laronius

One thing I've thought about recently concerning this subject has to do with the argument we make as members of the Church vs citizens of the US. In the Church we say that abortion is a serious moral transgression/sin but not on the same level as murder. On a civil level we generally make 2 cases for being against abortion. The first is that it is morally wrong but that argument doesn't carry much weight in debates because we shouldn't "push our morality" on to others and moral does not necessarily translate to legal. So the other argument that we usually make is that an unborn child is a person and therefore has rights. But as members of the Church can we justly on one hand say an unborn child is a person with rights and on the other hand say it's not murder? That seems a bit disingenuous to me, at least in my current way of viewing it. The moral/sanctity of life argument is enough for me to be anti-abortion, but like I said you don't get very far in a debate with that as your leading argument.

On the Church's website this is what it says: "In the Church, an ordinance is a sacred, formal act or ceremony performed by the authority of the priesthood. Some ordinances are essential to our exaltation. They include baptism, confirmation, ordination to the Melchizedek Priesthood (for men), the temple endowment, and the marriage sealing. With each of these ordinances, we enter into solemn covenants with the Lord. Other ordinances, such as naming and blessing children, consecrating oil, and administering to the sick and afflicted, are also performed by priesthood authority. While they are not essential to our salvation, they are important for our comfort, guidance, and encouragement." The definition of ordinance as "a sacred, formal act or ceremony performed by the authority of the priesthood" is general enough to take in a lot of stuff (for lack of a better word). If the Lord were to appear to someone and pronounce their calling and election is made sure I could see how that could be termed an ordinance, in and of itself. But I think it falls under the not-exaltation-essential category, at least in this life. And if it's not an essential ordinance in this life it must be, in my opinion, separate from the fulfillment of the sealing ordinance which is an essential ordinance. Either way I agree with the OP's main point, as I read it, that it's not something a person needs to fret over.

I am reminded of the book Heaven is For Real that was really popular some years back and later made into a movie. The ending of that literally made me laugh out loud. This boy has a near death experience that "proved" the existence of heaven. The problem was that what we purportedly saw completely clashed with his family's religious beliefs of what heaven is like. So they had to come of with a reason for that, it was something like a childlike interpretation of heaven or something. But really what they were saying was that what he saw was not real but it proved that heaven is for real. That gave me a good laugh. Concerning your other point, I think there are some published accounts of so-called near-death experiences that are legitimate. Now whether God approved of the publication of these events I can't say but in general I would agree that at least in most cases they were given for personal benefit. And I do not accept as doctrine anything they reveal that has not already been revealed through official channels.

You need to focus on strengthening your testimony. I think a part of you either wants to serve a mission or at least feels like you know you should but your heart isn't in it like it is with working out. The key is not to somehow suppress your desire to work out but rather strengthen your desire for things of a spiritual nature. Make strengthening your spirit part of your daily routine along with gym time. I envy your passion with working out. I'd say I'm the opposite, getting myself to the gym feels like a chore. But I know I need that physical/spiritual balance in my life so I go. I have found though that if I go to the gym consistently my desire to go increases, especially when I see progress in myself. It's the same with things of the Spirit. At first it feels like a chore but with some consistency it soon becomes an important part of our day. Strive to find that balance in your life. There is a strength and power there that gym time alone can never produce. Then you can become like those paintings of the Nephites that are totally shredded, spiritually and physically. 😃

You have summarized my own feelings very well. Though I would add another possibility here. It may be possible that what the Lord is saying here was not intended to be a blanket statement that is true in every situation. If we consider the context, the Lord is chastising them for grievances they have among themselves, just like the apostles of old. Obviously not Hitler-like sins but I'm guessing things like envy, greed, speaking badly of others, etc. But in verse 3 He says: 3 There are those among you who have sinned; but verily I say, for this once, for mine own glory, and for the salvation of souls, I have forgiven you your sins. So if the Lord has just forgiven them all of their sins and some still hold grudges then in this case there in fact "remaineth" a greater sin. Greater either because not forgiving was in fact worse than the other offenses or because the other sins, forgiveness having been granted of the Lord, no longer remains or both.

If the Church does the Light the World thing again this year you could do something in connection with that. Not sure what it would look like but it would definitely give some direction.

Considering the studio that made the "movie," I kind of expected that. It sounds like you have seen it. In your opinion, do you think a LDS would come away feeling somewhat edified or at least finding it interesting? Or is it too diluted of truth or just plain bizarre?

Yeah I had noticed. Not super unusual though.

Wondering if anyone has seen this movie, if it's worth seeing. I know it's not going to be all doctrinally accurate but sometimes these things are interesting but sometimes they aren't.

We also need to remember this: 22 For in those days there shall also arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders, insomuch, that, if possible, they shall deceive the very elect, who are the elect according to the covenant. I think as time goes on the "obviousness" of Satan's attacks is going to get a bit fuzzy. But like you I too have great hopes for us a people.

