I’m not saying I keep all of the ten commandments “perfectly” or “continually”. That condition (“continually”) was not part of your original question. I feel comfortable saying I keep the 10 commandments, in the same way I feel comfortable answering the Mormon temple recommend questions with a simple, “Yes,” or “No.” For example, there are times when a reasonable person could conclude that I don’t keep the Sabbath day holy based on a more expansive interpretation, but I always do so based solely on the OT words themselves. I believe I can say the same about each of the 10 commandments – and I don’t think I’m unique in that regard.

I stumble all the time, but I am keeping the 10 commandments very closely and consciously and “religiously”.

I’m going to be extremely blunt… I don’t mean this against you personally, but against mankind as a whole (including myself). Nobody keeps the 10 commandments continually. Be honest with yourself.

No. Yes.

Just thought I’d let you know.

Doh! say what??? …….

Maybe an Evangelical board is more to your liking, but you can stay here if you wish to of course.

“Murder is not unforgivable in the same way that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is unforgivable. In the end, blasphemers against the Holy Ghost will be cast into Outer Darkness; murderers will be saved at least in the lowest kingdom of glory. Murder is therefore forgivable in an important sense.”

True. What I was trying to say but couldn’t articulate it clearly and as briefly as this. Thanks.

I’d ad that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is unforgivable probably because the person who reaches that stage of iniquity simply doesn’t want to be forgiven at all; they constantly fight against God and want to kill Him.

In the immortal words of Inigo Montoya:

I do not think it means what you think it means.

In order for our sins to be forgiven we have to accept Christ’s sacrafice. This is why BATHG can not be forgiven, it is the denial of the belief in Jesus.

Wouldn’t that be denial of Christ?

You are lumping the sin of unbelief with the sins of murder and adultery.

No I’m not. I explicitly addressed how murder and adultery differ from BATHG. You seem not to have read what I wrote.

As for D&C 42, it says “thou [meaning the Church] shalt forgive,” not “God shalt forgive.” Thus, “shall not be forgiven” and “cast out” also refer to the sinner’s relationship[ with the Church rather than with God, and in this context mean only excommunication from the Church. It is possible (though difficult) for people who have been excommunicated for adultery to repent and rejoin the Church, so adultery is forgivable not only by God but also by the Church.

Why must the church twist the teachings of the bible, rather than admit some of their doctrine is in error?

As I’ve explained, the Church doesn’t teach that murder is unforgivable in the sense that BATHG is and it doesn’t teach that adultery is unforgivable. In what way, then, is it twisting the teachings of the Bible?

So have you stopped sinning? Do you keep all of the ten commandments?

In order for our sins to be forgiven we have to accept Christ’s sacrafice. This is why BATHG can not be forgiven, it is the denial of the belief in Jesus. You are lumping the sin of unbelief with the sins of murder and adultery. In order to be saved we must have faith.

Also… Its pretty clear to me that D&C 42 says repeated adultery is not forgivable (and Jesus said if you look with lust you’ve committed adultery). It only make sense if it isn’t forgiveable in the eyes of the church why would it be forgivable in the eyes of God? “24 Thou shalt not commit adultery; and he that committeth adultery, and repenteth not, shall be cast out. 25 But he that has committed adultery and repents with all his heart, and forsaketh it, and doeth it ano more, thou shalt forgive; 26 But if he doeth it again, he shall not be forgiven, but shall be cast out.

Why must the church twist the teachings of the bible, rather than admit some of their doctrine is in error?

Christ saves us from our sins, not in our sins. That is said repeatedly in the BoM (though, since I use the RLDS version, I can’t translate my chapter and verse numbers to yours – so you’ll have to look it up on your own). If our hearts are changed, we are saved. If our hearts don’t change even in full knowledge of His love and sacrifice for us and full knowledge of our sins so that we still desire the wrong, we are unsavable.

If you would read my earlier posts my point was that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, D&C 42, and the modern church say that murder and adultery (after the second offense) are not forgivable.

That’s not what they say. D&C 42 says that adulterers who repeat their offense after claiming to repent are to be “cast out” of the Church, IOW, they are to be excommunicated. That is not the same as (repeated) adultery being an unforgivable sin.

Murder is not unforgivable in the same way that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is unforgivable. In the end, blasphemers against the Holy Ghost will be cast into Outer Darkness; murderers will be saved at least in the lowest kingdom of glory. Murder is therefore forgivable in an important sense.

You are confused?

I also am confused. You keep contradicting yourself. You keep saying that “Jesus died on the cross for all sin,” but you also keep admitting that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (BATHG) cannot be forgiven. But those two things cannot both be true. If Jesus took care of all sin, and BATHG is a sin, then Jesus took care of BATHG. Phrased differently, if BATHG is a sin, and Jesus did not take care of BATHG, then Jesus did not take care of all sin.

If you would read my earlier posts my point was that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young, D&C 42, and the modern church say that murder and adultery (after the second offense) are not forgivable. I have given multiple verses from the bible that contradict this teaching. Including the following:

“The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world.” (John 1:29)

Micah 7:18-19, which says: “Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever
but delight to show mercy. You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea.”

