can murderers hope for anything above the Telestial kingdom?

[Just_A_Guy]

Shadowlands...no, ministrations of the Holy Spirit would not compare with the Kingdom of Heaven, in which the very presence of God illumines. We expect God's presence to be so permeating of the very atmosphere. So, for haters of God, heaven would be hell--because God's presence would be in every breath, smell, taste, sound, and sight. Even the Terrestial Kingdom would not quite match (except maybe for modalists).

I don't quite understand, PC. If we are talking about an existence infused with light and beauty and peace and glory and communion with the "spirit" of God--I don't see the Mormon view of the Telestial Kingdom as excluding any of that. So, in conventional Christian thought, what else would it mean to be in the "presence" of a noncorporeal Being beyond what you and I have already described? Edited June 21, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

The LDS Godhead, if I understand correctly, is such that the ministrations of the Holy Spirit, while offered in perfect agreement with the will of the Son and Father, would be without their actual presence.  This is a subtlety that could be slight and infinite at the same time.  I guess the simple answer to your question, JAG, is that if YOU know there's a huge difference between the lowest and highest kingdoms.  My theological ignorance of the totality of that difference doesn't preclude me from understanding that King David's being limited to the Telestial is a severe boundary, indeed.  After all, what competent LDS member would be satisfied with any of their loved ones ending up there?

[askandanswer]

I think that the atonement of Christ is sufficient to cover all the demands of justice and to pay for every sin committed by anyone, anywhere, ever, as long as the sinner chooses to pay the necessary price to make the atonement effective in their life. Whether or not a person who has committed murder or denied the Holy Ghost, or done any other sinful act can then enter the celestial kingdom is a completely different question. I don't believe that simply satisfying the demands of justice is enough to get you into the celestial kingdom. I can imagine a situation where a murderer, drawing on the atonement of Christ, sincerely repents, and meets all the requirements to be forgiven. However, if they, or anyone else, has not been sufficiently changed by the experience of repentance, such that they become more like the kind of person that God is willing to allow into His kingdom, then they will not be in that kingdom.  

[Guest]

I dunno. Personally I'm not planning on committing adultery and then murdering the husband to cover it up.

 

Let's start with you having a husband. . .

[rameumptom]

Let's not forget that many of the old apostles insisted that murderers had to pay for their own salvation - that the atonement did not save them (see Miracle of Forgiveness, for an example).

 

We can clearly see that such teachings do not jibe with the Bible or LDS scripture. Yes, murder is very serious and is not on the same level as shoplifting a candy bar. Jesus taught of the two men, one who owed little and the other owed much. When both were forgiven, the one who owed much was more grateful.

 

As for the levels of heaven being separated, I wonder just how separated they really are. The Telestial has the fulness of the Holy Ghost, but does that mean it cannot have the Father or Son visit? What about God and Jesus descending to our world to see Joseph Smith?  The ancient Judeao-Christian text, Ascension of Isaiah, shows Christ emptying himself of glory as he descends through the various levels of heaven, so the individuals in those levels are not affected by his fulness. In connection with this, Alma the Younger, while in his coma (Near Death Experience) representing Spirit Prison, repented and was suddenly in God's presence (Alma 36). He saw God on his throne from afar off (in a Telestial state), and wished he could be close up.  I believe that God's throne can be seen from all the kingdoms - they just cannot experience his fulness of glory  in the lower kingdoms. 

 

As LDS we have a huge tendency to take one or two verses and make our entire gospel out of them, often misinterpreting many of them along the way. Pres Uchtdorf noted on in 2 Nephi 25 that many LDS have misinterpreted over the years: "we are saved by grace after all we can do". Well, according to King Anti-Nephi-Lehi, the only thing the converted Lamanites could do is repent.  Understanding the atonement means we cannot delimit God's power, mercy, justice, or love. We like to scare people into keeping commandments, but that is exactly why Jesus condemned the Pharisees. 

 

We cannot be sure all the reasons a person commits a sin. We also cannot be sure to what level an individual has repented and believed on Christ's atonement.  What I do know is that Christ is willing to forgive me time and time again, as long as I am willing to believe and repent. I therefore must believe that Christ will do the same for all of God's children.

