laronius

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.

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.

I believe it's more a matter of individual hearts, than God comparing His children to each other.   The atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ is open to everyone who accepts it.  
I'm of the opinion that we'll be brought into full awareness of the impact of our sins.  So yeah, that'll be a pretty big obvious burden on folks whose sins were so great that all the humans remember them generations later.  But yeah, I figure an unrepentant non-forgiver will also be brought into full awareness of the impact their refusal to forgive had, not just on their souls, but the souls of others.   
Yes, I fall into the 'great mystery I do not yet understand' camp.  I yearn to have perfect and righteous justice and mercy be something I can comprehend.  All I know right now is the human versions of those can stink pretty bad.
But yeah, I also know from personal experience, it's possible to love and forgive someone who committed acts of such evil, they're continuing to make 4 generations of humans sad and miserable.  I no longer hope they'll pull their heads out and start attempting amends, because it doesn't seem to be in the cards.  But, as someone who still loves them, I would leap for joy should I see them exalted.  Because it would mean that the perfect blend of justice and mercy was applied, and they did whatever was necessary to see such blessings.  Which would mean they're finally clean and pure, and once again someone I'd trust my kids to be around.  Got my fingers crossed for 'em.  And hitler.  Even though my dad came home from WWII an areligious drinker who coped with the horrors of war by being mad and swearing at everything and everybody, including his own kid.

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?

IMO, @Vort's interpretation of the text is the most logical.
This:
...also makes perfect sense.  As do many of the other comments here - there doesn't need to be only one answer - the answer can be that this simple principle contains a multitude of wisdom.
But either the first scripture I link below means what it says or it doesn't.  And if it means what it says, then every last thing any of us does, whether to ourselves or to others, we do to our Savior, no differently than if he were standing beside us and we spoke the words (or thoughts for what we think at ourselves) or did the actions, or somehow built in him the feelings we build in ourselves.  In some way we cannot comprehend, He experienced everything that we do to each other and to ourselves - good and bad, even if that way is only through omniscience.
And if that is true (and it is my testimony that it is), then for his sake and ours, we must forgive all, because forgiving all is forgiving Him, retaining offense against anyone is retaining offense against Him.  I cannot see any way that this is not true.
Matthew 25:31-46
Mosiah 2:17
D&C 42:38
Alma 7:11-13
D&C 19:16-20
Matthew 6:12 & 14-15
Luke 11:4
Matthew 18:21-35
And the list could go on for as long as you want to study, which I highly recommend: Forgive, Forgiveness (don't forget all the "see also" topics at the top); and if that's not enough, go with Humility, Humble and then Pride.
... Just reading through the entries is enough to humble me and fill me with gratitude for the overwhelming mercy the Lord extends to us.  And I don't know how to feel that and not feel a desire to forgive others and hope for their reconciliation with God.
(NOTE: I recognize that others have received far worse harm at the hands of specific individuals than I have, and those others have a harder task than I do.  I don't condemn, rather, I encourage all to seek understanding and divine help by studying scripture and praying, fasting, etc.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Just damnation.  Not the same as hell.
 
It isn't hell, but it is damnation.

That's a good, spooky story. I had a companion, not known for "telling stories," tell me of an experience of being followed home by something evil following an appointment at a woman's home where they experienced things moving on their own. They used the priesthood to rid themselves of it. I had an investigator, getting ready for baptism, who had an encounter with a man in white in her bedroom that scared her to death. She called us at 10:00 at night and asked if we could come over and bless her home. So yes, I firmly believe that evil can interact with this world.

We are in agreement, and this is also why I love the teaching in the Book of Mormon where we are counseled to be bold but not overbearing, and it is in some ways a fine line between the two.
True boldness keeps intact the core doctrine of agency. We know there is agency when (2 Nephi 2: 16) an individual is still able to "act for themselves" because they are able to be enticed by one (truth spoken in plainness or boldness) or the other (the opposite error).
To speak with plainness (which is often to be bold) is also a show of greater love. This is one witness to me that these individuals "love" Christ because they speak his truth in plainness of speech (boldness). They are willing, like Christ, to bear their crosses and to receive shame for his name. We know Christ's love is perfect. We know that when he spoke in plain terms (not in parables for a good reason) that some of his disciples were no longer disciples because it was too hard to hear. It cut too deep.

I was thinking about this the other day. Those general authorities who are most blunt about certain truths are the ones these individuals are most critical of. That's not to say other general authorities aren't direct but those like Elder Packer, Oaks and Bednar are known for addressing certain trying doctrines with a directness that leaves no room for misinterpretation or justification. This forces these individuals to accept or outright reject the teachings of modern prophets and they don't like that. It makes plain where they stand and exposes them for what they are.

