How Far-Reaching Is Forgiveness?

[VideoGameJunkie]

I'm interested in knowing WHEN sins are forgiven. Are they gone when we repent and we get to go to Spirit Paradise, or do we go to Spirit Prison and await the resurrection to be finally forgiven?

[CV75]

I'm interested in knowing WHEN sins are forgiven. Are they gone when we repent and we get to go to Spirit Paradise, or do we go to Spirit Prison and await the resurrection to be finally forgiven?

They are forgiven when you repent, whenever that is.

[The Nehor]

I'm interested in knowing WHEN sins are forgiven. Are they gone when we repent and we get to go to Spirit Paradise, or do we go to Spirit Prison and await the resurrection to be finally forgiven?

 

If it waited until after Spirit Prison/Hell then there would be no need for any Paradise.

[Guest]

The son offers to return as a servant, but is welcomed back as a prince... so Kimball's interpretation fails for me.

To me the parable is about forgiveness and being able to return, not about all the stuff you miss out on if you mess up.

The returning son, got a robe, a ring, and a great meal. The son who stayed got all that the Father had. Maybe a reread of the parable instead of "Kimball's take", might help. I remember the story as it was taught to me by my Baptist Minister Father. It is indeed a wonderful multilevel parable about forgiveness and being forgiving, but we must take the parable in it's full meaning. Well, I guess we don't have too, but would do well too.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

The returning son, got a robe, a ring, and a great meal. The son who stayed got all that the Father had. Maybe a reread of the parable instead of "Kimball's take", might help. I remember the story as it was taught to me by my Baptist Minister Father. It is indeed a wonderful multilevel parable about forgiveness and being forgiving, but we must take the parable in it's full meaning. Well, I guess we don't have too, but would do well too.

Kimball's, and apparently your take, on the parable leave little comfort for the repentant...

Say I was to decide that the LDS Church was true after-all, what would be the point in rejoining if salvation is all I can hope for because of my previous transgressions? I might as well go to whatever church has the best music in my estimation because I can receive salvation there just as easy... as all receive salvation except the sons of perdition. (D&C 76)

Pretty pointless and frustrating it would be to be a member of a church that speaks of offering exaltation, but doesn't offer hope of it to you because you are a sinner. 

[Calm]

Parables are analogies and like all analogies they reflect some aspects but not all. I don't think we have to accept "the full story" because it can never be the full story of what the Atonement and inheriting God's promise means. For example, his inheritance to us comes after we go out into the world...he is the one who sends us there, his inheritance is infinite, all those who receive will not be resentful of any sharing with others, etc. etc.

[Stargazer]

D&C 132:27 also states that murder of an innocent person after receiving Christ is the unpardonable sin: "The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder 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 damned, saith the Lord."

You seem to believe that a person who has committed murder cannot be forgiven if he had joined the Church before he committed the murder, but it's forgivable if he did the murder beforehand. The story of King David alone should suffice to show that this is a false doctrine. Certainly David was a just and holy man, yet he committed murder (Uriah the Hittite). Nevertheless we understand that though David has lost his exaltation, he is nevertheless subject to forgiveness and is not a Son of Perdition.

"wherein ye shed innocent blood" does not mean to murder some guy. It means that you "...assent unto [His] death" by denying the Son of Man after the Holy Spirit has revealed him, i.e. you have received the Second Comforter. You cannot murder an innocent man, because there has only been ONE innocent man, and that is Jesus Christ. And denying Him after receiving Him is to assent unto His death, and makes one a Son of Perdition.

That's how I have always understood this.

Edited July 30, 2014 by Stargazer

[Guest]

Kimball's, and apparently your take, on the parable leave little comfort for the repentant...

I don't have a take, just pointing out the facts of the parable and why my Father taught me. I have never read "Kimball's take". The parable is the teach the truth, teach forgiveness and the need to forgive. We cannot change the parable to make anyone feel better or worse, it is what it is. I am not defending anyone's take, but what the scriptures teach. There are other examples in scripture that goes deeper into different doctrines. Nuff said from me on the topic. Edited July 31, 2014 by Pa Pa

[teddyaware]

Kimball's, and apparently your take, on the parable leave little comfort for the repentant...

Say I was to decide that the LDS Church was true after-all, what would be the point in rejoining if salvation is all I can hope for because of my previous transgressions? I might as well go to whatever church has the best music in my estimation because I can receive salvation there just as easy... as all receive salvation except the sons of perdition. (D&C 76)

Pretty pointless and frustrating it would be to be a member of a church that speaks of offering exaltation, but doesn't offer hope of it to you because you are a sinner.