 

I know that if one of my children were to murder someone (even as a Mormon), then fully repent, I would claim that child as my own, allow him/her into my home, etc. If I can do this, who is a feeble mortal, then I believe a perfectly loving Father can do the same. If the Prodigal Son can waste his entire inheritance, fully repent, and gain a place at the Father's table again AS A CHILD and not a servant, then how can I think otherwise?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

 

As LDS we have a huge tendency to take one or two verses and make our entire gospel out of them, 

 

 

I agree and one of my favorite examples of this is people love to quote D&C 64:10

 

10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.

 

But few people remember D&C 98:44

 

44 But if he trespass against thee the fourth time thou shalt not forgive him, but shalt bring these testimonies before the Lord; and they shall not be blotted out until he repent and reward thee four-fold in all things wherewith he has trespassed against thee.

[estradling75]

I agree and one of my favorite examples of this is people love to quote D&C 64:10

 

10 I, the Lord, will forgive whom I will forgive, but of you it is required to forgive all men.

 

But few people remember D&C 98:44

 

44 But if he trespass against thee the fourth time thou shalt not forgive him, but shalt bring these testimonies before the Lord; and they shall not be blotted out until he repent and reward thee four-fold in all things wherewith he has trespassed against thee.

 

True but even verse 44 tells you to bring it to the Lord and basically leave it in his hands to deal with...  For me turning it over to the Lord has always been the biggest and hardest (and most important) step of forgiveness.

[Vort]

I believe this seeming conundrum of repenting of murder is brilliantly explained by Elder Scott in a General Conference talk within the last couple of years, regarding the Anti-Nephi-Lehis who covenanted as part of their repentance for their "many murders" never again to shed man's blood under any circumstance whatsoever, then were sorely tested a generation later as they watched their Nephite protectors being slaughtered in their defense. Elder Scott's remarks as to why it was so vitally important that they keep their covenants are highly instructive.

[Vort]

I wish we had a rule to toss out most of our GA books that are over 30 years old. Why? Because we do not believe today as they did back then. We've hopefully received more revelation and a better understanding of the gospel since then.

 

Ram, though I agree with much of what you wrote, I vehemently disagree with the above statement. I think it's plain false, and I am very glad we have no such "rule". (I'm even more glad that the Church membership seems no longer to be getting much of its doctrinal understandings from books written by GAs, but that's another matter entirely.) The idea that we are so much more enlightened than our ancestral Saints of past generations is untrue and potentially very dangerous.

 

Yes, in certain narrow areas, we do indeed have more light and knowledge -- the Priesthood issue is a good example of that. Also true is that our leaders emphasize things that are important for US in OUR generation, so that e.g. we might hear more of an emphasis today on grace. And it is my observation, shared by many, that our current leaders try perhaps to stick more closely to revealed doctrine instead of speculating on various matters in public venues, even General Conference. On these matters, we probably see eye to eye.

 

But the larger idea that we should ignore prophetic teachings from a generation ago or more, as suggested by your words quoted above, goes way too far. I am very confident that the overall understanding of the plan of salvation and of God's work in our lives as held by the apostles and prophets throughout the restoration greatly exceeds my own (and your own), regardless of individual items that, in retrospect, we might recognize that they got wrong.

[Vort]

And in this case, when we get too Universalist in our eschatology, we can't help but deny any absolute nexus between what we do in the here-and-now and the qualitative reward we receive in the hereafter--which in turn fundamentally nullifies the importance of proclaiming the Gospel, temple work, "hastening", "rescue", Christlike living, and pretty much every other initiative or injunction we've received from our Church leaders past and present.

 

I have actually heard (and read) Church members say explicitly that we should soft-peddle the gospel and scale back on (or altogether do away with) missionary work, because we can simply baptize people by proxy after they die, and then everything will be okay for them with much less trouble to us in the meantime. I am left shaking my head at the abysmal ignorance of the core of the gospel among so many Saints.

[Vort]

is it not written that any failure of the law is the same as murder?

 

This betrays a misunderstanding both of the question and of the core doctrine involved.

[The Folk Prophet]

Let's start with you having a husband. . .

 

Huh?

[The Folk Prophet]

We like to scare people into keeping commandments, but that is exactly why Jesus condemned the Pharisees. 

 

Hmm. I don't recall this ever being even slightly related to why Christ condemned the Pharisees. Can you provide a source quote?

[The Folk Prophet]

Let's not forget that many of the old apostles insisted that murderers had to pay for their own salvation - that the atonement did not save them (see Miracle of Forgiveness, for an example).

