Blood Atonement

[Maureen]

So what was the theory of Blood Atonement - that you had to shed your own blood for certain crimes/sins - like murder?

Just out of curiosity, what other crimes would necessitate the shedding of blood?

Here is the list.  Let me know if you need references for any of these.

Murder

Adultery and Immorality

Stealing

Using the Name of the Lord in Vain

For Not Receiving the Gospel

For Marriage to an African

For Covenant Breaking

For Apostasy

For Lying

For Counterfeiting

For Condemning Joseph Smith or Consenting to his Death

In looking at BY's personality, he seems the kind of man that requires loyal obedience by his followers. He didn't get them this far (Utah) to have them all run away and leave him high and dry. So what better way than ultimatums and threats to keep the members towing the line. BY's style of leadership was dictator-ish to say the least. Blood Atonement fits the bill.

M.

[huma17]

Blood Atonement was NOT taught by Brigham Young, you are fooling yourselves if you think so. You need to actually READ what he said, look a little deeper, you'll see it. The theory is: some sins are not covered by Christs' atoning blood and require the blood of the sinner to be spilt to atone for that sin '-so far as in his power lies-'. Did you get that?? 'SO FAR AS IN HIS POWER LIES'! Do you have power to atone for your sins? For anybodies sins??? NO! YOU DON'T!! Only Christ has that power. Hence those sins are UNFORGIVABLE. Blood atonement is a MYTH, you CANNOT atone for your own sins. Brigham Young said I F men C O U L D, they would give up their lives by spilling their blood to atone for the sins that are not covered by Christ ' - according to his light and knowledge-'. He talks about spilling the blood of another as regarding the sacrafice that Christ made in spilling HIS blood; you will do those things for love of mankind AS CHRIST did. Please, read before you rant.

Blood Atonement WAS DOCTRINE under the LAW OF MOSES. Those things (Sacrafices, alters, incense and such) were done away with by the coming of the Messiah!

[Maureen]

Originally posted by huma17@Aug 6 2004, 02:24 PM

Blood Atonement was NOT taught by Brigham Young, you are fooling yourselves if you think so. You need to actually READ what he said, look a little deeper, you'll see it.....Please, read before you rant.

Blood Atonement WAS DOCTRINE under the LAW OF MOSES. Those things (Sacrafices, alters, incense and such) were done away with by the coming of the Messiah!

Okay huma, why don't you give us something to read then, that shows exactly what you mean. Give me some sort of quote by BY that proves your point.

M.

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by Maureen+Aug 6 2004, 06:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Maureen @ Aug 6 2004, 06:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--huma17@Aug 6 2004, 02:24 PM

Blood Atonement was NOT taught by Brigham Young, you are fooling yourselves if you think so.  You need to actually READ what he said, look a little deeper, you'll see it.....Please, read before you rant.

Blood Atonement WAS DOCTRINE under the LAW OF MOSES. Those things (Sacrafices, alters, incense and such) were done away with by the coming of the Messiah!

Okay huma, why don't you give us something to read then, that shows exactly what you mean. Give me some sort of quote by BY that proves your point.

M.

Does anybody want to place bets on whether he gives a link to an apologetic website where the author has "re-interpreted" what Brigham Young meant, without actually referencing what he said?

[huma17]

I will use an anti web site for my source, look for it at the bottom.

In the quote by Joseph F. Smith, notice him saying that blood atonement for ones' sins can be done as far as it is in their power to do so. They DO NOT have that power, only Christ has that power.

The doctrine of blood atonement was taught by Joseph, as indicated by Joseph Fielding Smith Jr. (10th prophet):

"Just a word or two now, on the subject of blood atonement. What is that doctrine? Unadulterated, if you please, laying aside the pernicious insinuations and lying charges that have so often been made, it is simply this: Through the atonement of Christ all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. Salvation is twofold: General -- that which comes to all men irrespective of a belief (in this life) in Christ -- and, Individual -- that which man merits through his own acts through life and by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.

"But man may commit certain grievous sins -- according to his light and knowledge -- that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone --so far as in his power lies-- for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail.