From just the instances of Alma the Younger and the sons of Mosiah alone, it can be safely asserted that LDS soteriology affirms the possibility of full forgiveness and full exaltation for once desperately wicked Church members who choose to repent and turn to the Saviour with full purpose of heart. So why then in  the 'Miracle of Forgiveness did apostle Kimball interpret the parable of the prodigal son in such an illiberal way?

 

Well the leaders of the Church in those days (1969) were very conservative men. They were also acutely aware of the fact that a tsunami of wickedness was sweeping through the world during the early days of the sexual revolution, an increasingly pervasive and destructive drug culture, a burgeoning attitude of permissiveness, and even the widespread embracement of many forms of wickedness that grew out of the spread atheistic materialism and nihilism. So to protect the people (especially the impressionable young people) of the Church from this ever-intensifying onslaught of wickedness, Elder Kimball -- surely out of great love and deep concern -- utilized an illiberal interpretation of the parable of the prodigal son in order to stanch the idea that because of the atonement one can sow to the wind in the new world of wickedness without serious and lasting consequences.

 

Apostle Kimball knew our planet was then entering a "brave new world" of proliferating evil -- a very real world of evil that was surely about to make significant incursions into the minds and hearts of the people of the Church. So motivated by love and concern the dear man drew a line in the sand and said "don't think you can go on the other side of this line without heartbreak and severe consequences." Simple as that... 

Edited July 31, 2014 by teddyaware

[Stargazer]

I used to think that murder could never be forgiven.  But this is not written anywhere.  Some evangelical once challenged me on it, asking if I truly believed that Christ's redemption was so weak that it couldn't reach a murderer?  I was startled about this, and eventually changed my tune.

 

The only place Christ's Atonement cannot reach is Outer Darkness, and those destined to dwell there.  And that is scriptural.

[Kind Debater]

You seem to believe that a person who has committed murder cannot be forgiven if he had joined the Church before he committed the murder, but it's forgivable if he did the murder beforehand.

I don't personally believe that -- see my signature -- but it seems to me that this is what D&C teaches. D&C 42:18 says outright that murderers won't be forgiven, and D&C 42 was the law supposedly given to the LDS church.

 

The story of King David alone should suffice to show that this is a false doctrine. Certainly David was a just and holy man, yet he committed murder (Uriah the Hittite). Nevertheless we understand that though David has lost his exaltation, he is nevertheless subject to forgiveness and is not a Son of Perdition.

And murder is forgiven in the NT as well. Peter spoke to a crowd of Jews and told them they crucified Christ and yet some became Christians. Paul was an accomplice to many murders of Christians. But doesn't the later revelation of D&C 42:18 overrule that? If not, then what does D&C 42:18 mean?

"wherein ye shed innocent blood" does not mean to murder some guy. It means that you "...assent unto [His] death" by denying the Son of Man after the Holy Spirit has revealed him, i.e. you have received the Second Comforter. You cannot murder an innocent man, because there has only been ONE innocent man, and that is Jesus Christ. And denying Him after receiving Him is to assent unto His death, and makes one a Son of Perdition.

That's how I have always understood this.

Okay, so you're seeing it as kind of like Hebrews 10:29. I can understand interpreting it that way.

[Duncan]

I don't personally believe that -- see my signature -- but it seems to me that this is what D&C teaches. D&C 42:18 says outright that murderers won't be forgiven, and D&C 42 was the law supposedly given to the LDS church.

 

And murder is forgiven in the NT as well. Peter spoke to a crowd of Jews and told them they crucified Christ and yet some became Christians. Paul was an accomplice to many murders of Christians. But doesn't the later revelation of D&C 42:18 overrule that? If not, then what does D&C 42:18 mean?

Okay, so you're seeing it as kind of like Hebrews 10:29. I can understand interpreting it that way.

 

 

speaking generally, I highly doubt anyone can use the scriptures to justify murdering someone

[sunstoned]

I don't think your wrong.

However, we really don't know how repentance works or why the atonement was able to so what it did so I think we are all guessing on the subject.

Christ's teachings are very  clear on forgiveness.  It puzzles me on how  swk  could have got it so Wrong,  but he did.

[Bikeemikey]

Christ's teachings are very clear on forgiveness. It puzzles me on how swk could have got it so Wrong, but he did.

Christs teachings are clear on forgiveness but not the mechanics of repentance...

How does what someone did in a garden impact my life when I do something wrong. We have no idea why the atonement is capable of doing what it does.

