The greater sin

[laronius]

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?

[zil2]

Christ took upon himself all our sins.  If you refuse to forgive someone else, you refuse to forgive Christ.  In essence this is what Christ does via the Atonement - he takes their sin upon himself and says to you, "forgive me, your Savior, and let me worry about their sin".  By refusing to forgive, you reject Christ's Atonement which, it seems to me, is - if you persist - the unpardonable sin.  So, yeah, worse than any possible sin anyone may commit against you.

Edited October 29, 2023 by zil2

[CV75]

1 hour ago, laronius said:

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?

As long as you don't forgive, the sin of an unforgiving heart remains with you.

You can only forgive in mortality those sins committed against you that you survive. In the hereafter, you must yet forgive any other sins against you that ended your life. The effects of any and all sins against you are swallowed up in Christ by virtue of the resurrection: you will be healed, immortal, and have every resource with which to live.

So, the greatest of all sins in not to forgive either of those kinds of sins (the kind that kill you and the kind you survive), because both have been swallowed up in Christ through the resurrection. 

[laronius]

58 minutes ago, zil2 said:

Christ took upon himself all our sins.  If you refuse to forgive someone else, you refuse to forgive Christ.  In essence this is what Christ does via the Atonement - he takes their sin upon himself and says to you, "forgive me, your Savior and let me worry about their sin".  By refusing to forgive, you reject Christ's Atonement which, it seems to me, is - if you persist - the unpardonable sin.  So, yeah, worse than any possible sin anyone may commit against you.

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

[laronius]

19 minutes ago, CV75 said:

So, the greatest of all sins in not to forgive either of those kinds of sins (the kind that kill you and the kind you survive), because both have been swallowed up in Christ through the resurrection. 

Is there a third kind?

20 minutes ago, CV75 said:

As long as you don't forgive, the sin of an unforgiving heart remains with you.

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

[CV75]

17 minutes ago, laronius said:

Is there a third kind?

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

I suppose a third kind might be the kind we commit against ourselves, and within this the kind that kill us and the kind we survive, and we must forgive ourselves in Christ (but the OP is about one another, our brother, etc.). Or the kind, both deadly and not, that someone commits against someone else or society in general and we indirectly feel or empathize with the negative effects, or those trespasses committed ignorantly, unawares or accidentally. In this instance, "sin" is not willful rebellion against God or our conscience, but still something that separates us from God until we learn and choose to behave otherwise.

[zil2]

34 minutes ago, laronius said:

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

I did say, "if you persist" - meaning, even after all the suffering of hell, you reject the Atonement.

[zil2]

1 hour ago, zil2 said:

Christ took upon himself all our sins.  If you refuse to forgive someone else, you refuse to forgive Christ.  In essence this is what Christ does via the Atonement - he takes their sin upon himself and says to you, "forgive me, your Savior, and let me worry about their sin".  By refusing to forgive, you reject Christ's Atonement which, it seems to me, is - if you persist - the unpardonable sin.  So, yeah, worse than any possible sin anyone may commit against you.

Allow me to put it another way: "I want God to forgive me, but I don't want him to forgive those who have sinned against me."  Is not this wanting to murder someone spiritually (since without forgiveness, one suffers spiritual death)?

Can you want God to forgive those who have sinned against you while you yourself refuse to forgive those who have sinned against you?

NOTE: Refusing to forgive someone is not the same as, "I can't figure out how to forgive him, yet, but I'm trying."

[Vort]

2 hours ago, laronius said:

for there remaineth in him the greater sin.

Greater than what?

Greater than the sin his brother committed against him. At least, that's how I've always understood it. I've always wrestled with this doctrine; it's so unfair. But when I decry something as unfair, in almost all cases it means I don't understand what's really going on. And so I think is the case here. We in our mortal state dutifully strain out insignificant gnats while swallowing whole camels, and often don't even realize that's what we're doing.

[NeuroTypical]

Over the years I've told various stories of being faced with having to forgive a rapist, abusive in-laws, incestuous BILs.  Succeeding in following the commandment to forgive has probably been about the greatest aid to the life of peace I've been able to live.   Being able to look at someone who has done incredible evil, inflicted indescribable harm on someone you love, and being filled with compassion for them, is truly one of the best things about this life.  If I should be so lucky as to go to heaven, and see them there, I would leap for joy, because it would mean they found a way to make themselves right with the Lord.  

Not only are such things possible, without betraying the people who were hurt, but it's also a commandment to do so.

So, from that standpoint, let me be blunt.  If you don't forgive Hitler, an uncaught and unrepentant criminal, and the person who hurt and wronged you, then you carry a sin worse than the sin they carried.  That's how we interpret that statement. 

Another way to put it, if you can think of someone you wouldn't want to share heaven with, then you don't need to worry, because you won't make it there in the first place.