I was thinking about this the other day. Those general authorities who are most blunt about certain truths are the ones these individuals are most critical of. That's not to say other general authorities aren't direct but those like Elder Packer, Oaks and Bednar are known for addressing certain trying doctrines with a directness that leaves no room for misinterpretation or justification. This forces these individuals to accept or outright reject the teachings of modern prophets and they don't like that. It makes plain where they stand and exposes them for what they are.

The original Protestants actually did try to fix some things that were wrong in Catholicism. But I get what he is saying.
I have wondered about these individuals that he is describing, whether they were deceivers from the beginning or if something happened to them along the way. I think many of them started out true to the Church but as they gained "social influence" they became wise in their eyes and that need to influence becomes more important than the truth. At that point Satan gains the influence.
I remember one of the then newly called apostles being counseled by a senior apostle that the members would fawn over them and be very gracious in their compliments but that he shouldn't "breathe it in." Wise counsel no matter our station.

Greetings and thanks for posting.  Thanks for bringing up this forgotten thread.  It has been a while and my thoughts and opinion have evolved since my previous remarks.  I would add to your post - the eternal principle of agency.  You mentioned the crowning blessing of eternity as being marriage.  I would shift the emphasis slightly to recognize marriage as the crowning and greatest “achievement” of eternity.
My thought about marriage are evolving beyond the commitment in mortality of two peoples passionate towards each other.  As with many things we experience the more focus on self and selfish gratifications and fulfillment – the more “worldly” and destructive our achievements become – both in regards to ourselves as well as to the effects on others.
Divine eternal marriage, like all true achievements requires discipline, sacrifice (especially self-sacrifice) and a love of others greater than the love of self.  It is the very foundation of G-dliness; so that G-dliness cannot be achieved without divine eternal marriage nor can divine eternal marriage be achieved without G-dliness.  The two are inseparable and the power and means of creation and the union of that which is physical and that which is spiritual.  It is the only means by which that which is eternal can remain sustainable avoiding chaos and ruin.  It is not just the commitment of a man and a woman towards each other as it is a commitment of a man and a woman to fulfill all righteousness in light and truth.
I believe in agency and all that seek light, and truth are entitled to it.  I believe that the Plan of Salvation presented in the pre-existence is the one and only true and living way (path) to achieve oneness in marriage which is oneness with Christ (the Son of G-d) and our Father in heaven.   That G-d (our Father) has gifted us agency that through the exercise of our free will we can intelligently learn to desire and choose what we will and that through the gift of agency from G-d that our desire and choice will become an eternal reality – be it telestial, terrestrial or Celestial.
 
The Traveler

The original Protestants actually did try to fix some things that were wrong in Catholicism. But I get what he is saying.
I have wondered about these individuals that he is describing, whether they were deceivers from the beginning or if something happened to them along the way. I think many of them started out true to the Church but as they gained "social influence" they became wise in their eyes and that need to influence becomes more important than the truth. At that point Satan gains the influence.
I remember one of the then newly called apostles being counseled by a senior apostle that the members would fawn over them and be very gracious in their compliments but that he shouldn't "breathe it in." Wise counsel no matter our station.

I think I agree with this guy.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CyjGDRfuiqm/?igshid=MmU2YjMzNjRlOQ==
(Please note that this person's quote is primarily from Harold B. Lee in 1970. He includes President Nelson's photograph, but this is not President Nelson. It's just some guy who goes by "gogogoff0" and who coined a new term that he thinks is fitting. As I wrote above, I think I agree with him.)
    gogogoff0   There is a growing schism (division) within the Church fueled by Social Media Influencers. It is not a left vs. right, nor is it an American vs non-American. It is those who follow the prophet vs those who I've dubbed as Protestant Mormons. They claim to believe *most* doctrines of the Church, but protest against the prophet and seek to set up their "personal authority" that they derive from their own "personal revelation" as an alternative to prophetic teachings.

As I am prepping to write about this, I found this mic drop quote:

"We have some tight places to go before the Lord is through with this church and the world in this dispensation, which is the last dispensation, which shall usher in the coming of the Lord. The gospel was restored to prepare a people ready to receive him. The power of Satan will increase; we see it in evidence on every hand. There will be inroads within the Church. There will be, as President Tanner has said, "Hypocrites, those professing, but secretly are full of dead men's bones." Matt. 23:27 We will see those who profess membership but secretly are plotting and trying to lead people not to follow the leadership that the Lord has set up to preside in this church.

