Do you really believe any sins are actually unforgivable?

[thesometimesaint]

Even the Church has abortion as permissible under rare circumstances.

[ALarson]

28 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

How about abortion?  Blood doesn't come much more innocent.

I've personally been involved in two disciplinary courts held for women who have had abortions (both were in their early 20's, not married).  Neither of them were excommunicated and both were disfellowshipped.  They were both fully active and repentant (one was engaged to a returned missionary and preparing for a temple marriage).  Neither had been through the temple prior to them having the abortion.

.

 

Edited March 13, 2016 by ALarson

[strappinglad]

If Joseph's definition and/or the institute manual's explanation is correct, then I would be hard pressed to name any mortal from the scriptures or from history who might fit the bill. Even the notorious mass murderers don't seem to qualify. From reading about the inhabitants of the telestial kingdom from D&C 76 , if I were a pickpocket , I'm not sure I would want to be in the same kingdom as the Ted Bundys of the world. That's the kind of world we live in now sans any righteous for balance. Yuck, cough wheeze...

[JLHPROF]

43 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

If Joseph's definition and/or the institute manual's explanation is correct, then I would be hard pressed to name any mortal from the scriptures or from history who might fit the bill. Even the notorious mass murderers don't seem to qualify. From reading about the inhabitants of the telestial kingdom from D&C 76 , if I were a pickpocket , I'm not sure I would want to be in the same kingdom as the Ted Bundys of the world. That's the kind of world we live in now sans any righteous for balance. Yuck, cough wheeze...

Cain became perdition for shedding innocent blood (killing Abel).

I don't think the innocent blood there could possibly be construed as referring to wanting to crucify Christ.  Now Abel is considered a type and shadow, a forerunner of Christ.  But I don't believe the principle of shedding innocent blood is limited to Christ.

[ALarson]

35 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

Cain became perdition for shedding innocent blood (killing Abel).

I don't think the innocent blood there could possibly be construed as referring to wanting to crucify Christ.  Now Abel is considered a type and shadow, a forerunner of Christ.  But I don't believe the principle of shedding innocent blood is limited to Christ.

Do you think that Judas is a son of perdition?  I'm trying to remember if he is named by McConkie in Mormon Doctrine.  

Also, do you believe that all of the 1/3 who followed Satan are sons of perdition?

What about those who have received their 2nd anointing and then deny Christ?

Edited March 13, 2016 by ALarson

[JLHPROF]

36 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Do you think that Judas is a son of perdition?  I'm trying to remember if he is named by McConkie in Mormon Doctrine.  

Most likely.  Although, if his death was actually an atonement by his own blood he may be spared perdition.

Also, do you believe that all of the 1/3 who followed Satan are sons of perdition?

Perdition has some interesting word origins (see below).  Yes, they are perdition.  They lost their opportunity to receive a body and can never progress or receive a kingdom of glory and will be destroyed.  They are the definition of lost.

What about those who have received their 2nd anointing and then deny Christ?

Possible, depending on each situation.  "Denying Christ" can have many meanings.

Perdition:
Latin - Perdere/Perdare - do away with, destroy; lose, throw away, squander
Late Latin - Perditionem - ruin, destruction
Old French - Perdicion - loss
Modern French - Perdus - lost

 

[Calm]

How about he is the only intentional fully innocent blood there has been on earth?  There may be other innocents, but they are that way due to being unable to sin at that stage of their life, not generally by choice...at leasr not for significant periods of time.

[Calm]

That was to JLHProf...I didn't realize that was then end of the page and there would be posts between.

[JLHPROF]

10 minutes ago, Calm said:

How about he is the only intentional fully innocent blood there has been on earth?  There may be other innocents, but they are that way due to being unable to sin at that stage of their life, not generally by choice...at leasr not for significant periods of time.

Interesting thought.  Thanks!

[bluebell]

3 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

That's an interesting interpretation - that the only innocent blood would be Christ's.  Not sure I agree with that.