 

We can clearly see that such teachings do not jibe with the Bible or LDS scripture. 

 

I'm not sure how this doesn't jibe with the scriptures that clearly teach that A) those who kill cannot be forgiven and B) those unforgiven must suffer for their own sins.

 

Lest we be deceptive here, it should be pointed out that it was Joseph Smith who taught that David would have to pay for his own sins in hell (President Kimball quoted Joseph). You may be comfortable cavalierly casting off "many of the old apostles", but are you as comfortable with disregarding Joseph's teachings?

 

As LDS we have a huge tendency to take one or two verses and make our entire gospel out of them, often misinterpreting many of them along the way. 

 

Whereas this may or may not be true, it's one thing to assign culpability to the members at large for developing a misunderstanding of something -- it's another thing entirely to assign culpability to they who have the right, authority, and purview to interpret scripture.

 

Pres Uchtdorf noted on in 2 Nephi 25 that many LDS have misinterpreted over the years: "we are saved by grace after all we can do". 

 

What does this have anything to do with anything?

 

We cannot be sure all the reasons a person commits a sin. We also cannot be sure to what level an individual has repented and believed on Christ's atonement.  What I do know is that Christ is willing to forgive me time and time again, as long as I am willing to believe and repent.

 

I believe this too...excepting, of course, in those instances where the Lord has explicitly said otherwise.

 

I feel fairly confident that at my level of knowledge and understanding that were I to intentionally go out and murder someone that I'd be done as far as the exaltation thing goes.

 

I know that if one of my children were to murder someone (even as a Mormon), then fully repent, I would claim that child as my own, allow him/her into my home, etc. If I can do this, who is a feeble mortal, then I believe a perfectly loving Father can do the same. If the Prodigal Son can waste his entire inheritance, fully repent, and gain a place at the Father's table again AS A CHILD and not a servant, then how can I think otherwise?

 

Of course we have been commanded to forgive all men even if they do not repent. So I'm not sure of the direct application.

 

Whether we understand it or not, the law is the law, the rules are the rules, and God will do as He said He will do.

 

Clearly, we are not to consider anyone (other than one God has specifically said otherwise) damned. We are not to judge. But from a perspective of our own choices and actions, I think it fairly safe to assume that if we, knowingly, go out and murder someone, we will not be forgiven of such.

[The Folk Prophet]

I'm even more glad that the Church membership seems no longer to be getting much of its doctrinal understandings from books written by GAs, but that's another matter entirely.

 

How else are we to develop doctrinal understanding? From BYU professors who write books interpreting doctrine?

 

Yes, in certain narrow areas, we do indeed have more light and knowledge -- the Priesthood issue is a good example of that. 

 

How can you be sure that we have more light and knowledge on the matter? I don't recall any specific revelations, new scripture, or anything of the sort to indicate that our so-called light and knowledge is anything more than the current generation's mortal interpretations of things.

 

Obviously (hopefully obviously at least) that is irrelevant to whether we should sustain, support, and follow our living prophet's an apostles. But it's a bit out there, imo, to stretch that to inferred greater enlightenment.

[Just_A_Guy]

The LDS Godhead, if I understand correctly, is such that the ministrations of the Holy Spirit, while offered in perfect agreement with the will of the Son and Father, would be without their actual presence.  This is a subtlety that could be slight and infinite at the same time.  I guess the simple answer to your question, JAG, is that if YOU know there's a huge difference between the lowest and highest kingdoms.  My theological ignorance of the totality of that difference doesn't preclude me from understanding that King David's being limited to the Telestial is a severe boundary, indeed.  After all, what competent LDS member would be satisfied with any of their loved ones ending up there?

Oh, sure; from the LDS perspective there is certainly a significant difference. But the intriguing thing to me, as I suggested earlier in this thread, is that the Telestial Kingdom seems to be pretty much exactly what mainline Christianity envisions "heaven" to be. The only difference between those two concepts seems to be that inhabitants of traditional "heaven" are secure in the knowledge that they have everything that Christ initially offered them whereas inhabitants of the Telestial Kingdom are aware that they could have had something even better.