"Do you believe this doctrine? If not, then I do say you do not believe in the true doctrine of the atonement of Christ. This is the doctrine you are pleased to call the "blood atonement of Brighamism." This is the doctrine of Christ our Redeemer, who died for us. This is the doctrine of Joseph Smith, and I accept it." (McConkie, Bruce R., ed. Doctrines of Salvation, Vol. 1, pp. 133 - 135, Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954-1955)

Notice below, that BY says IF men could atone for their own sins, they would. Just like men would have the mountains cover them to hide their sins from the Messiah when he comes. It is rhetorical, because you CANNOT hide your sins from the Lord. Man cannot atone for their sins, hence they are unforgiveable.

Brigham Young clearly explained the doctrine of blood atonement in a sermon given on September 21, 1856:

"There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world.

"I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them…

"And further more, I know that there are transgressors, who, if they knew themselves, and the only condition upon which they can obtain forgiveness, would beg of their brethren to shed their blood, that the smoke thereof might ascend to God as an offering to appease the wrath that is kindled against them, and that the law might have its course. I will say further;

"I have had men come to me and offer their lives to atone for their sins.

"It is true that the blood of the Son of God was shed for sins through the fall and those committed by men, yet men can commit sins which it can never remit.... There are sins that can be atoned for by an offering upon an altar, as in ancient days; and there are sins that the blood of a lamb, or a calf, or of turtle dove, cannot remit, but they must be atoned for by the blood of the man." (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, pp. 53-54); also published in Deseret News, 1856, p. 235)

http://trialsofascension.net/mormon/blood.html

[Guest bat]

How come you referenced only one of BY's many sermons where he taught Blood Atonement

? Was that the only one that supported your position?

[Guest bat]

I found this post on another board by Dale Broadhurst, a member of the RLDS Church. You all might find it interesting.

As with you, I have my LDS ancestors and am descended from polygamous Utah and

Idaho families. I also have my RLDS ancestors. Without the physical contribution

of both sets of people, I would not exist. My ggGrandfather was Samuel Broadhurst,

the presiding elder of the Leigh, Lanc. branch, who brought that group of Saints

to America and on to Great Salt Lake City in 1853. In the mid-1860's he was cut

off for refusing to comply with three doctrines: Polygamy, Adam=God, and Blood

Atonement. He predicted that one day the LDS would disavow the continued practice

of all three. On his death-bed he was reinstated with full blessings and priest-

hood by Pres. John Taylor, although he still refsued to acknowledge the validity

of polygamy and Taylor (an arch-polygamist then in hiding for his beliefs) was

fully aware of the old man's position on that one doctrine. It has been very

interesting for me to read the old journals, letters, and LDS records regarding

this man, his family, and how he conducted his life. Through him I continue to

feel some measure of attachment to the Utah Saints.

Best wishes,

Dale Broadhurst

I find it interesting to learn that a person was excommunicated for not believing in things that today aren't even considered to be doctrine. I wonder if he will be reinstated to membership in good standing like the murderer John D. Lee was.

[Maureen]

I think you're grasping at straws huma17. I think it means what it says. (And I can bold like the best of them)

But man may commit certain grievous sins -- according to his light and knowledge -- that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone --so far as in his power lies-- for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail.

My interpretation of this statement is this: If a man has committed grievous sins that Christ's blood can't reach; then if this man really desires to be truly saved he must sacrifice his own life. I definitely don't agree with this doctrine because how can a sinful man atone for his own sins when a righteous man could not. It doesn't even line up with OT practices.

M.

[Guest bat]

Originally posted by Maureen@Aug 9 2004, 10:25 PM

I think you're grasping at straws huma17. I think it means what it says. (And I can bold like the best of them)

But man may commit certain grievous sins -- according to his light and knowledge -- that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone --so far as in his power lies-- for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail.

My interpretation of this statement is this: If a man has committed grievous sins that Christ's blood can't reach; then if this man really desires to be truly saved he must sacrifice his own life. I definitely don't agree with this doctrine because how can a sinful man atone for his own sins when a righteous man could not. It doesn't even line up with OT practices.

M.

"Suicide is a good thing" sounds more like fanatical Islamics that believe that strapping explosives to their person and detonating them to kill innocent people than it does a christian doctrine. It makes me sad. Boohoo.

[huma17]

Well, apparently it doesn't matter what I say, or what I show you. You will believe what you want anyway. I feel that I was pretty clear on the matter, but unfortunately it didnt' help.

