Comparative repentance processes and outcomes

[askandanswer]

The references about King David’s future status in the afterlife in the thread Exaltation and eternal life has prompted me to put out a related question I’ve occasionally pondered over the last week or two.

David slept with the wife of one of his soldiers and then arranged for that soldier to be placed in a battle situation in which he was unlikely to prevail. David then seems to have spent much of the rest of his life in a state or sorrow/regret/guilt/repentance, and his eternal destiny is not looking as bright as it otherwise might have. On the other hand, another king, King Lamoni, seemed to routinely slay his servants if they had been responsible for his flocks of sheep being scattered; (Alma 18:6 For he had slain many of them because their brethren had scattered their flocks at the place of water; and thus, because they had had their flocks scattered they were slain.). However, after only a very short amount of preaching, King Lamoni repented of his sins and became unconscious for two days during which “he was carried away in God,” and “saw his Redeemer”, and when he regained consciousness, “his heart was swollen within him, and he sunk again with joy” being “overcome by the Spirit” (It seems a little unexpected to me that a man responsible for the murder of many should have the exceedingly rare blessing of seeing his Redeemer, especially when the murders were for such a trivial reason.)

Despite the fact that he killed for unallowed purposes more people than David did, we see almost nothing in Lamoni of the torment that David endured, and it seems likely that at, and after, his conversion, Lamoni seemed to have held a firm belief that he was headed for a happy afterlife.

Part of the seeming difference between the repentance process and outcomes of David and Lamoni might be explainable by the idea that he who sins against the greater light, as David did compared to Lamoni, receives the greater condemnation. However, given that the shedding of innocent blood is the second most serious sin and Lamoni seems to have shed a lot of innocent blood, there may be reason to consider that his repentance process would involve a degree of suffering similar to that of David.

If the scriptures accounts in the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon are accurate and true, (and they might or might not) then it would appear that Lamoni suffered far less, for more sins, than did David. Is this a reasonable, and correct understanding of these two accounts? If it is, then what is the most likely explanation for the difference in the repentance process, and the outcomes of that process for David and Lamoni, and if this is not a reasonable and correct understanding of these two account, where is it unreasonable or incorrect?

[Midwest LDS]

Interesting, but I think the answer is fairly simple. The major difference between Lamoni and David, as you mentioned, is ignorance. In Mosiah 3:11 King Benjamin teaches us an important gospel lesson that explains why there was a difference in the apparent severity of their repentance

"11 For behold, and also his blood atoneth for the sins of those who have fallen by the transgression of Adam, who have died not knowing the will of God concerning them, or who have ignorantly sinned."

Lamoni was raised by a bloodthirsty people who knew nothing of God or his ways. He was living his life according to the only way he had been taught. It's apparent from King Benjamin's teaching that God takes that kind of ignorance into account, and it is covered by the the Atonement of Christ. Also Lamoni, once his ignorance was taken away by Ammon's teachings, readily accepted the Gospel, and accordingly God forgave him of his sins.

David knew better. He had been raised in the faithful household of Jesse, and had lived the Gospel from his youth. He had been guided by the Holy Spirit throughout his life and had known and worked closely with at least two prophets that we know of, Samuel and Nathan. Also, since Nathan solemnized David's plural marriages (before Bathsheba) it's apparent that David continued to have the Gospel in his life all the way up to his fateful decision to murder Uriah. David had absolutely no excuse for his sins, and because of that his murder was far worse than those of Lamoni. 

Edited December 23, 2018 by Midwest LDS

[Traveler]

I believe that the shedding of innocent blood refers to Christ and his atonement.  In short I believe this is especially in reference to not feeling sufficient sorrow for the suffering of Christ - for his pain and anguish when someone understands and knows that their sins laid upon Christ - yet, knowing the suffering of Christ, they choose to sin anyway.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

14 hours ago, askandanswer said:

The references about King David’s future status in the afterlife in the thread Exaltation and eternal life has prompted me to put out a related question I’ve occasionally pondered over the last week or two.

