderer, the liar, the sorcerer, and the whoremonger. They will, in short, be damned. But they will only be damned to the extent justified by their sins. Even for them there is hope, after they have "paid the uttermost farthing." They will be punished, as all men must be, for neglect of duty, for transgression of the laws of God; but after they have been punished sufficiently, they will be brought forth and saved in a glory of which the stars in heaven are typical. (Orson F. Whitney, Millennial Star, No. 52 vol LX Dec 29, 1898)

You have made a couple of statements concerning how misunderstood these prinicples are. After a fashion I would agree. What I think is often overlooked is possible expectations of what qualifies as "innocent blood" and how one is held accountable to the shedding of such. The question I am trying to consider is which murderers go to the telestial kingdom and which murderers go to Outer darkness? Answering this question is very important. A couple of scriptures to point the way:

Who in the following verse pays the full price for shedding innocent blood and whose innocent blood requires that full price be paid.

Doctrine and Covenants 76:31-37

31 Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power—

32 They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born;

33 For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity;

34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—

35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame.

36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels—

37 And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power;

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.

Alma 39:5-6

5 Know ye not, my son, that these things 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.

The colors highlight two phrases in the verse: are they speaking of identical situations or is there 2 levels or degrees perhaps one a fullness and the other a partial.

Finally, while most may not readily understand it Deuteronomy 19 and the narrative of the Avenger of Blood, the murderer, the manslayer, and the priest is a excellant parable that describes the reason for the fall and what the charges are against mankind and how they are resolved. IF you assign meaning to who is the avenger of blood, who is the murderer, who is the manslayer and who is the priest then this narrative explores this subject well.

Edited April 25, 2013 by SamIam

[Bikeemikey]

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

Vs 27 of the same section goes on to define the sin against the Holy Ghost as murder and the specific phrase of shedding innocent blood is specifically related to refusing the spirit in such a way that causes christs innocent blood to be shed on our behalf in vain.

I am not sure section 132 is as adamant on the issue to physical murder as you are reading it. I am not sure it is talking about physical murder at all.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am going to go out on a limb and say the the only sin that you cannot obtain forgivness for is dening th HG. Murder on the other hand and possibly some other sins may require further payment other than just saying sorry, after we die. The sctiprues allude to people not getting out of prison until they pay the utmost farthing.

[CASteinman]

Not a point, the question as stated before, where did it come from on what is it based,

As before, how about if you provide a reference that those are beliefs. Your claim that they are beliefs is not the same thing as saying that they are.

please clarify re blood atonement in the bible

The Bible teaches that blood must be shed to atone for sins. There are a bunch of these statements but here are just a few that mention it:

Exodus 30;10 And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it is most holy unto the Lord.

Hebrews 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

I John 1:7 the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin.

[CASteinman]

I am not sure section 132 is as adamant on the issue to physical murder as you are reading it. I am not sure it is talking about physical murder at all.

But you didn't ask to be sure. You wanted a scripture that even came close to this. This one comes so close it says it.

Edited April 25, 2013 by CASteinman

[Bikeemikey]

But you didn't ask to be sure. You wanted a scripture that even came close to this. This one comes so close it says it.

It only says it if you ignore the very specific definition of murder that is provided within that same section of the text.

As such, it seems that is the definition of murder that should be used in understanding the text.

Also, how about cooling the overt jabs at my scriptural fluency... they are making the nature of your posts far to adversarial... and are not needed.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[Stone holm]

It depends on what you mean by "unforgivable", I have never understood murder to be the sin against the Holy Ghost , so in that sense it is forgivable. Murderers do not normally become sons of perdition. On the other hand, it is my understanding that they lose their bid for the Celestial Kingdom. But, there may be people that we consider murderers who may not be considered so by God. I don't know to what extent there may be cultural defenses which Christ may apply to some cultures which placed a much lower value on human life than ours, etc.

[CASteinman]

Also, how about cooling the overt jabs at my scriptural fluency... they are making the nature of your posts far to adversarial... and are not needed.

I admit. It bugs me that you call for reference from scriptures -- when it is a simple thing to look them up for yourself.

Despite that, I apologize. I did not mean for it to be adversarial. It did bug me and it should not have.

On the other hand,I would hope that you could be more aware that a call for reference when you know where to look for something is sort of lazy and it says "Go slave and do my work for me". It is a bit disrespectful.