In order to reach our great reward, we must give up earthly mortal notions of fair, justice, and mercy.  God simply does it better, in ways we simply can't comprehend in some situations.

 

Edited October 30, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[Traveler]

Let’s play a little game.  I will call the game “What causes the most damage and makes an end to peace?”

Now let us employ some logic.  Suppose someone engages in a sin.  What damage does that sin do and does it end peace in others?  Logic says that the only damage to any sole is the damage to the person that committed the sin.  Likewise, the only end to peace is within the sole of the person that committed the sin.

What is the only possible way that the damage of the initial sin can be increased and made worse (or greater)?  The only way to make the initial sin worse is to not forgive that sinner of their sin.  This is because by not forgiving the sin; the evil of the sin is made worse to all those that do not forgive the sin.  The reason is because not forgiving the sin destroys love and creates hate – which eventually end peace in the person that does not forgive.  Thuse the sole of two individuals are destroyed – rather than just one.

I marvel at the logic the Jesus employs to teach very simple truths.  I also marvel that so many have such difficulty in following pure simple logic.

 

The Traveler

Edited October 30, 2023 by Traveler

[laronius]

1 hour ago, Vort said:

Greater than the sin his brother committed against him. At least, that's how I've always understood it. I've always wrestled with this doctrine; it's so unfair. But when I decry something as unfair, in almost all cases it means I don't understand what's really going on. And so I think is the case here. We in our mortal state dutifully strain out insignificant gnats while swallowing whole camels, and often don't even realize that's what we're doing.

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.

[laronius]

13 hours ago, NeuroTypical said:

So, from that standpoint, let me be blunt.  If you don't forgive Hitler, an uncaught and unrepentant criminal, and the person who hurt and wronged you, then you carry a sin worse than the sin they carried.  That's how we interpret that statement. 
 

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?

[laronius]

13 hours ago, Traveler said:

Now let us employ some logic.  Suppose someone engages in a sin.  What damage does that sin do and does it end peace in others?  Logic says that the only damage to any sole is the damage to the person that committed the sin.  Likewise, the only end to peace is within the sole of the person that committed the sin.

The Traveler

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.

[estradling75]

6 minutes ago, laronius said:

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?

Yes... but you are missing a lot stuff that also has to happen.  Hitler may or may not repent...  If he does then he will have his sins remembered no more and it will not even come up in judgement..  That is the very power of repentance and being forgiven by the Lord its a very big deal.  And if want if for ourselves (Which I do) then we have to allow it for everyone else including Hitler.

As for the Holocaust survivor.... the Lord is going to heal him... completely totally...  without question.  Then the Lord is going to ask the survivor to forgive, not for Hitler sake, not even the Lord's sake, but because the Lord has asked him to for in his own best interest.  If the survivor at that point denys the Lord and rebels against God... It is pretty easy to see the greater sin there.

In this life we have no idea who might ultimately turn to the Lord.  All we really know is who hurt us and how badly we have been hurt by them.  So we need to work on forgiving them... not for them... But for us.  Ultimately we want to be able to follow all the Lords commands and the Lord's command to forgive might just be one of the hardest.

 

 

 

[zil2]

IMO, @Vort's interpretation of the text is the most logical.

This:

1 hour ago, laronius said:

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.

...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.)

[laronius]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

Yes... but you are missing a lot stuff that also has to happen.  Hitler may or may not repent...  If he does then he will have his sins remembered no more and it will not even come up in judgement..  That is the very power of repentance and being forgiven by the Lord its a very big deal.  And if want if for ourselves (Which I do) then we have to allow it for everyone else including Hitler.

As for the Holocaust survivor.... the Lord is going to heal him... completely totally...  without question.  Then the Lord is going to ask the survivor to forgive, not for Hitler sake, not even the Lord's sake, but because the Lord has asked him to for in his own best interest.  If the survivor at that point denys the Lord and rebels against God... It is pretty easy to see the greater sin there.

In this life we have no idea who might ultimately turn to the Lord.  All we really know is who hurt us and how badly we have been hurt by them.  So we need to work on forgiving them... not for them... But for us.  Ultimately we want to be able to follow all the Lords commands and the Lord's command to forgive might just be one of the hardest.

 

 

 

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

[NeuroTypical]

2 hours ago, laronius said:

So at judgement day if both Hitler and an unforgiving Holocaust survivor stand before the judgement bar God will say:

"Adolf, you committee acts that caused untold suffering to millions of individuals, committed mass genocide and brought condemnation down upon many who followed you. But at least it wasn't as bad as this guy's sin of not forgiving you."

Now if that is truly what it means then I will accept it as such and chalk it up as one of the great mysteries I do not yet understand. But is it possible that maybe the Lord is not actually comparing the two sins that way and had something else in mind?

I 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.

Edited October 30, 2023 by NeuroTypical

[laronius]

16 minutes ago, zil2 said:

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.)