David slept with the wife of one of his soldiers and then arranged for that soldier to be placed in a battle situation in which he was unlikely to prevail. David then seems to have spent much of the rest of his life in a state or sorrow/regret/guilt/repentance, and his eternal destiny is not looking as bright as it otherwise might have. On the other hand, another king, King Lamoni, seemed to routinely slay his servants if they had been responsible for his flocks of sheep being scattered; (Alma 18:6 For he had slain many of them because their brethren had scattered their flocks at the place of water; and thus, because they had had their flocks scattered they were slain.). However, after only a very short amount of preaching, King Lamoni repented of his sins and became unconscious for two days during which “he was carried away in God,” and “saw his Redeemer”, and when he regained consciousness, “his heart was swollen within him, and he sunk again with joy” being “overcome by the Spirit” (It seems a little unexpected to me that a man responsible for the murder of many should have the exceedingly rare blessing of seeing his Redeemer, especially when the murders were for such a trivial reason.)

Despite the fact that he killed for unallowed purposes more people than David did, we see almost nothing in Lamoni of the torment that David endured, and it seems likely that at, and after, his conversion, Lamoni seemed to have held a firm belief that he was headed for a happy afterlife.

Part of the seeming difference between the repentance process and outcomes of David and Lamoni might be explainable by the idea that he who sins against the greater light, as David did compared to Lamoni, receives the greater condemnation. However, given that the shedding of innocent blood is the second most serious sin and Lamoni seems to have shed a lot of innocent blood, there may be reason to consider that his repentance process would involve a degree of suffering similar to that of David.

If the scriptures accounts in the Old Testament and the Book of Mormon are accurate and true, (and they might or might not) then it would appear that Lamoni suffered far less, for more sins, than did David. Is this a reasonable, and correct understanding of these two accounts? If it is, then what is the most likely explanation for the difference in the repentance process, and the outcomes of that process for David and Lamoni, and if this is not a reasonable and correct understanding of these two account, where is it unreasonable or incorrect?

Kind David sinned against the Holy Ghost. He had already entered into holy and sacred covenants with God. He then committed adultery. But even this God forgave him. But when he went so far as to have Uriah killed to cover his sins, all the while in covenant with God, he committed the unpardonable sin which is infinitely, in a sense, more heinous than murder itself. He will not be forgiven of his sin against the Holy Ghost, either in this life or eternity to come.

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

He will not be forgiven of his sin against the Holy Ghost, either in this life or eternity to come.

What we know is that “[fell] from his exaltation” (D&C 132:39). Does that mean he is a son of perdition? Maybe. But we do not know such a thing.

Not sure if you were suggesting that or not, just making sure we were clear on this.

[Rob Osborn]

15 minutes ago, Fether said:

What we know is that “[fell] from his exaltation” (D&C 132:39). Does that mean he is a son of perdition? Maybe. But we do not know such a thing.

Not sure if you were suggesting that or not, just making sure we were clear on this.

He is a son of perdition. He fits this passage-

31 Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power—
            32 They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born;
            33 For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity;
            34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come- (D&C 76:31-34)

Edited December 23, 2018 by Rob Osborn

[Traveler]

I would make something very clear - a son of perdition is someone that does not repent and forsake sin.  It is also my understanding that to assume one is G-d and the judge of others is a sin.  I also believe it a sin to teach others not to repent or that repentance is impossible for anyone in mortality - because it is assumed that there is a mortal sin for which one cannot repent.  My advice to all is - regardless of whatever sin that inflicts you that you repent and forsake all sin with hope and faith in the Atonement of Christ that G-d will have mercy on your soul and heal you.

 

The Traveler

[askandanswer]

The extent of David's repentance and pleading to the Lord over much of his life seems to be inconsistent with the idea that he is a son of perdition. In his repentance, David constantly turned to, not away from, his Lord. 

Edited December 23, 2018 by askandanswer

[Anddenex]

3 hours ago, Fether said:

What we know is that “[fell] from his exaltation” (D&C 132:39). Does that mean he is a son of perdition? Maybe. But we do not know such a thing.

Not sure if you were suggesting that or not, just making sure we were clear on this.

Remember @Rob Osborn believes in a heaven/hell dichotomy. Others here would probably agree with your assessment.

[askandanswer]

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

I believe that the shedding of innocent blood refers to Christ and his atonement

Since all have sin, except Christ, it stands to reason that all, except Christ, have blood that is not innocent, so Christ's blood would be the only innocent blood. I'm not sure if this is true, its just a thought that occured to me jost now. 

[Anddenex]

My response will probably be similar to @Midwest LDS as we follow the line of thought of the following scriptures in the Book of Mormon:

1) "For there are many promises which are extended to the Lamanites; for it is because of the traditions of their fathers that caused them to remain in their state of ignorance; therefore the Lord will be merciful unto them and prolong their existence in the land."