What you have bolded shows what I have already covered; that some sins are not covered by the blood of Christ, which makes them unforgivable, period. There is nothing you can do to atone for those sins. I don't know why you cannot understand that.

BY said if you could, you would. Anybody who knew the true state of their sins would shed their own blood to be saved if they could. He is talking about blood atonement to emphasize the importance of the Atonement of Christ. He also states that as members, we should want to shed our blood, or the blood of another to atone for sins out of love for our fellow man, JUST AS CHRIST DID OUT OF LOVE. He is not teaching blood atonement as doctrine to be practiced, but as a tool to show us how to view Christs' Atonement and the role each of us play in the salvation of men.

I could use other quotes from BY that would show the same thing, but I don't need to since you are unable to see what he was really saying in the first quote. BY was hard to understand sometimes, but this is very obvious if you just read the WHOLE quote, and not just parts. People didn't understand him when he was saying those things at the time he said it, hence they had to be rebuked for thinking he was teaching false doctrine when he was not. Just like people don't understand him today. You are willing to believe he taught them for your own personal reasons, but the fact remains: he did NOT teach it.

You use quotes from someone who was excommunicated for reasons to back your point, which makes no sense at all. There is a reason people are ex'd and it has nothing to do with trying to hide anything. Just because someone says something, doesn't make it true. Why don't you try sticking with quotes from the person who is actually the one being accused of teaching blood atonement, and not from someone who was ex'd. Using John Lee as a resource doesn't help your arguements either. We all know the kinds of stories he liked to make up. Stick with quotes from actual leaders of the church, and not from people who had reasons to hate and bash it.

I'm sorry, but I cannot be any clearer on this subject. The quote I used explained it all, its there - you just have to see it.

[Matt]

What you have bolded shows what I have already covered; that some sins are not covered by the blood of Christ...

Who says? Who says: "Nah. That blood of Christ just ain't good enough for us"?

That's got to be some really, deeply, seriously, flawed and weird doctrine.

[Ray]

But man may commit certain grievous sins -- according to his light and knowledge -- that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ. If then he would be saved he must make sacrifice of his own life to atone --so far as in his power lies-- for that sin, for the blood of Christ alone under certain circumstances will not avail. - Brigham Young

What you have bolded shows what I have already covered; that some sins are not covered by the blood of Christ, which makes them unforgivable, period. There is nothing you can do to atone for those sins. I don't know why you cannot understand that. - huma17

I think the point would have been clarified if you would also say that there is nothing that Christ can do to atone for those sins either. But notice that Brigham was talking about “certain grievous sins”, sins a man commits “according to his light and knowledge, that will place him beyond the reach of the atoning blood of Christ.”

I believe Brigham used the term “certain grievous sins” to refer to those sins we commit while knowing that we are sinning, according to the light and knowledge we receive from the Holy Ghost to tell us that we are sinning, while we go on committing those sins anyway.

Do you really believe that Jesus will simply forgive us for doing that? That He will forgive us for totally rebelling against the light and knowledge we receive from the Holy Ghost and say something like:

Don’t worry, the atonement will cover that, you can just go on doing whatever you want to do while knowing that I will forgive you.

Jesus Himself said that a sin against the Holy Ghost would not be forgiven, so how do you suppose you can receive forgiveness for that? If Jesus said that you would not be forgiven for that, what reasoning do you use to support your idea that you can be forgiven for that?

Got it? You should now realize that there are certain things for which even the atonement will not cover, and the only question that remains is what are you going to do to pay for those sins yourself – so far as in your power lies.

[Matt]

But 99.9% of what Brigham Young said is now ignored by the modern Mormon church, surely?

[Ray]

Many members of the Church ignore what more modern prophets have taught, so why should they feel differently about the teachings of a prophet who taught over 100 years ago?

[Matt]

What I said was church, not members. There are people who follow everything Brigham Young taught. Including Blood Atonement. They are the people who blow up LDS chapels and so forth...

[Ray]

Originally posted by Matt@Aug 12 2004, 11:56 AM

What I said was church, not members. There are people who follow everything Brigham Young taught. Including Blood Atonement. They are the people who blow up LDS chapels and so forth...

Heh, are you saying that I'm blowing up LDS chapels or something?

[huma17]

Ray -

You are not understanding the term 'light and knowledge'.