Edited April 25, 2013 by CASteinman

[Bikeemikey]

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: 39 ^aDavid’s wives and concubines were ^bgiven unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the ^ckeys of this power; and in none of these things did he^dsin against me save in the case of ^eUriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath ^ffallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I ^ggavethem unto another, saith the Lord.

This is a very interesting scripture...

The CFR that I intended was that David was specifically excluded from the Celestial kingdom... This verse is the closest we get in the entire canon of scripture to making that claim... however, it falls short of that claim. This scripture specifically states that David has lost his exaltation (his wives)... Now it may be that this is the same as losing access to the Celestial Kingdom...

This entire section is a devoted to the doctrine of exaltation via plural marriage... With out having to adopt an extremist position it is congruent with this section to state that all those who have not entered into the sacred covenant of plural marriage has failed to reach exaltation... this may also be true...

That this is the same as being excluded from the Celestial Kingdom i am not so sure about.

[Bikeemikey]

It depends on what you mean by "unforgivable", I have never understood murder to be the sin against the Holy Ghost , so in that sense it is forgivable. Murderers do not normally become sons of perdition. On the other hand, it is my understanding that they lose their bid for the Celestial Kingdom. But, there may be people that we consider murderers who may not be considered so by God. I don't know to what extent there may be cultural defenses which Christ may apply to some cultures which placed a much lower value on human life than ours, etc.

Here is the verse from D&C 132:

27 The ^ablasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall ^bnot be^cforgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit^dmurder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be ^edamned, saith the Lord.

It specifically relates Sin against the HG and murder.... what is unclear, or rather to me seems very clear, is that the reference to murder has nothing to do with killing anyone in a physical sense... that I believe to be true in other instances where the term Murder is misappropriated and linked to the idea of unforgivability or limited Celestial inheritance.

That is before you even get into the issues of how to judge a murder... Best case scenario, if murder in the physical sense is linked to limited after-death inheritance, then God alone is in a position to judge what is murder... what blood is innocent, we lack the necessary capacity to judge on God's behalf while here on earth.

[CASteinman]

That this is the same as being excluded from the Celestial Kingdom i am not so sure about.

I don't think it is clear that it is exclusion from the Celestial Kingdom. I also do not think it was clear that the CFR was about exclusion from the Celestial Kingdom either as the original claim was that maybe he went to the Terrestrial or the Telestial -- we don't know but only know that he lost his exaltation.

I don't believe in speculating on the outcome of the plan of salvation for any particular person (even David) because that is a sacred role reserved for Christ. When we do that I think we are in some form of rebellion and it is sad.

[Bikeemikey]

I admit. It bugs me that you call for reference from scriptures -- when it is a simple thing to look them up for yourself.

Despite that, I apologize. I did not mean for it to be adversarial. It did bug me and it should not have.

On the other hand,I would hope that you could be more aware that a call for reference when you know where to look for something is sort of lazy and it says "Go slave and do my work for me". It is a bit disrespectful.

Thanks... I certainly did not mean to be lazy.

The reason for my call to reference is that I do not read any scriptures that support the claims being made, neither the general claim regarding murder being a absolute limiting factor of after-death inheritance (at least not with out substantial re-envisioning of how we use the term murder) or the specific claim about Davids absolute exclusion from the Celestial kingdom... though the later is far more possible based on scriptural sources than the former.

I am specifically interested in scriptures that lead people to these conclusions as I don't see them.

[Bikeemikey]

I don't think it is clear that it is exclusion from the Celestial Kingdom. I also do not think it was clear that the CFR was about exclusion from the Celestial Kingdom either as the original claim was that maybe he went to the Terrestrial or the Telestial -- we don't know but only know that he lost his exaltation.

I don't believe in speculating on the outcome of the plan of salvation for any particular person (even David) because that is a sacred role reserved for Christ. When we do that I think we are in some form of rebellion and it is sad.

On this matter we are in full agreement.

Which is also why I am confused as why have so many talks, sermons, and interest in David's place in the plan of salvation.

[CASteinman]

I am specifically interested in scriptures that lead people to these conclusions as I don't see them.

It is hard to avoid them when you read all of the scriptures together on this matter. Especially D&C 42;18 and Revelations 21:8. They do not seem to allow much room for anything but damnation.

[CASteinman]

Which is also why I am confused as why have so many talks, sermons, and interest in David's place in the plan of salvation.

I don't think that there are that many on his place in the plan -- but more as warnings about losing exaltation. They don't seem to talk about where he will go but where he will not go. Which is fair enough as it has been declared.