[Just_A_Guy]

The LDS Godhead, if I understand correctly, is such that the ministrations of the Holy Spirit, while offered in perfect agreement with the will of the Son and Father, would be without their actual presence.  This is a subtlety that could be slight and infinite at the same time.  I guess the simple answer to your question, JAG, is that if YOU know there's a huge difference between the lowest and highest kingdoms.  My theological ignorance of the totality of that difference doesn't preclude me from understanding that King David's being limited to the Telestial is a severe boundary, indeed.  After all, what competent LDS member would be satisfied with any of their loved ones ending up there?

Oh, sure; from the LDS perspective there is certainly a significant difference. But the intriguing thing to me, as I suggested earlier in this thread, is that the Telestial Kingdom seems to be pretty much exactly what mainline Christianity envisions "heaven" to be. The only difference between those two concepts seems to be that inhabitants of traditional "heaven" are secure in the knowledge that they have everything that Christ initially offered them whereas inhabitants of the Telestial Kingdom are aware that they could have had something even better.

[Just_A_Guy]

Let's not forget that many of the old apostles insisted that murderers had to pay for their own salvation - that the atonement did not save them (see Miracle of Forgiveness, for an example).

 

Yes, let's not. 

 

As for the levels of heaven being separated, I wonder just how separated they really are. The Telestial has the fulness of the Holy Ghost, but does that mean it cannot have the Father or Son visit? What about God and Jesus descending to our world to see Joseph Smith?  The ancient Judeao-Christian text, Ascension of Isaiah, shows Christ emptying himself of glory as he descends through the various levels of heaven, so the individuals in those levels are not affected by his fulness. In connection with this, Alma the Younger, while in his coma (Near Death Experience) representing Spirit Prison, repented and was suddenly in God's presence (Alma 36). He saw God on his throne from afar off (in a Telestial state), and wished he could be close up.  I believe that God's throne can be seen from all the kingdoms - they just cannot experience his fulness of glory  in the lower kingdoms.

 

I like this a lot and am inclined to agree with it--but the bare text of D&C 76 poses some real complications to this view and I've not been able to find a satisfactory, scripturally-based workaround.  I would love to hear anything you'd like to add on this.

 

We like to scare people into keeping commandments, but that is exactly why Jesus condemned the Pharisees.

 

Well, Jesus Himself wasn't above a hellfire-damnation sermon or two . . .

 

I know that if one of my children were to murder someone (even as a Mormon), then fully repent, I would claim that child as my own, allow him/her into my home, etc. If I can do this, who is a feeble mortal, then I believe a perfectly loving Father can do the same. If the Prodigal Son can waste his entire inheritance, fully repent, and gain a place at the Father's table again AS A CHILD and not a servant, then how can I think otherwise?

 

But note that in the parable of the Prodigal Son, the Father also concretely stated that all his possessions now belonged to the (relatively) faithful son.  The prodigal had been redeemed and liberated from the prospect of eternal slavery, all right--but that couldn't change the fact that his inheritance had been irrevocably and irretrievably spent.  The prodigal was back in the family as a dependent, not an heir.

Edited June 21, 2015 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

How else are we to develop doctrinal understanding? From BYU professors who write books interpreting doctrine?

 

From the scriptures, and also from General Conference addresses.

 

How can you be sure that we have more light and knowledge on the matter? I don't recall any specific revelations, new scripture, or anything of the sort to indicate that our so-called light and knowledge is anything more than the current generation's mortal interpretations of things.

 

Yes, I probably misspoke. I don't think we actually have "more light and knowledge", except that we know of the revelation given to our generation that was previously lacking. But though my example may have been poor, I think the point remains.

[james12]

I know that if one of my children were to murder someone (even as a Mormon), then fully repent, I would claim that child as my own, allow him/her into my home, etc. If I can do this, who is a feeble mortal, then I believe a perfectly loving Father can do the same. If the Prodigal Son can waste his entire inheritance, fully repent, and gain a place at the Father's table again AS A CHILD and not a servant, then how can I think otherwise?

But note that in the parable of the Prodigal Son, the Father also concretely stated that all his possessions now belonged to the (relatively) faithful son.  The prodigal had been redeemed and liberated from the prospect of eternal slavery, all right--but that couldn't change the fact that his inheritance had been irrevocably and irretrievably spent.  The prodigal was back in the family as a dependent, not an heir.