Light and knowledge of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is one example, and light and knowledge of sins that are unforgivable is another. I had/have a protestant friend/roommate who thought that if he thought what he was doing (while in the act of doing it) was wrong, that that was repenting and he would be forgiven. He is a true friend, but it was/is a foolish idea. Some people don't have the light and knowledge of modern day prophets, and others do not have a light and knowledge that denying the Holy Ghost is unforgiveable. Denying the HG is not the same thing as not listening the Spirit. If the HG reveals to me that Jesus is the Christ, then later I reject that truth saying he doesn't exist, then I have just commited an unforgiveable sin. The light and knowledge that BY refers to are those unforgiveable sins, not everyday sins such as envying your neighbors boat. To think that Christ cannot atone for those sins (IF REPENTED OF) is crazy.

By the way, Matt, Christ , ancient and modern prophets taught that not everyone is automatically atoned for, and some not at all. I don't know what you find 'weird' about this - this is not new doctrine here.

We have already gone over the fact that the atonement of Christ does not cover that type of sin. Joseph F. Smith is pointing out that the blood atonement doctrine that was 'supposedly' taught requires the sinner to atone for those certain unforgiveable sins. He also adds that it is done so by your own power (it is understood that we do not have power to atone for sins). He states that this 'doctrine' by BY was made by "pernicious insinuations and lying charges".

You say members, even modern prophets, ignore, change, or challenge doctrines taught by early prophets, but the fact is; they were not even taught in the first place. It is more like 99.9% of what BY taught is being misunderstood by those who don't have (or have rejected) a greater light and knowledge of the fulness of Christs' own Gospel. You say members ignore the doctrine of Blood Atonement - well, that's because it is not, and never has been, doctrine of the Restored Gospel.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Matt@Aug 12 2004, 11:43 AM

But 99.9% of what Brigham Young said is now ignored by the modern Mormon church, surely?

99.9%??!!! Wow, I can't wait to see the research you have done supporting this statement!! Please share.

[Kevin]

Originally posted by Matt@Aug 12 2004, 11:56 AM

What I said was church, not members. There are people who follow everything Brigham Young taught. Including Blood Atonement. They are the people who blow up LDS chapels and so forth...

Matt, you don't really know what you're talking about here do you? Do you actually know that the people allegedly blowing up LDS chapels are doing so thinking that they are following Brigham Young's teachings?

[Ray]

Originally posted by huma17@ Aug 12 2004, 12:43 PM

Ray –

You are not understanding the term 'light and knowledge'.

Light and knowledge of the Restored Gospel of Jesus Christ is one example, and light and knowledge of sins that are unforgivable is another. I had/have a protestant friend/roommate who thought that if he thought what he was doing (while in the act of doing it) was wrong, that that was repenting and he would be forgiven. He is a true friend, but it was/is a foolish idea. Some people don't have the light and knowledge of modern day prophets, and others do not have a light and knowledge that denying the Holy Ghost is unforgivable. Denying the HG is not the same thing as not listening to the Spirit. If the HG reveals to me that Jesus is the Christ, then later I reject that truth saying he doesn't exist, then I have just committed an unforgivable sin. The light and knowledge that BY refers to are those unforgivable sins, not everyday sins such as envying your neighbors boat. To think that Christ cannot atone for those sins (IF REPENTED OF) is crazy.

I pretty much agree with you, although I might possibly add to your understanding.

Basically, the sin of denying the Holy Ghost is to deny the power of the Holy Ghost, which is the power to convince us of truth, including our true condition in sin. If we deny that power we are denying the only thing that can save us, because without that there is no way to improve our condition. The only way to avoid committing this sin is to accept the power of the Holy Ghost, which allows the light and knowledge of Christ to save us by helping us become a new creature. Unless we are "born again", we will not enter heaven… not even the least degree. In fact, it is to the degree that we accept the power of the Holy Ghost that determines the degree of heaven we will attain.

I also think you probably didn’t finish the thought you were expressing above, which I have highlighted in bold. Simply realizing that we are doing something wrong is not repentance, because repentance includes turning away from that thing to the point of not doing it again. I’ll assume that is what you meant.

[huma17]

No, you do not need to finish my thought, because I had already finished it. That is exactly how he saw things. Every time he committed that sin and thought about it, he would be forgiven. He did not think that he had to turn away from it, or ask forgiveness. As long as he knew it was wrong, the Lord would forgive him. I don't know why you feel you need assume what I meant, or 'finish' my thought when I stated fully what I mean?