I'm OK with it if the Lord changes His mind. I'm also Ok with it if He does not. Because he did kill Uriah and was just a horrible person about it. This after great blessings from God. He should be held to account.

Edited April 25, 2013 by CASteinman

[Bikeemikey]

I don't think that there are that many on his place in the plan -- but more as warnings about losing exaltation. They don't seem to talk about where he will go but where he will not go. Which is fair enough as it has been declared.

I agree with that.

However, my experience has been that the conflation of exaltation to limit in post-death kingdom is frequently made. I find that portion of the judgement to be beyond the scope of information we have.

[CASteinman]

I agree with that.

However, my experience has been that the conflation of exaltation to limit in post-death kingdom is frequently made. I find that portion of the judgement to be beyond the scope of information we have.

Without speaking about David in particular, it is hard to see how any murderer can enter the Celestial Kingdom given Revelations and D&C 42.

[Bikeemikey]

It is hard to avoid them when you read all of the scriptures together on this matter. Especially D&C 42;18 and Revelations 21:8. They do not seem to allow much room for anything but damnation.

Revelations simply says what is always said... it you lie, or kill or be mean and such and such and you will have a very warm after-life.

D&C 42:18 is the most problematic... however, it is so broad as to offer no understanding of the nature of killing that is permissible. Under a literal reading Nephi would be excluded for killing Laban... I simply conclude that we have no idea how God is going to measure the question of legitimate vs illegitimate uses of lethal force. If such force must be limited to instances when the HG told you to we are going to have a lot of ex-military that also wont make the cut.

Edited April 25, 2013 by Bikeemikey

[CASteinman]

Revelations simply says what is always said... it you lie, or kill or be mean and such and such and you will have a very warm after-life.

The second death is far more serious than that nonchalant approach. It is damnation. It is the Second Death.

D&C 42:18 is the most problematic...

This is why "no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation". The Apostles have discussed this and explained that this passage refers to murder -- the shedding of innocent blood.

[Bikeemikey]

The second death is far more serious than that nonchalant approach. It is damnation. It is the Second Death.

This is why "no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation". The Apostles have discussed this and explained that this passage refers to murder -- the shedding of innocent blood.

And there in lies the problem... D&C 132 suggest that "murder... the shedding of innocent blood" is actually a term of specific meaning related to refusing the atoning blood of Christ... thereby wasting his innocent blood.

If not for D&C 132 the common interpretation would be fine. In light of 132 the common interpretation seems to ignore the actual specific definition provided for the concept of murder, the shedding of innocent blood.

[CASteinman]

And there in lies the problem... D&C 132 suggest that "murder... the shedding of innocent blood" is actually a term of specific meaning related to refusing the atoning blood of Christ... thereby wasting his innocent blood.

If not for D&C 132 the common interpretation would be fine. In light of 132 the common interpretation seems to ignore the actual specific definition provided for the concept of murder, the shedding of innocent blood.

132 is not about just any run of the mill member.

[Stone holm]

132 is not about just any run of the mill member.

Ah and here we are once again at D&C 132, and what a jolly difficult Section it is no wonder the RLDS were so willing to throw it overboard, but it is a spiritually consuming Section that can lead down many very dark thought patterns and eventually dump some out with a stoic resignation. But be of good cheer it works out for most of us, but beware of too much knowledge for it is a wonderous and frightful thing.

[CASteinman]

Ah and here we are once again at D&C 132, and what a jolly difficult Section it is no wonder the RLDS were so willing to throw it overboard, but it is a spiritually consuming Section that can lead down many very dark thought patterns and eventually dump some out with a stoic resignation. But be of good cheer it works out for most of us, but beware of too much knowledge for it is a wonderous and frightful thing.

I also do not think we have it as it was originally given.

[Bikeemikey]

I also do not think we have it as it was originally given.

That's an interesting thought.

[pogi]

The second death is far more serious than that nonchalant approach. It is damnation. It is the Second Death.

Yes, but Revelations 21:8 does not imply that murder is unpardonable, unless you group unbelievers, liars, whoremongers, etc under the "unpardonable" category as they are referenced in that same verse. It is true that they are in danger of the second death without repentance.

Perhaps the middle ground for you and Bikeemikey is that murder is pardonable up and until one enters the new and everlasting covenant of marriage as outlined in D&C 132. This makes sense to me.