2) "Yea, I say unto you, that in the latter times the promises of the Lord have been extended to our brethren, the Lamanites; and notwithstanding the many afflictions which they shall have, and notwithstanding they shall be driven to and fro upon the face of the earth, and be hunted, and shall be smitten and scattered abroad, having no place for refuge, the Lord shall be merciful unto them."

3) "For of him unto whom much is given much is required; and he who sins against the greater light shall receive the greater condemnation." (what you already mentioned)

Think about our own parenting efforts. Why are we more merciful/patient when our younger children make a mistake? Why are our laws less severe on the youth, rather than adults? A while back I was watching a documentary that covered a "Headhunter" tribe. Part of a right of passage was for a father to kill a man, then place this head in the lap of his 13 year-old boy. The tradition was that the spirit of this beheaded man would enter the youth, and thus the youth would become a man himself. This was due to the wicked traditions of their fathers, by which all of us would have partaken of IF we knew nothing else. What else would we have partaken of if we were raised in different homes?

The repentance process for David in comparison to Lamoni (or all other of the Lamanites who buried their weapons of war) would be different, and they took this covenant with God so seriously that they were willing to lay down their lives instead of raising the sword to protect themselves against their Lamanite brothers. This is also why I accept why God's punishments were more severe in the Old Testament after the children of Israel had been delivered. They had more knowledge that God was with them, not just through faith.

We also see this notion with the sons of perdition. They who have received a greater light. They who have denied and willfully rebelled against this light. Thus, they receive a greater condemnation and no forgiveness in this world or in the world to come.

[Rob Osborn]

24 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Remember @Rob Osborn believes in a heaven/hell dichotomy. Others here would probably agree with your assessment.

Remember, Rob Osborn believes in the Book of Mormon.

[Anddenex]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

Remember, Rob Osborn believes in the Book of Mormon.

Remember the gospel of Jesus Christ believes in The Holy Bible, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.

I think you are missing at least four books.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

The extent of David's repentance and pleading to the Lord over much of his life seems to be inconsistent with the idea that he is a son of perdition. In his repentance, David constantly turned to, not away from, his Lord. 

Let me ask- how does one differentiate between Judas who sold his master and David who took his friend to task, the cost of death to cover his sin?

[Rob Osborn]

20 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Remember the gospel of Jesus Christ believes in The Holy Bible, The Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price.

I think you are missing at least four books.

And they all testify of the dichotomy of a heaven or hell.

[mikbone]

“All sin shall be forgiven, except the sin against the Holy Ghost, for Jesus Christ will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He has got to deny the plan of salvation; he has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it with his eyes open; he has got to receive the Holy Ghost, deny Jesus Christ when the heavens are open to him, know God, and then sin against Him. After a man has sinned the sin against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him.”  - Joseph Smith, April 7 1844

 

[askandanswer]

26 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Let me ask- how does one differentiate between Judas who sold his master and David who took his friend to task, the cost of death to cover his sin?

I'm not going to differentiate. I'm going to leave that to God on the day of judgement. 

[Anddenex]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

And they all testify of the dichotomy of a heaven or hell.

Except when they testify of Telestial, Terrestrial, Celestial degrees/kingdoms of glory.

[Fether]

1 hour ago, Anddenex said:

Remember @Rob Osborn believes in a heaven/hell dichotomy. Others here would probably agree with your assessment.

I remembered that after I posted it... hence why I haven’t responded

Edited December 23, 2018 by Fether

[Rob Osborn]

12 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Except when they testify of Telestial, Terrestrial, Celestial degrees/kingdoms of glory.

Then you include the temple with it's explanations of the three kingdoms and...well, a topic for another day.

[Traveler]

6 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Let me ask- how does one differentiate between Judas who sold his master and David who took his friend to task, the cost of death to cover his sin?

We do not have to differentiate between Judas and David.  Neither will they face us in judgment and their fate has nothing to do with us and our fate.  If G-d accepts their repentance and they are glorified in the resurrection - I will not curse G-d and I will not forgo any mercy offered to me for my sins.

