Vort Posted May 21, 2018 Report Share Posted May 21, 2018 24 minutes ago, lostinwater said: Sexual purity doesn't make that list for me. Like not even close. Actually, there are very, very, very few sins that would make that list for me. On the contrary: ANY sin "makes the list". The point is not how "big" the sin is -- and we have mountains of evidence, scriptural and otherwise, that fornication is a particularly pernicious and virulent sin that corrupts more than most -- but how the person responds to sin. Would you rather your child willingly participate in armed robbery, or that s/he die resisting such an act? In the former case, the child has condemned himself/herself, and is in real danger of forfeiting eternal life if s/he doesn't repent. And for what? To keep breathing a few more weeks or years? In the latter case, the child has forfeited his/her mortality, but (assuming s/he is otherwise worthy) has preserved eternal life. Nothing is more important. lostinwater 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted May 21, 2018 Report Share Posted May 21, 2018 4 minutes ago, BJ64 said: I think the saying was first used during WW1and 2 to impress upon young men the idea that it would be better to have been killed in battle while living a clean life than to become unchaste while at war and come home unclean. And of course, how many non-LDS parents in those same conflicts (and going back to the Civil War) told their sons that they’d rather see them come home in a box than come home as cowards? It was a different era. Midwest LDS and BJ64 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grunt Posted May 21, 2018 Report Share Posted May 21, 2018 23 minutes ago, MormonGator said: I can't imagine an apostle of the Lord saying he'd approve of you choosing death over sexual impurity either, for the record. It’s a pretty ridiculous scenario. In my experience, people only use ridiculous scenarios when they want to use the emotion evoked from them to carry a much less obvious point to an unpopular or improper solution. Midwest LDS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted May 21, 2018 Report Share Posted May 21, 2018 16 minutes ago, MormonGator said: Member-"Apostle Holland, my son committed adultery. Should I kill him?" Apostle Holland-"Yes." I can't see that happening. ???? How is the above an example of "choosing death over sexual impurity"? Grunt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted May 21, 2018 Report Share Posted May 21, 2018 3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said: Blood atonement may factor into it for extreme cases (I actually believe there’s something to the doctrine, even though the Church dares not touch that with a ten-foot pole today). Wouldn't blood atonement violate the article of faith number 12? I think murder wouldn't be "honoring, sustaining, and obeying" the law of the land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted May 21, 2018 Report Share Posted May 21, 2018 3 minutes ago, MormonGator said: Wouldn't blood atonement violate the article of faith number 12? I think murder wouldn't be "honoring, sustaining, and obeying" the law of the land. The fundamental idea of "blood atonement" does not involve murder. It is that some sins require the blood of the sinner to be fully expiated. As far as I know, this doctrine is rejected by current Church teachings, so it's a purely academic exercise. Just_A_Guy and Midwest LDS 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted May 21, 2018 Report Share Posted May 21, 2018 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Vort said: The fundamental idea of "blood atonement" does not involve murder. It is that some sins require the blood of the sinner to be fully expiated. As far as I know, this doctrine is rejected by current Church teachings, so it's a purely academic exercise. Oh. So the atonement of Christ doesn't cover all sins? Not a challenge/insult/or pejorative. Genuine question. Edited May 21, 2018 by MormonGator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJ64 Posted May 21, 2018 Report Share Posted May 21, 2018 1 minute ago, MormonGator said: Wouldn't blood atonement violate the article of faith number 12? I think murder wouldn't be "honoring, sustaining, and obeying" the law of the land. Blood atonement is one of those, early teachings which never took hold. I won’t judge whether the concept is true or not but if it were to actually take place the guilty party would have had to willingly have his blood spilt in order for him to atone for his sin and receive forgiveness. The church would never have had authority to carry out such an execution due to the law of the land. The teaching seems to have just faded away. Just_A_Guy 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted May 21, 2018 Report Share Posted May 21, 2018 3 minutes ago, MormonGator said: Wouldn't blood atonement violate the article of faith number 12? Sure; but so would hiding Jews in Hitler’s Germany. Lest this become an undue threadjack, I am not saying that in a perfect world armed Church agents are running around bumping people off. I am suggesting that *maybe* (and I am FAR off the reservation of theological orthodoxy here), there have been times in the past where the amount of repentance one could do in mortality was finite and where further repentance could only be done in the next realm. For all I know, maybe advances in mental health therapy have now broken through that barrier. JohnsonJones 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJ64 Posted May 21, 2018 Report Share Posted May 21, 2018 2 minutes ago, MormonGator said: Oh. So the atonement of Christ doesn't cover all sins? Not a challenge/insult/or pejorative. Genuine question. I think that is why the teaching faded away. We are taught that the atonement covers all sin except denial of the Holy Ghost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted May 21, 2018 Report Share Posted May 21, 2018 Just now, BJ64 said: I think that is why the teaching faded away. We are taught that the atonement covers all sin except denial of the Holy Ghost. Thanks, I agree. Like I mentioned everyone it was a legit question, not trolling, challenging, being snotty or rude. Thanks for answering. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted May 21, 2018 Report Share Posted May 21, 2018 3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said: I am not saying that in a perfect world armed Church agents are running around bumping people off. Actually, that's @Carborendums perfect world. but he told me not to tell anyone what he was planning. Sorry dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vort Posted May 21, 2018 Report Share Posted May 21, 2018 1 minute ago, MormonGator said: Oh. So the atonement of Christ doesn't cover all sins? Not a challenge, genuine question. As I wrote, "this doctrine is rejected by current Church teachings." My understanding is the Christ's blood is indeed sufficient to redeem. But what are the corner cases here? I do not believe that God is a hidebound lawyer checking to see if we have met the requirements. But I do think that the mechanisms of salvation escape us. For example: The Doctrine and Covenants has something to say about those who, having been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise (which I take to be more or less the same as having their calling and election made sure), commit grievous sin; these do not lose their exaltation, but are "destroyed in the flesh". What does this mean? I honestly am not sure. But it sure looks for all the world like it's saying that those people, who have received such blessings and been granted that state, are now in a position where they are responsible to some extent for the payment for their sin. I do not mean to bring up what some foolishly call "deep doctrine" and act like I'm revealing some little-known truth. My desire is rather the opposite, to illustrate that we really don't understand all the mechanisms of what's going on. So it's entirely possible (in fact, certain) that some eternal truths would strike us in our current childish condition as bad, but are no such thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted May 21, 2018 Report Share Posted May 21, 2018 Just now, Vort said: I do not believe that God is a hidebound lawyer checking to see if we have met the requirements. You, sir, are absolutely no fun at all. Vort 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted May 21, 2018 Report Share Posted May 21, 2018 5 minutes ago, Vort said: As I wrote, "this doctrine is rejected by current Church teachings." My understanding is the Christ's blood is indeed sufficient to redeem. But what are the corner cases here? I do not believe that God is a hidebound lawyer checking to see if we have met the requirements. But I do think that the mechanisms of salvation escape us. For example: The Doctrine and Covenants has something to say about those who, having been sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise (which I take to be more or less the same as having their calling and election made sure), commit grievous sin; these do not lose their exaltation, but are "destroyed in the flesh". What does this mean? I honestly am not sure. But it sure looks for all the world like it's saying that those people, who have received such blessings and been granted that state, are now in a position where they are responsible to some extent for the payment for their sin. I do not mean to bring up what some foolishly call "deep doctrine" and act like I'm revealing some little-known truth. My desire is rather the opposite, to illustrate that we really don't understand all the mechanisms of what's going on. So it's entirely possible (in fact, certain) that some eternal truths would strike us in our current childish condition as bad, but are no such thing. Makes sense. Thanks bud. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 21, 2018 Report Share Posted May 21, 2018 11 minutes ago, MormonGator said: Actually, that's @Carborendums perfect world. but he told me not to tell anyone what he was planning. Sorry dude. Watch for the new film The Return of the Danites: This time, with Seoul! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MormonGator Posted May 21, 2018 Report Share Posted May 21, 2018 Just now, Carborendum said: Watch for the new film The Return of the Danites: This time, with Seoul! hahahaahahahaahahahahahahahahahahahaha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just_A_Guy Posted May 21, 2018 Report Share Posted May 21, 2018 Just now, Carborendum said: Watch for the new film The Return of the Danites: This time, with Seoul! Provo used to have a Korean restaurant called “Touch of Seoul”. That pun never got old. Midwest LDS 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 21, 2018 Report Share Posted May 21, 2018 Just now, Just_A_Guy said: Provo used to have a Korean restaurant called “Touch of Seoul”. That pun never got old. That was after I left. When I was there, we only had two Korean restaurants. One was expensive and sucked. The other was cheap and yummy. The good one was right were the Thai House Cuisine is now located. I'm going to assume that the old place eventually got successful enough to open in a bigger location and changed the name. Or the owners have gone the way of all the earth and never passed on the store to their kids. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lost Boy Posted May 21, 2018 Report Share Posted May 21, 2018 It is amazing how far off topic some threads can get. Go from understanding becoming a God to Korean restaurants. I do not have a problem with this. I do find it humorous and fascinating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scott Posted May 21, 2018 Report Share Posted May 21, 2018 (edited) Quote It is amazing how far off topic some threads can get. Jesus ate fish. Fish is served in Korean restaurants. = still on topic. Edited May 21, 2018 by Scott Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted May 22, 2018 Report Share Posted May 22, 2018 On 5/20/2018 at 6:49 PM, MormonGator said: Oh. So the atonement of Christ doesn't cover all sins? Not a challenge/insult/or pejorative. Genuine question. Does the atonement of Christ cover the unbaptized? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BJ64 Posted May 22, 2018 Report Share Posted May 22, 2018 23 minutes ago, bytebear said: Does the atonement of Christ cover the unbaptized? The atonement covers all the sins of everyone who repents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mordorbund Posted May 22, 2018 Report Share Posted May 22, 2018 On 5/20/2018 at 10:09 PM, Carborendum said: Watch for the new film The Return of the Danites: This time, with Seoul! Is that a sequel to The Avenging Angel (the one where Charlton Heston plays Brigham Young)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bytebear Posted May 22, 2018 Report Share Posted May 22, 2018 (edited) 15 hours ago, BJ64 said: The atonement covers all the sins of everyone who repents. See, I believe the atonement covers all sins, everywhere, past and future, repentant or not. However, I believe we must believe in Christ to receive the blessings of the atonement, and further, we require covenant (baptism) to receive even more blessings. The atonement is universal, but our reception of it is not. Edited May 22, 2018 by bytebear Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.