JAG, I do not see any reason to believe the prodigal was not fully received into the Father's household. In fact he had the best robe, a ring, and shoes on his feet. What is more, he is acknowledged by the Father as his son once more. Also, the Father did not state that all his possessions now belonged to the other son but that they always had been his. Just as they have always been ours if we don't reject them. What's more, ones portion does not diminish anothers.   

[rameumptom]

A problem with some of the verses in D&C and statements from Joseph Smith and others is they can be usually be considered on several different levels.  Is it easy for a murderer to repent? Of course not.  I would imagine that a little white lie can be sincerely repented of in a very short time.  However, King David would require a long period of repentance.  Not that he would be paying for his sins, but that the changes required to receive higher levels of salvation would require major change of heart and being.

 

D&C 76 says that for the Sons of Perdition there is no salvation "worlds without end". What does that mean? Does that mean forever? Or does that mean a long period of time?  D&C 19 tells us that the Lord used terms like Endless Punishment to scare people into obeying commandments, but was giving the latter-day Saints the full meaning of the terminology: God's Punishment - which does have an end when the person chooses to repent and embrace Christ. Ostensibly, this could apply to all, including sons of Perdition, IF they were to change and repent.

 

For me, the key to reading and understanding these things is based upon the terms faith, grace and repentance. Has the person sufficiently repented of his/her sins so that the atonement can fully save?  Or has he/she only done a limited repentance with limited faith, receiving a limited atoning grace that delivers them into a lesser kingdom of glory?

 

Without using that as the tool to understand the teachings given us, I see too many conflicts and disagreements, even within the scriptures.  D&C 19 tells us to repent or suffer as Christ did. It does not give a time frame when repentance no longer is possible, only that the suffering will continue until we do repent. 

 

The Church went through the scriptural headings last year to fix them, because many need correction. Some were very wrong. They added headers of explanation on OD1 and OD2, for instance that give us very different understanding than what was taught previously. 

 

One reading I question is found in D&C 1. "The only true and living Church with which, I the Lord, am well pleased."  Too often we cut off the last part and suggest there is only one Church of Christ. We do not ask some important questions: are there any "true and living" churches which which the Lord is mildly pleased? Or annoyed with?  Are there some true, but not living churches that God likes?  Did that statement apply in Joseph Smith's time, but not in ours?

 

I fear we assume way too many things in the Church, and create doctrines out of traditions and sometimes even fables (curse of Cain, anyone?).

 

We have to ask ourselves: just how powerful is God? And how powerful is the atonement?  Can it save and possibly exalt all who fully repent? Or are we putting faith in a Being who may not be as powerful as we need Him to be?  I came to the conclusion long ago that if the Calvinist TULIP were true, that would be a God that would not be worthy of my worship. Why not? Because while He is able to save, he chooses to save very few on a whim. And while he creates everyone without free will, he still condemns those who sin, even though he made them that way.  God creates and forces them to sin, then casts them to hell.  I could not worship such a Being.

 

But the God that Joseph Smith taught is a loving God, who offers a near universal salvation. Only the Sons of Perdition, who love sin and darkness and refuse to repent and embrace Christ will not receive a kingdom of glory.  They prefer misery in darkness over dwelling in the light.  All others will receive the level of salvation he/she desires, whether Telestial, Terrestrial, Celestial, exalted.  While the current gospel does not teach this, I personally believe there may be progression between kingdoms, so that when a person is ready for greater glory, Christ's grace is there to raise him higher. His atonement therefore becomes an eternal event, and eternally worthy of praise.  It truly is an Amazing Grace that He proffers us.

[The Folk Prophet]

From the scriptures, and also from General Conference addresses.

 

By implication, a carefully prepared conference talk by an apostle has less potential of a misspoken point than a carefully prepared and edited book by the same?

 

I don't follow the logic here.

 

Clearly getting doctrinal knowledge from scriptures alone is insufficient.

 

But why are the words of the GAs only valid over the pulpit? And is it only General Conference? What about other devotionals and/or conferences?

 

Should we really put such restrictions on the teachings of our prophets and apostles?

[The Folk Prophet]

Some were very wrong. 

 

There were some dates and or other incidental things that were "very wrong" I suppose. I question the idea that any of the headers had doctrinal ideas that were "very wrong". Please illustrate.

 

They added headers of explanation on OD1 and OD2, for instance that give us very different understanding than what was taught previously. 

 

I find the implication that the new headers revealed some new information that was previously unknown a bit far-fetched. What, specifically, in these introductions was so revolutionary?