Here's the actual quote with more info-

"Innocent blood has a more specific meaning in this verse than it does in normal usage. Ultimately, as Elder Bruce R. McConkie pointed out, the only truly innocent blood is that of the Savior: “The innocent blood is that of Christ; and those who commit blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which is the unpardonable sin (Matt. 12:31–32), thereby ‘crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.’ (Heb. 6:6.) They are, in other words, people who would have crucified Christ, having the while a perfect knowledge that he was the Son of God.” (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3:345.)

Other scriptures teach that those who martyr the Lord’s servants are also shedding innocent blood (see Mosiah 17:10; D&C 135:4; see also President Joseph Fielding Smith’s statement in Notes and Commentary on D&C 76:35). In other words, those who fight against the prophets are in reality fighting against Him whom the prophets serve. Thus, while murder of any kind is an extremely serious sin, not all who murder are guilty of shedding “innocent blood,” thereby becoming sons of perdition."

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

Cain became perdition for shedding innocent blood (killing Abel).

I don't think the innocent blood there could possibly be construed as referring to wanting to crucify Christ.  Now Abel is considered a type and shadow, a forerunner of Christ.  But I don't believe the principle of shedding innocent blood is limited to Christ.

I am not convinced it was the murder alone that earned Cain that spot. He conversed with God and yet gloried in the works of the devil. He also appears to be the first to follow Mahanite principle of exploiting or destroying human life to gain property.

[JAHS]

2 hours ago, ALarson said:

Do you think that Judas is a son of perdition?  I'm trying to remember if he is named by McConkie in Mormon Doctrine.  

John 17:12 "While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled."

From what I can tell from the scriptures and according to statements from some past Church leaders, "those whom thou hast given me" is referring to the twelve apostles and Jesus is most definitely referring to Judas as a "son of perdition" in His prayer. When Jesus said: "that the scripture might be fulfilled", He is of course referring to the following prophesies made by the Psalmist:

"They took counsel together against me, they devised to take away my life." (Ps. 31:13)

"Mine own familiar friend, in whom I trusted, which did eat of my bread, hath lifted up his heel against me." (Ps. 41:9) 

and that which Zechariah had said: 

"If ye think good, give me my price; and if not, forbear. So they weighed for my price thirty pieces of silver. And the Lord said unto me, Cast it unto the potter: a goodly price that I was prised at of them. And I took the thirty pieces of silver, and cast them to the potter in the house of the Lord." (Zech. 11:12-13.)

All of which were fulfilled by the actions of Judas (Matt. 26:14-16, Matt. 27: 3-10, Matt. 26: 21, 25, Luke 22: 3). 

So, if Jesus referred to him as a "son of perdition", does that mean that Judas is destined to join Satan and his angels in outer darkness forever, or was that only a temporary title that Jesus gave him? The short answer to this question is, we don't know.
President Joseph F. Smith provided his opinion on the situation of Judas: 

"If Judas really had known God's power, and had partaken thereof, and did actually 'deny the truth' and 'defy' that power, 'having denied the Holy Spirit after he had received it,' and also 'denied the Only Begotten,' after God had 'revealed him' unto him, then there can be no doubt that he 'will die the second death.' (D. & C. 76:30-49.)
That Judas did partake of all this knowledge—that these great truths had been revealed to him—that he had received the Holy Spirit by the gift of God, and was therefore qualified to commit the unpardonable sin, is not at all clear to me. To my mind it strongly appears that not one of the disciples possessed sufficient light, knowledge nor wisdom, at the time of the crucifixion, for either exaltation or condemnation; for it was afterward that their minds were opened to understand the scriptures, and that they were endowed with power from on high; without which they were only children in knowledge, in comparison to what they afterwards became under the influence of the Spirit. . . .
No man can sin against light until he has it; nor against the Holy Ghost, until after he has received it by the gift of God through the appointed channel or way. To sin against the Holy Ghost, the Spirit of Truth, the Comforter, the Witness of the Father and the Son, wilfully denying him and defying him, after having received him, constitutes this sin. Did Judas possess this light, this witness, this Comforter, this baptism of fire and the Holy Ghost, this endowment from on high? It he did, he received it before the betrayal, and therefore before the other eleven apostles. And if this be so, you may say, 'he is a son of perdition without hope.' But if he was destitute of this glorious gift and outpouring of the Spirit, by which the witness came to the eleven, and their minds were opened to see and know the truth, and they were able to testify of him, then what constituted the unpardonable sin of this poor, erring creature, who rose no higher in the scale of intelligence, honor or ambition than to betray the Lord of glory for thirty pieces of silver?
But not knowing that Judas did commit the unpardonable sin; nor that he was a 'son of perdition without hope' who will die the second death, nor what knowledge he possessed by which he was able to commit so great a sin, I prefer, until I know better, to take the merciful view that he may be numbered among those for whom the blessed Master prayed, 'Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.'" (Joseph F. Smith, Gospel Doctrine, 5th ed., pp. 433-435.)