[teddyaware]

Christs teachings are clear on forgiveness but not the mechanics of repentance...

How does what someone did in a garden impact my life when I do something wrong. We have no idea why the atonement is capable of doing what it does.

The scriptures are absolutely loaded with explanations as to why and how the atonement is capable of doing what it does. I find your statement perplexing.

[thatjimguy]

I've bee reading through the book Miracle of Forgiveness and I have found some of it very shocking. One thing that really took me back was Kimball's interpretation if the parable if the prodigal son. He uses the parable to show how much better off the older brother is for not screwing up in the first place. Even though the younger brother repented, he still holds a lesser status. This is completely different than the way I have always understood the parable. I thought the parable was meant to convey how infinite and far-reaching forgiveness is. And that the older brother was sinning in not being able to forgive the younger brother. That's what is shown in the modernized church movie about the prodigal son.

In my mind, Kimball completely butchers the parable. Isn't one who repents as well off as one who hasn't sinned in the first place? Or am I wrong?

 

That's like assuming that someone brought up in a heavy LDS culture that never drank coffee or alcohol and therefore never had to give it up to be a member was worthier than the other. Which, in light of certain ideas on the Priesthood Ban before they were abolished, I can see how that would come to be popular. 

[thatjimguy]

I don't read the NT as saying that.  I believe that people have to repent to be forgiven, and that if people continue in major sins without repenting they don't have a saving faith (e.g. Rev 21:18, 1 Cor 6:9-11).

 

Do you believe that God forgives someone who murders and then repents, or commits adultery twice but repents of it each time?

 

I think the key here is where the heart is. 

 

People who have long lived for years with a certain sin, as I have, keep on falling off the wagon from time to time in the face of trials of life or faith, again, as I have, (of heck, we all have).But what is the difference between standing up again and vowing to stop it rather than trying to stop it? Probably sincerity. The one says "no more" the other says "I'll try." 

 

Both sound good enough. After all, we can easily belt out with bravado that "We will stop sinning!" every Sunday, knowing full well we re only going to last so long before flopping about again. It almost seems like it is a lie. Almost to the point not to even bother saying it for the sake of sincerity. 

 

However. saying "i'll try" already acknowledges the future failure. It's a passive wording. It's the words used when you fail and your parents want to comfort you. "Well, at least you tried." ,right? (I guess this may be a reason to always say "You tried your best!" instead.)

 

So there's a point to all of this here, and that is just how serious someone is about their repentance, God knows we are all going to fail a lot before we hit the perfect stride. It is the difference between getting up with resolve and just getting up where the difference may lie.

Edited July 31, 2014 by thatjimguy

[Stargazer]

Christs teachings are clear on forgiveness but not the mechanics of repentance...

How does what someone did in a garden impact my life when I do something wrong. We have no idea why the atonement is capable of doing what it does.

 

I don't know that we have NO idea of why the atonement is capable of what it does -- although I believe I have a good idea why.  I shall not go into it here, as I've found it to be very likely a source of contention.  I do think that we should be reconciled to the fact that the Atonement covers a multitude of sins, regardless of whether we understand its mechanism, and that it is the only gate back into Father's presence.

[Stargazer]

The scriptures are absolutely loaded with explanations as to why and how the atonement is capable of doing what it does. I find your statement perplexing.

 

Well, granted that the Atonement is capable of it, please provide the scriptures that demonstrate the why and how.  And I am talking about the mechanism, not the justification for it.  Yes, only a sinless being could carry out an infinite atonement -- but why, and how exactly is it made efficacious.  Scriptures, now.  Not logic, please.

[teddyaware]

Well, granted that the Atonement is capable of it, please provide the scriptures that demonstrate the why and how.  And I am talking about the mechanism, not the justification for it.  Yes, only a sinless being could carry out an infinite atonement -- but why, and how exactly is it made efficacious.  Scriptures, now.  Not logic, please.

Let's start with the great atonement discourses found in 2 Nephi 2, 2 Nephi 9, Alma 34 and Alma 41-42. These provide the reader with in-depth explanations of the why, the how and the mechanisms of the atonement.

What I seem to get from your question is that you likely don't understand what you're reading when you read these great discourses, because what you're looking for is all there. So the question is should someone spoon feed another the answers to such important questions or should a man be left on own so as to experience the joy of personal revelation regarding the atonement. I would say the latter is the better option because spoon feeding meat when one is unprepared to digest that meat can be counterproductive and even damaging. Nevertheless, when I get back from work, and have some time, I'll at least provide some verses that will be worth your pondering.