I just realized I never responded and after all the effort you put in it demands a response. 😃 But in answer to your question of whether I'm interpreting this verse right I am most definitely not sure. I'm am interpreting it at face value as I see it but that very interpretation makes me doubt my interpretation. But I think your response is probably as close to stating our current understanding of that verse as I've seen. So thank you. Having said that, I am definitely going to try to not hold grudges just in case my initial interpretation is correct. 😁

What exactly is your definition of spiritual protection? As Pres Nelson has stated: "in coming days, it will not be possible to survive spiritually without the guiding, directing, comforting, and constant influence of the Holy Ghost." To me that is spiritual protection and like he says, without it we all will fall.

If so I hope it's not the Martin or Willey handcart companies. But having said that, it would actually make sense. Is there an option of just coming later on a train?

You forget the amazing wine.

In the restored gospel hell, at least in the context we are speaking here, is that place those in spirit prison find themselves between death and the resurrection/judgement. Once they have sufficiently suffered for their sins they are released from hell and will inherit a kingdom of glory. Damnation on the other is a state consisting of anything less than eternal progression. So anything less than exaltation means there is a limit on ones progression, a damning, just like on a river. They are no longer in hell and receive a kingdom of glory but they are forever limited in their progression. I doubt other Christian churches make a distinction between these terms but to us they are different.

In this last general conference Elder Costa spoke of a young woman who lost her leg because someone was trying to steal her cell phone. A terrible crime was committed against her. Let's say that for a time she could not forgive this individual. So both are still alive, judgement day has not come, no one is wallowing in spirit prison. Just a snapshot in time. At that point this scripture says her "sin" is greater than the cruel thief's. How is that so? The Lord said it is so, so it must be. I'm just asking how. Some things in the gospel are simply beyond our comprehension at this point and I accept that. But to the degree they can be discovered I think it's a worthy pursuit.

Yeah, I think our perspective will be totally different on the other side as well. The fall had so much of an impact on our life here that I don't think we even comprehend. It seemed to both open up agency and muddy it up at the same time, at least from a mortal perspective. Once we stop seeing through the glass darkly we may well be surprised at who makes the naughty and nice lists.

I really like your comments but I think you are reading way too much into my question. I was asking from a position of doubt concerning the importance of forgiving others, just simply what it means to be a greater sin to not. I also think it's comparing apples to oranges to compare a repented of sin to an unrepented of sin. Clearly any sin repented of us better than any sin unrepented of. And maybe that's where the disconnect is here, I'm looking at it from the standpoint of two unrepented of sins: not forgiving vs (name your sin).

I totally agree with what you are saying but my point was not to question the importance of forgiving others or the cleansing power of the atonement for those who repent. I was simply asking about the context of how not forgiving others is the "greater" sin.

This is similar to a thought I had, except I approached it this way: Perhaps the word "greater" is not an attempt to compare two sins in terms of which one is more damning to the offender but rather which one is more damning to the original offended. No matter the damage caused to an individual by someone else's sin it does not condemn the offended only the offender. But withholding forgiveness is more damning to the offended than any consequence to the offended by the first sin and so strictly from the perspective of the offended's own eternal welfare, withholding forgiveness is the greater sin. This may have been what @CV75 or others may have been getting at but I just wasn't understanding the point they were making. But if this is what the Lord had in mind then that makes more sense to my imperfect mortal reasoning.

So at judgement day if both Hitler and an unforgiving Holocaust survivor stand before the judgement bar God will say: "Adolf, you committee acts that caused untold suffering to millions of individuals, committed mass genocide and brought condemnation down upon many who followed you. But at least it wasn't as bad as this guy's sin of not forgiving you." Now if that is truly what it means then I will accept it as such and chalk it up as one of the great mysteries I do not yet understand. But is it possible that maybe the Lord is not actually comparing the two sins that way and had something else in mind?

I totally echo your sentiment, both the feeling of unfairness and acceptance that if the Lord said it then I simply lack understanding because God is more than fair. This is why I am asking all of you knowledgeable individuals. 😃 But I'm trying not to play devil's advocate here because that is completely not my intent.

Is there a third kind? This I completely agree with. If we allow our souls to become cankered with hate and resentment, it will definitely follow us into the next world.

I can appreciate the point you make about acknowledging the role of Jesus' atonement in all this but I can't quite follow you all the way through to equating it with an unpardonable sin. I mean, if God can't forgive us unless we first repent then ANY unrepented of sin is technically unpardonable, but that's what hell is for, right?

D&C 64:9 Wherefore, I say unto you, that ye ought to forgive one another; for he that forgiveth not his brother his trespasses standeth condemned before the Lord; for there remaineth in him the greater sin. 10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men. Greater than what? Greater than any sin someone may have committed against us? I can think of some sins that to me are worse than withholding forgiveness. Of course any sin left unrepented of will have a damning influence upon us and leaves us "condemned before the Lord", but in the hierarchy of sins I would say there are some far worse. So how do we interpret that statement?