Keep in mind the fact that the Apostles may not have received the gift of the Holy Ghost until the day of Pentecost(Acts 1: 4,5,8, Acts 2:1-4), after Jesus was crucified; which means that Judas certainly did not have it either at the time of the betrayal. The Doctrine and Covenants tells us:

"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;
38. Yea, verily, the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath." (D&C 76:34-38)

Since Judas had not yet received the Holy Ghost as required in verse 35, perhaps he was incapable of committing the unpardonable sin. 

[BCSpace]

On 3/12/2016 at 7:02 PM, JLHPROF said:

The "Does God still love Lucifer" thread got me thinking about the extent of the atonement and repentance.

I understand the danger in judging someone else's sins as being unforgivable or outside the atonement.  It is not really our place to judge.
But from a strictly doctrinal perspective the scriptures do speak of a limit to the atonement and of sins that are unforgivable.

On the other thread TSS seems to be claiming that although he never will, even Satan could repent.  I reject that idea completely.

So before I start quoting random scriptures and stories what do posters think?  Do we truly believe EVERY sin can be forgiven if repented of?  Does the atonement cover EVERY possible sin?  Can that forgiveness be 100%?
What sins do you personally consider unforgivable?

Maybe unforgivable is the wrong word to use.  Perhaps 'ineligible' would be the better word.  For example, in the scriptures, murder appears to be forgivable (Revelation 9:21), but such makes one ineligible (1 John 3:15).

[Atheist Mormon]

"What sins do you personally consider unforgivable?"

None, Since every grievous sin went unnoticed....

Not to say perpetrators went unpunished....(by Humans).

[VideoGameJunkie]

17 minutes ago, Atheist Mormon said:

"What sins do you personally consider unforgivable?"

None, Since every grievous sin went unnoticed....

Not to say perpetrators went unpunished....(by Humans).

Huh?

[Mars]

skipping everyone else's replies.

i think the only thing keeping a sin from being forgiven is the hard heart of the sinner.  the only time God is ever "limited" is when we refuse to cooperate with Him.

edit to add:

i now read janderich's comment and line from SWK.  that sums up my view.  the kind of people who commit 'unpardonable' sins are the kind of people who won't want to seek forgiveness.  it takes a special kind of hardheartedness and spite to know take innocent life for personal gain, or deny light and knowledge.  and glory in it.

i'm not willing to die on the hill of semantics.  "could" repent?  yeah, if they wanted to.  but they never will, so they won't, so they're unforgiven and can't repent because they literally have lost the ability.  which comes to the same thing.  i just think it's important to note what it is about the sin that moves you over the line from forgivable to unforgivable.

Edited March 14, 2016 by Mars

[Gray]

On 3/12/2016 at 8:02 PM, JLHPROF said:

The "Does God still love Lucifer" thread got me thinking about the extent of the atonement and repentance.

I understand the danger in judging someone else's sins as being unforgivable or outside the atonement.  It is not really our place to judge.
But from a strictly doctrinal perspective the scriptures do speak of a limit to the atonement and of sins that are unforgivable.

On the other thread TSS seems to be claiming that although he never will, even Satan could repent.  I reject that idea completely.