Edited July 31, 2014 by teddyaware

[VideoGameJunkie]

I like Jeffrey Holland's talk 'Remember Lot's Wife'. You can find it on youtube and it expresses the power of forgiveness and moving on in our lives.

[Guest]

I used to think that murder could never be forgiven.  But this is not written anywhere.  Some evangelical once challenged me on it, asking if I truly believed that Christ's redemption was so weak that it couldn't reach a murderer?  I was startled about this, and eventually changed my tune.

 

The only place Christ's Atonement cannot reach is Outer Darkness, and those destined to dwell there.  And that is scriptural.

Many Evangelicals are Calvinists...could God's Grace be so weak it is only afforded to those whom he chose from before the world was. Is it so weak that it can only be afforded those who grow up in a world where they were lucky enough to know him? Is is so weak it could not save all from death and hell? Circular?

[wenglund]

The book "Miracle of Forgiveness" set me back in the faith instead of any comfort or help with repentance.  I remember thinking that I was so glad that I had never been raped and unable to fight back..I might have been better off dead than alive!

 

My experience with the book was was quite the opposite, which suggests that the divergent reactions to the book may tell more about the reader than about what was written.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

[Duncan]

My experience with the book was was quite the opposite, which suggests that the divergent reactions to the book may tell more about the reader than about what was written.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

 

 

well, in my experience my deacon's quorum was each given a copy to read from our Bishop, I don't know about anyone else in that class if they took the challenge to read it but I did and it devastated me and poisoned me for years. I haven't read it since and I love Pres. Kimball but I tend to think he wrote it for folks who thinks repentance is too easy or they don't need to repent. I LOVE Elder Oaks' statement about all this 

 

"Most of what I have said here has been addressed to persons who think that repentance is too easy. At the opposite extreme are those who think that repentance is too hard. That group of souls are so tenderhearted and conscientious that they see sin everywhere in their own lives, and they despair of ever being able to be clean. The shot of doctrine that is necessary to penetrate the hard shell of the easygoing group is a massive overdose for the conscientious. What is necessary to encourage reformation for the lax can produce paralyzing discouragement for the conscientious. This is a common problem. We address a diverse audience each time we speak, and we are never free from the reality that a doctrinal underdose for some is an overdose for others." Elder Oaks, Sin and Suffering, BYU Aug. 1990

[teddyaware]

Well, granted that the Atonement is capable of it, please provide the scriptures that demonstrate the why and how.  And I am talking about the mechanism, not the justification for it.  Yes, only a sinless being could carry out an infinite atonement -- but why, and how exactly is it made efficacious.  Scriptures, now.  Not logic, please.

Back from work. I've decided to elaborate just a little.

1) The overriding reason why God Himself had to make an infinite and eternal atoning sacrifice is because He loves us enough to want us to become like Him; and, just as importantly, we want to become like Him...

37 And the Lord God spake unto Moses, saying: The heavens, they are many, and they cannot be numbered unto man; but they are numbered unto me, for they are mine.

38 And as one earth shall pass away, and the heavens thereof even so shall another come; and there is no end to my works, neither to my words.

39 For behold, this is my work and my glory—to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. (Moses 1)

 

The atonement is the means whereby God brings to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Pretty good reason why, don't you think?

and,

6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: (Romans 2:7)

The main mechanism that makes the atoning sacrifice efficacious is the Holy Ghost. After Adam's baptism he is told:

61 Therefore it is given to abide in you; the record of heaven; the Comforter; the peaceable things of immortal glory; the truth of all things; that which quickeneth all things, which maketh alive all things; that which knoweth all things, and hath all power according to wisdom, mercy, truth, justice, and judgment (quite a mechanism, don't you think?).

62 And now, behold, I say unto you: This is the plan of salvation unto all men, through the blood of mine Only Begotten, who shall come in the meridian of time. (Moses 6)

 

But the problem is that until one has felt and experienced the power of the Holy Ghost, the atonement will remain a mystery because the Holy Ghost can only be known by personal experience. The redeeming power of the Saviour that the Holy Ghost imparts to man can only be known by making actual spiritual contact with the Holy Ghost; and unless the Holy Ghost is known through firsthand experience, His nature and power will forever remain a mystery because the salvative gifts and powers He imparts can only be spiritually felt, understood and discerned...

12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.

13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

15 But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no man.

16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ. (1 Corinthians 2)

 

The gifts, powers and blessings of the atonement are made available by means of the Holy Ghost, and therein lies the mechanism of the bestowal of the transformative power of the atonement of which you speak and seek.

Edited July 31, 2014 by teddyaware