Psalm 103:12, “As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.”

“My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous: And he is the propitiation for our sins: and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world.” (1 John 2:1-2)

And the latest in the conversation with Kuri: 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. (Matthew 12:31)

You are confused? Sounds like this subject is very confusing (especially to the leaders of the church), and the LDS doctrine on this particular matter is flawed. Murder and adultery appear entirely forgivable. If all sins are cast to the bottom of the sea, removed, tread underfoot, and forgiven then why does the LDS church teach otherwise?

This is a very damaging doctrine. What hope does the adulterer and murderer have? If they are not forgiven why don’t they just continue committing adultery and murder? Jesus died on the cross for all sin contrary to what the LDS church teaches.

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. (Matthew 12:31)

Doesn’t that directly say that all sin is forgivable (excluding blasphemy against the Holy Ghost)?

Steve S: It would take a pretty limited God to take the punishment for just some of our sins (rather than all). Jesus is much more than that. Perhaps JS and the “current church” have this doctinal concept totally wrong? Maybe its more of the opinions of the church’s prophet(s) rather than actual doctorine?

But reading about these spiritual offenses in the OT and NT, it begs at least two lines of thought: 1) are there limits to the efficacy of Christ’s atonement (in that it doesn’t or cannot cover direct sins against Deity), or, 2) has the concept of sin, atonement, and post-mortal reward/punishment evolved since the days of Adam, Abraham, Moses, David, Paul, and others? I don’t have any answers, but I suspect that OT and even NT authors understood all those doctrinal concepts differently than did JS, or than we do in the current Church.

The Bible also clearly teaches that one sin is not forgivable:

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. (Matthew 12:31)

So it’s not just latter-day prophets who contradict (your particular interpretation of) Micah.

It sounds like we were misunderstanding one another, though I agree with Ray – I don’t know that time is the matter. That sounds like you are saying Jesus and his infinite and Eternal (God’s name according Mormon Doctrine – not necessarily a reference to time. Moses 7) sacrifice would not be necessary if only we had enough time.

I am not ignorant to the fact that Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, Joseph Fielding Smith, Bruce R. McConkie, and a host of others have taught principles in this regard. Nevertheless the modern hierarchy has drastically strayed from, and appears to have abandoned this line of teaching.

Micah 7:18-19, which says: “Who is a God like you, who pardons sin and forgives the transgression of the remnant of his inheritance? You do not stay angry forever
but delight to show mercy. 19 You will again have compassion on us; you will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea.”

Psalm 103:12, “As far as the east is from the west, so far hath he removed our transgressions from us.”

If God doesn’t change (is eternal) how can the bible say that all sin is forgiven, but the prophets say otherwise? Does anyone else find this troubling?

By the way, McCondie explains this better than I even could:

“Murder is a sin for which there is “no forgiveness” (D&C 42:79), meaning that a murderer can never gain salvation. “No murderer hath eternal life abiding in him.” (1 John 3:15) He cannot join the Church by baptism; he is outside the pale of redeeming grace.”

Redeeming grace can only involve Jesus. This ‘no forgiveness’ specifically means gaining salvation. The ‘forgiveness’ of those who will go to the Telestial Kingdom is different and relating to bending the knee and confessing that Jesus is the Christ etc etc

As to the question of time, Alma 40:8 says:

all is as one day with God, and time only is measured unto men.

What do you think is the answer then?

“What need would there be for an infinite and eternal sacrifice if we could meet the eternal demands of justice and mercy independent from the Savior.”

Difference is that the mercy and the meeting of eternal demands of justice through Jesus will allow you to entre the Celestial Kingdom -the murderer, the type like King David, can’t do that. They meet the demands of justice by paying themselves for their sin, not Jesus paying for it, and then since time has run out, they end up in the Telestial having performed their own atonement or rather at the point of leaving hell, having then found forgiveness for their sin. Remember that all people including those in the telestial will bend the knee and repent of all sins etc etc.

I think you are reading in this that I’m equating Jesus atonement with the murderer’s own atonement. But no that isn’t the case. I’m using here the word ‘atonement’ as the dictionary uses it: “Amends or reparation made for an injury or wrong;”. In all sins, except murder, Jesus can make amends and pay the price for our sins but the murderer has to do so himself by descending to hell etc etc. Jesus made that descent in Gethsemane but He could then continue on to the highest kingdom as a clean and worthy person. The murderer runs out of time to do this, to do his own atonement, plus then all the rest that is needed to entre the highest kingdom.

Oh and, off course, the sons of perdition simply don’t want to find repentance at all and hence are like Lucifer and his people.

But I agree that church leaders don’t speak of this anymore. The last I know of was Joseph Fielding Smith in his various writings. Today the emphasis and the needs are different so the message stays on this “turn to Jesus” thing. Even though they will continue to reject some who admit to first degree murder and then seek baptism. There are cases around, although few.