Also, I'm not sure why your trying to 'add to my understanding', or where your getting your ideas? In the New Testament, it refers to blasphemy against the HG as unpardonable, while blasphemy against Christ was not. According to your 'understanding', anyone denying the truth that Christ taught were committing an unpardonable sin since he taught the truth (and HE is the only thing that can save us), and the HG came AFTER him. That would mean all of Israel is damned; but that cannot be since they are still the chosen people of the Lord, and will still receive all the promised blessings, including Eternal Life.

Besides, blasphemy means to lie against falsely. Hence denying Christ after the HG has revealed it to you. To commit blasphemy against the HG would be to lie by denying Christ after receiving knowledge of him from the HG.

If you are LDS, you need to look in D&C, or read McConkie.

[Matt]

"Fundamentalist" Mormons have blown up LDS chapels and have shot people, too.

And I think you'll find that Blood Atonement covered much more than mentioned by Jesus Christ. And unforigable means that. Not "Well, if your blood is spilt, don't worry, that'll fix it all."

[Ray]

No, you do not need to finish my thought, because I had already finished it. That is exactly how he saw things. Every time he committed that sin and thought about it, he would be forgiven. He did not think that he had to turn away from it, or ask forgiveness. As long as he knew it was wrong, the Lord would forgive him. I don't know why you feel you need assume what I meant, or 'finish' my thought when I stated fully what I mean?

Heh, okay, I guess I gave the guy too much credit. It seemed too strange that someone would think that, and I would rather give people the benefit of the doubt.

Also, I'm not sure why your trying to 'add to my understanding', or where your getting your ideas? In the New Testament, it refers to blasphemy against the HG as unpardonable, while blasphemy against Christ was not. According to your 'understanding', anyone denying the truth that Christ taught was committing an unpardonable sin since he taught the truth (and HE is the only thing that can save us), and the HG came AFTER him. That would mean all of Israel is damned; but that cannot be since they are still the chosen people of the Lord, and will still receive all the promised blessings, including Eternal Life.

It looks like you still don’t understand what I know. Perhaps I’m not making myself clear enough for you? Try to bear with me as I try this one more time.

The way I see it, ‘light and knowledge’ comes from a personal witness and the personal power of the Holy Ghost. Do we agree thus far?

Going further, that means that until somebody receives a witness from the Holy Ghost, about anything in particular, they are not held accountable for that ‘light and knowledge’. Do we agree thus far?

Going further, that means no matter where information comes from, even if it comes from Christ, if that information isn’t conveyed to someone through the power of the Holy Ghost, then that person will not be held accountable for it. Agreed?

Going further, not being held accountable for that ‘light and knowledge’ not only means they will not be punished for never having denied that light and knowledge, but that they will also not benefit for having received that light and knowledge. In other words, it will be as though they never received it, not being explicitly punished for it, but not being benefited by it either.

Therefore, the people who do not receive light and knowledge from the Holy Ghost will only receive what they were willing to receive, and only what they accepted.

Thus, there will be persons spanning all degrees of glory, being blessed for what they did receive, and not punished for what they didn’t receive, except that they could have received additional light and knowledge if they had been willing to receive it.

Now, going back a little bit to what I was saying about how light and knowledge comes from a personal witness and the personal power of the Holy Ghost, I would now have you understand that the Holy Ghost proceeds directly from Christ and is accountable directly to Him. In other words, just as Christ is subordinate to our Father, the Holy Ghost is subordinate to Christ, as well as our Father. Can we agree about that?

Going further, that means that the light and knowledge that is conveyed through the power of the Holy Ghost is only conveyed by the Holy Ghost if Christ first sends the Holy Ghost to declare His witness. In other words, without Christ the Holy Ghost wouldn’t be sent at all, and the mission of the Holy Ghost is only to do the will of Christ. Do you agree with that?

Going further, even though all light and knowledge comes to us from Christ, Christ only judges us on the light and knowledge we receive or don’t receive through the power of the Holy Ghost. Got that? From our Father to Christ, from Christ to the Holy Ghost, and from the Holy Ghost to us, so that we may all be edified together.