Now the only safety we have as members of this church is to do exactly what the Lord said to the Church in that day when the Church was organized. We must learn to give heed to the words and commandments that the Lord shall give through his prophet, "as he receiveth them, walking in all holiness before me—as if from mine own mouth, in all patience and faith." D&C 21:4-5 There will be some things that take patience and faith. You may not like what comes from the authority of the Church. It may contradict your political views. It may contradict your social views. It may interfere with some of your social life. But if you listen to these things, as if from the mouth of the Lord himself, with patience and faith, the promise is that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; yea, and the Lord God will disperse the powers of darkness from before you, and cause the heavens to shake for your good, and his name's glory." D&C 21:6"
Harold B. Lee
Conference, Oct. 1970

I think that much of what Telestial minded people in this life seek for simply won't be available to them in the next life. Unrighteous physical pleasures and addictions, wealth, power, control, vanity, etc are likely not to have a place there. So in what do they find happiness? Even happiness derived from righteous sources like family relationships are limited. They may be comfortable in terms of what laws they must obey but I can't help thinking they will find that existence rather empty, unless they are able to change somehow. And maybe that's the point, change and repentance will be required to achieve any degree of happiness. Wickedness never was happiness, even in the Telestial Kingdom.

I believe it is a dangerous heresy that says that all the kingdoms of glory will make us happy because that is where we belong.
A cat is certainly happy being a cat.  A horse is happy being a horse.  A human is happy being a human (qualifiers).  Would a human be happy being a cat?  Some children nowadays want to be trans-species.  Heck, I've even heard reports of adults wanting that.  Are we really going to believe they will have lasting happiness believing they are a cat?
All creatures are made to "fulfill the measure of their creation."  I also believe that every single person was created to have the potential to become celestial.  But there's this thing called free agency which changes the course of our development.  And while one can make an argument that there is some peace and happiness in lower kingdoms (e.g. "it seems like too much work to be in the Celestial Kingdom.") there is always a lost opportunity which will eventually be felt throughout eternity.  They did not fulfill the measure of their creation.
Many adult-children are remaining children because they don't want the responsibility of adulthood.  They think they are avoiding stress and hard work and... Besides, their rich parents will pay for everything. They have a trust fund.
These children do not realize the joy that comes from a job well done.  There is joy in achieving something by your own efforts.  There is joy in learning and growing into something more than you once were. Even some with mental handicaps understand this principle.  But some fully able-bodied and able-minded individuals can't get this concept.  They'll never know what is available to them.
Are they happy?  In a manner of speaking, sure.  But we know that there is something better.  And as happy as they think they are, they're missing out.  And that is what causes the Lord to weep.  They could have had more.  But they were either duped into believing they could never achieve more, or that they're perfectly happy with less.  (I use the word "perfectly" in the gospel sense)
I will take Pres Nelson's advice an "Think Celestial."  I don't want to be a human who thinks he's only a cat or a horse for all eternity.  I don't want to be a man-child for all eternity.  I don't want to merely be satisfied or content or happy for all eternity.  I want to be "perfectly" happy.

I just got around to watching the talk, as we were traveling on Sunday with no internet.  Although I didn't really see anything new in Oaks' comments, for some reason it helped me find some peace regarding my father.  My WWII vet, totally areligious, drinking/swearing/gambling father, who never seemed to go a day of his life without being mad and swearing about something (and mormons and the church were often his target).   My moral, often righteous father, who taught me most of the stuff I know about opposing injustice and standing for justice (although again, we sometimes disagreed about where they were found).  My proud, obstinate father who never bowed or knelt or submitted to anything or any one, and yet he was willing, without complaint, to wear the tux and stand in the reception line surrounded by mormons who had just come from my temple sealing.  My humerous and witty and cantankerous and irreverent father who, when I told him on his deathbed of my plans to get him sealed to all 3 of his wives and asked if there was any particular order he wanted me to do them in, replied "It doesn't matter, they're all in hell."  
I've been worried ever since he died.  When I did his temple work, I was unconsolable and full of doubt about whether it would "do any good".  But I finally got a little consolation.   Depending on the definition of "valiant", he's either in spirit prison or paradise.  Assuming I stay on the straight and narrow in this life, I'll either be able to teach him, or work with him.  And then, he'll end up going wherever he's the most comfortable, to spend the eternities where he wants to be.  He might spend them organizing poker games and griping sarcastically about how this place is run.   Or, he might choose exaltation and for all I know, and he'll occasionally need to come down and visit me.  Whatever the varied details, our loving Heavenly Father has pretty much ensured it'll be all right.  (I don't see either of us shooting for outer darkness, especially since the telestial has so much going for it.)  
I am consoled.  I'm finally at peace about his umpteen opportunities to learn about the gospel that he turned down in life.  Thanks Elder Oaks!

I personally believe that the Nephites and Lamanites spread so much that their descendants can probably be found among most native tribes. But it does appear that acceptance of the gospel is more prevalent among central and south American native members than North American. Does that mean anything? Idk. 

I personally believe that the Nephites and Lamanites spread so much that their descendants can probably be found among most native tribes. But it does appear that acceptance of the gospel is more prevalent among central and south American native members than North American. Does that mean anything? Idk.