 

One reading I question is found in D&C 1. "The only true and living Church with which, I the Lord, am well pleased."  Too often we cut off the last part and suggest there is only one Church of Christ. We do not ask some important questions: are there any "true and living" churches which which the Lord is mildly pleased? Or annoyed with?  Are there some true, but not living churches that God likes?  Did that statement apply in Joseph Smith's time, but not in ours?

 

We understand the meaning of this scripture based on the plain and clear teachings of prophets and apostles, whose right it is to teach, interpret, and expound upon these things. As soon as one of them teaches that there are other true and living churches out there that the Lord is not well pleased with, I'm sure that'll catch on. Until then, all this is is your personal interpretation, which you have a right to. But don't try and pass it off as anything more than that.

 

We have to ask ourselves: just how powerful is God? And how powerful is the atonement?  Can it save and possibly exalt all who fully repent? Or are we putting faith in a Being who may not be as powerful as we need Him to be? 

 

This is a non-sequitur. The matter is not about God's power, but rather God's word. He does what He says. He means what He says. He forgive who He forgives. That's His prerogative.

 

Once could debate all the day long if God is powerful enough to make a rock so heavy that even He could not lift it...but it's not particularly useful.

 

Of course I'm not particularly interested in the theological debate as to whether murderers can be forgiven or not. The take away, for me, is simple. Don't murder. Any alternative -- go ahead and murder 'cause you can repent -- philosophy I reject. I'm going with don't murder.

 

The casting off of any older prophets and apostles we don't like thing, on the other hand...well, Vort's addressed that fairly well. But I challenge you to find a contemporary prophet or apostle who has explicitly stated that any and all forms of murder are forgivable. As has been said, accountability plays into it, and past prophets allow for this as well. The focus may have changed somewhat, but the principles haven't.

 

I don't really understand how people can, realistically, see the past and present prophets and apostles at odds with one another. There are a few fringe issues where the clarity is a bit obscure, but for the most part, the gospel is the gospel, has been the gospel, and will be the gospel moving forward.

 

While the current gospel does not teach this, I personally believe there may be progression between kingdoms, so that when a person is ready for greater glory,... 

 

Once again...have your personal opinions all you want. Just don't try and pass them off as accurate, doctrinal, or binding in any way.

[Just_A_Guy]

JAG, I do not see any reason to believe the prodigal was not fully received into the Father's household. In fact he had the best robe, a ring, and shoes on his feet. What is more, he is acknowledged by the Father as his son once more. Also, the Father did not state that all his possessions now belonged to the other son but that they always had been his. Just as they have always been ours if we don't reject them.

I would disagree. In Luke 15:12 we are told that both sons were given their inheritance on the younger's demand that the estate be partitioned. Father's assurance in verse 31 confirms this arrangement--whatever the Father has left, is actually part of the "faithful" son's inheritance. (That's what makes the son's outburst so repugnant--he acts as though he has been serving (Greek: "slaving for") the Father all this time; when in fact, he had no problem taking his own portion of the living when it was offered. He has been at least an equal with his father from a materialistic standpoint and, like his brother, has basically been buttering his own bread. See http://www.patheos.com/blogs/benjaminthescribe/2015/05/new-testament-gospel-doctrine-lesson-18-luke-15/ for more on this). In the father's conversation with the older son he does not justify giving the younger son another inheritance; rather, he justifies a one-time celebration for the return of the lost soul (the same sort of rejoicing we see in the preceding parables of the lost money and sheep).

What's more, ones portion does not diminish anothers.

I dunno. Would Hitler's exaltation cheapen that of Anne Frank?

Even assuming, arguendo, that it wouldn't: All analogies have their limits, of course; but to argue that the parable of the prodigal son doesn't support the idea of the prodigal's being denied a second inheritance, is essentially to make a collateral argument that the parable doesn't support the idea of his having been granted one. Strictly speaking, of course, the parable is primarily about the rejoicing that happens on the recovery of a lost son, coin, or sheep; not about whether those items' absences caused any irreversible consequences.

[Anddenex]

Doctrine and Covenants 42: 18, "And now, behold, I speak unto the church. Thou shalt not kill; and he that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the world to come."

 

It appears pretty clear there are those who murder whom will not obtain forgiveness in this world, and in the world to come.