So before I start quoting random scriptures and stories what do posters think?  Do we truly believe EVERY sin can be forgiven if repented of?  Does the atonement cover EVERY possible sin?  Can that forgiveness be 100%?
What sins do you personally consider unforgivable?

I have a hard time seeing how there could be any redemption for a child molester. 

[bluebell]

11 minutes ago, Gray said:

I have a hard time seeing how there could be any redemption for a child molester. 

What if they had been molested themselves as a child and it changed their brains (which does actually happen)?  What if they sincerely repented and never did it again?  What if it was your child who became the child molester and then repented?

 

[Gray]

35 minutes ago, bluebell said:

What if they had been molested themselves as a child and it changed their brains (which does actually happen)?  What if they sincerely repented and never did it again?  What if it was your child who became the child molester and then repented?

 

All good questions. How do you repent of destroying a child's life though? 

 

Edited March 14, 2016 by Gray

[bluebell]

24 minutes ago, Gray said:

All good questions. How do you repent of destroying a child's life though? 

 

How does someone repent of destroying anyone's life?

Only with and thru the Atonement. 

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, bluebell said:

How does someone repent of destroying anyone's life?

Only with and thru the Atonement. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm a believer in the power of forgiving others. But this one is tough. And you can't really trust that someone like that has repented - they tend to be repeat offenders, from what I understand. 

Edited March 14, 2016 by Gray

[Boanerges]

8 minutes ago, Gray said:

Don't get me wrong, I'm a believer in the power of forgiving others. But this one is tough. And you can't really trust that someone like that has repented - they tend to be repeat offenders, from what I understand. 

But in the eternal scheme of things this life isn't even a drop in the bucket.

[bluebell]

13 minutes ago, Gray said:

Don't get me wrong, I'm a believer in the power of forgiving others. But this one is tough. And you can't really trust that someone like that has repented - they tend to be repeat offenders, from what I understand. 

I agree. But we don't have to trust whether or not someone has repented. No one will be able to fool God, and His opinion is the only one that matters. 

Being able to be forgiven by God is a separate issue from being forgiven by someone else. We are commanded to forgive regardless of whether or not the offender has repented. God is not bound by that commandment. 

[JLHPROF]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I have a hard time seeing how there could be any redemption for a child molester.

I am the same way with abortion.  Shedding of innocent blood applies in my mind.  It is murder of the most innocent of beings.

I don't see how there can be redemption for that, regardless of Church exceptions although I can see the David example being applied.

I can only go off scripture which lists 3 types of sins as unforgivable (not able to be repented).  I don't know that the atonement can apply in those cases.
People use the example of David - but he was never able to fully repent, only sufficient to receive redemption from hell, but never to be fully restored.
Cain and Lucifer violated ALL of the unforgivable sins and I don't believe there is any allowance for their repentance (not that they would).
Judas, I am less certain on, but only because his own blood was shed in consequence of his sins.

[Mars]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I am the same way with abortion.  Shedding of innocent blood applies in my mind.  It is murder of the most innocent of beings.

I don't see how there can be redemption for that, regardless of Church exceptions although I can see the David example being applied.

I can only go off scripture which lists 3 types of sins as unforgivable (not able to be repented).  I don't know that the atonement can apply in those cases.
People use the example of David - but he was never able to fully repent, only sufficient to receive redemption from hell, but never to be fully restored.
Cain and Lucifer violated ALL of the unforgivable sins and I don't believe there is any allowance for their repentance (not that they would).
Judas, I am less certain on, but only because his own blood was shed in consequence of his sins.

how do you reconcile a sin that is unable to be subsumed by the Atonement with the idea that the Atonement is infinite?

the attribute "forgivable: yes / no" to a sin has less to do with the idea that the sin is just too great to be covered, or that commission of the sin wasn't part of the contract between sinner and Redeemer, but rather to do with the fact that the person who commits that kind of sin would never want to repent.  i support this conclusion with the Gospel themes that describe how we progress or regress in spiritual knowledge until we control the natural man.

i don't believe it's possible to have an infinite Atonement *and* sins that are beyond its reach.