Now, if you disagree with any of that, I suggest you ponder what I have been saying while you study the scriptures yourself, because I know that what I’m saying is true and in agreement with the scriptures, the views of brother McConkie, and the views of anyone else you care to name who also knows the truth.

[huma17]

What you are saying does not agree with the point you appeared to be making. You appeared to be suggesting that unforgiveable/unpardonable sins included not accepting truth from the Holy Ghost, because you wouldn't receive the rewards from accepting and following the greater knowledge that the HG brings. Hence unforgiveable because you wouldn't be 'forgiven' for not accepting the greater light and knowledge of the HG. Forgiven meaning to not receive the rewards of Everlasting Life, just as those who are punished do not receive it. Am I following you on this?

The things that you are saying about receiving a greater light and knowledge from the HG are true, but the point you are trying to make is abstract, and I think incorrect. The point that I was making, was that to deny the HG as an unforgiveable sin meant to reject the knowledge of Christ after the HG made it manifest to you. Once you did that, THERE WILL BE NO FORGIVENESS. With your point, as soon as someone accepted the truth that the HG brings, they would be 'forgiven', so to speak, by being able to follow that truth to receive Everlasting Life. That would not make it unforgiveable, because accepting it would bring about forgiveness. I'm not arguing about the points you made; such as needing the HG to receive light and knowledge. I'm arguing with your point of not listening to the HG being a form of an unforgiveable sin.

Remember also, that the Holy Ghost is NOT present while the Lord is on the Earth. When Christ is/was here, truth comes by him, and him alone.

The light and knowledge that BY was talking about refers to the knowledge that certain sins are unforgiveable, which you stated comes from the HG.

Like I said, the things that you have said are true, but your point is not. I do not need to study the scriptures for this, because I already have. They are quite clear as to what unforgiveable refers to, including McConkie.

Matt-

I don't know why your making a point that has already been made.

And I think you'll find that Blood Atonement covered much more than mentioned by Jesus Christ. And unforigable means that. Not "Well, if your blood is spilt, don't worry, that'll fix it all."

You cannot atone for your sins by spilling your own blood, that IS the point. I have already pointed that out. BY was saying if you COULD, you would. Listen carefully: BLOOD ATONEMENT WAS NOT TAUGHT AS A DOCTRINE TO BE PRACTICED BY ANY MODERN DAY PROPHET. It was spoken of as a means to get points across.

[Ray]

I believe you correctly understand what I am saying, and I still stand by what I have said, but I’d like you to clarify a few points that I don’t understand from you.

Forgiven meaning to not receive the rewards of Everlasting Life, just as those who are punished do not receive it. Am I following you on this?

Did you mean to start by saying “Not forgiven”, instead of “Forgiven”?

I would say that if you are forgiven you will receive the rewards of Everlasting Life, just as those who are punished do not receive it.

I don’t understand how you could believe that “Forgiven meaning to not receive” those rewards.

Remember also, that the Holy Ghost is NOT present while the Lord is on the Earth. When Christ is/was here, truth comes by him, and him alone.

I’m glad you brought this up, because I didn’t clarify something in my previous post.

Do you realize that many of the people who heard from Jesus while He was here on the Earth did not receive the truth from Him during that time? Understand that I’m not saying that Jesus didn’t speak the truth, but that many people simply didn’t receive it. Do you know why that was?

In my previous post I said that the Holy Ghost was sent directly from Jesus, but during His personal ministry this didn’t happen. If anyone received the witness from the Holy Ghost during that time, it was because our Father had sent the Holy Ghost to bear witness. It wasn’t until after the resurrection that Jesus was given all authority over the Earth, and at point Jesus was the one who sent the Holy Ghost.

Anyway, that was a bit of an aside, and the main point I would have you know is that all truth is conveyed to us through the power of the witness of the Holy Ghost. Even if Jesus was speaking to us directly, as He did during His ministry, we would not receive that light and knowledge unless we also received the witness from the Holy Ghost. And that is why Jesus said that He would forgive those who denied Him, but not forgive those who denied a witness from the Holy Ghost.

Until people receive a witness about something in particular from the Holy Ghost, there is nothing to forgive about that something, because we are only held accountable for denying what we know to be true. If we never receive a witness about that something in the first place, then we are simply not given credit for having received it.

I hope you correctly understand me this time and that the truth about this issue is now clear to you.