 

The Traveler

Edited December 24, 2018 by Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

30 minutes ago, Traveler said:

We do not have to differentiate between Judas and David.  Neither will they face us in judgment and their fate has nothing to do with us and our fate.  If G-d accepts their repentance and they are glorified in the resurrection - I will not curse G-d and I will not forgo any mercy offered to me for my sins.

 

The Traveler

Well, we know that neither is forgiven nor can be forgiven their sin so it isn't true that God would forgive them. Otherwise the scriptures aren't true.

[Jersey Boy]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, we know that neither is forgiven nor can be forgiven their sin so it isn't true that God would forgive them. Otherwise the scriptures aren't true.

I will be interested to see how you will attempt to square the following excerpt from the prophet Joseph Smith’s May 16, 1841 sermon with your belief that King David can never be forgiven and is a son of perdition...

“Even David, must wait for those times of refreshing, before he can come forth and his sins be blotted out; for Peter speaking of him says, “David hath not yet ascended into Heaven, for his sepulchre is with us to this day:” his remains were then in the tomb. Now we read that many bodies of the saints arose, at Christ’s resurrection, probably all the saints, but it seems that David did not. Why? because he had been a murderer.

“If the ministers of religion had a proper understanding of the doctrine of eternal judgment, they would not be found attending the man who had forfeited his life to the injured laws of his country by shedding innocent blood; for such characters cannot be forgiven, UNTIL they have paid the last farthing. The prayers of all the ministers in the world could never close the gates of hell against a Murderer.”

Edited December 24, 2018 by Jersey Boy

[Rob Osborn]

5 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

I will be interested to see how you will attempt to square the following excerpt from the prophet Joseph Smith’s May 16, 1841 sermon with your belief that King David can never be forgiven and is a son of perdition...

“Even David, must wait for those times of refreshing, before he can come forth and his sins be blotted out; for Peter speaking of him says, “David hath not yet ascended into Heaven, for his sepulchre is with us to this day:” his remains were then in the tomb. Now we read that many bodies of the saints arose, at Christ’s resurrection, probably all the saints, but it seems that David did not. Why? because he had been a murderer.

“If the ministers of religion had a proper understanding of the doctrine of eternal judgment, they would not be found attending the man who had forfeited his life to the injured laws of his country by shedding innocent blood; for such characters cannot be forgiven, UNTIL they have paid the last farthing. The prayers of all the ministers in the world could never close the gates of hell against a Murderer.”

"27 The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord.

39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord."

The scriptures testify otherwise. It specifically states that David sinned against the Holy Ghost which shall not be forgiven and he thus fell from his exaltation.

 

[Jersey Boy]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

"27 The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord.

39 David’s wives and concubines were given unto him of me, by the hand of Nathan, my servant, and others of the prophets who had the keys of this power; and in none of these things did he sin against me save in the case of Uriah and his wife; and, therefore he hath fallen from his exaltation, and received his portion; and he shall not inherit them out of the world, for I gave them unto another, saith the Lord."

The scriptures testify otherwise. It specifically states that David sinned against the Holy Ghost which shall not be forgiven and he thus fell from his exaltation.

 

So the clarifying teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith on the subject bear no weight with you at all. In the LDS Church, falling from one’s exaltation is not necessarily the same thing as becoming a son of perdition But these are the kinds of doctrinal errors one falls into when the firmly established and perfectly logical doctrine of degrees of post-resurrection glory is rejected in favor of a ‘one size fits all’ plan of salvation.

Two questions for you: Since you quoted from the prophet Joseph Smith in order to seemingly contradict the teachings of the prophet Joseph Smith by using an excerpt from D&C 132, please explain how the individuals in verses 15-17 are going receive the same degree of glory and reward as those who are fully exalted in the celestial kingdom by faithfully obeying the law of eternal marriage?

15 Therefore, if a man marry him a wife in the world, and he marry her not by me nor by my word, and he covenant with her so long as he is in the world and she with him, their covenant and marriage are not of force when they are dead, and when they are out of the world; therefore, they are not bound by any law when they are out of the world.
16 Therefore, when they are out of the world they neither marry nor are given in marriage; but are appointed angels in heaven, which angels are ministering servants, to minister for those who are worthy of a far more, and an exceeding, and an eternal weight of glory.
17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their SAVED condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever. (D&C 132)

Next question: Please explain what you believe the Prophet Joseph Smith was actually teaching in the excerpt I quoted from his May 16, 1841 sermon?

Edited December 24, 2018 by Jersey Boy