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

[laronius]

4 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

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.

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.

[laronius]

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

Some things in the gospel are simply beyond our comprehension at this point and I accept that. But to the degree they can be discovered I think it's a worthy pursuit.

[CV75]

3 hours ago, laronius said:

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 think context is important, of course. From D&C 64, verse 8 places the trespass to be forgiven in context: “My disciples, in days of old, sought occasion against one another and forgave not one another in their hearts; and for this evil they were afflicted and sorely chastened.” As long as they were still disciples and not excommunicated (see verse 12), this behavior seems to consist of ignoring the Beatitudes and other teachings of the Sermon on the Mount, falling short of the higher law of the gospel.

The subject verse in the OP, 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,” because he is not forgiven, per Matthew 6:14-15, and this because of the hypocrisy in praying for forgiveness (covered in verses 5 - 13): “For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you: But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.” The hypocrisy at the root of a professed disciple’s unforgiving heart is the greater sin of any in the Sermon on the Mount and ultimately has a lot to do with judging others, wresting this role from the Lord, which is the greater of any other sin He condemns, because it so thoroughly denies Him: Judging Others (churchofjesuschrist.org) So yes, in many ways a disciple's lack of forgiveness is hypocritical, unrighteous judgement and condemnation, and the greater of any other forgivable sin.

Concerning our attitude toward more serious trespasses (D&C 64:12), we have in verse 11, “say in your hearts—let God judge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds,” because “the Lord, will forgive whom He will forgive, but of [me] it is required to forgive all men (verse 10).”

[zil2]

3 hours ago, laronius said:

I'm looking at it from the standpoint of two unrepented of sins: not forgiving vs (name your sin).

I guess I didn't get that the first sin was not repented of.  (Obviously, refusing to forgive is an unrepented of sin.)  So, in that case:

Are you sure that D&C 64:9 says that [refusing to forgive sin X] is worse than [committing and refusing to repent of sin X]?  I've spent a couple hours on this so far, and have not found another scripture (and can't remember one) that teaches this principle.  Unless the search engine is flawed, the phrase "greater sin" doesn't occur anywhere else in scripture.  The Lord establishes truth via 2 or 3 witnesses, so this may suggest that the principle being taught is closely tied to the situation.

Quote

1 Behold, thus saith the Lord your God unto you, O ye elders of my church, hearken ye and hear, and receive my will concerning you.

...So, the section is addressed to Church leaders.

The preceding verses seem to suggest that this is a case of forgiveness being asked for but withheld.  In verse 7, the Lord says, "I forgive people who repent" (the subtext is, "so should you").  Verse 8 suggests the disciples in question looked for reasons to hold grudges against each other - trying to remain offended, refusing to forgive even when asked (yes, I'm reading that in, but I don't think the interpretation is unfounded).

Quote

6 There are those who have sought occasion against him [Joseph Smith] without cause;

7 Nevertheless, he has sinned; but verily I say unto you, I, the Lord, forgive sins unto those who confess their sins before me and ask forgiveness, who have not sinned unto death.

8 My disciples, in days of old, sought occasion against one another and forgave not one another in their hearts; and for this evil they were afflicted and sorely chastened.

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.

Verse 9 talks about brothers and trespasses.  This does not sound like vile sins (Hitler can go back in the drawer for some other thread).  The phrase "there remaineth in him" seems like the one who won't forgive is the one where something remains, but not so with the original trespasser (nothing about his sin here) - but we know from a multitude of witnesses that the only way that trespasser is forgiven is if he repents.

Subsequent verses do say we are required to forgive all and let God mete out justice, but it doesn't repeat the "greater sin" part, nor is it entirely clear about "forgive when they ask for it" or "forgive whether or not they ask" - it's silent on this aspect.  This principle is repeated many times in scripture:

Quote

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

11 And ye ought to say in your hearts—let God judge between me and thee, and reward thee according to thy deeds.

It then goes on to teach how to deal with those who don't repent (also taught many times), and hints at forgiveness regardless of repentance:

Quote

12 And him that repenteth not of his sins, and confesseth them not, ye shall bring before the church, and do with him as the scripture saith unto you, either by commandment or by revelation.

13 And this ye shall do that God may be glorified—not because ye forgive not, having not compassion, but that ye may be justified in the eyes of the law, that ye may not offend him who is your lawgiver—

14 Verily I say, for this cause ye shall do these things.

So, is [refusing to forgive your rapist (which is an unrepented of sin, BTW)] worse than [unrepented of rape]?  I don't know.  We only have this one verse to suggest it.  If it is, then it is.  But the question is academic - any and all unrepented of sins are enough to keep us from salvation and exaltation, no matter how great or small.

Personally, I think the verse in context seems to be saying: [withholding forgiveness when asked to forgive] is worse than [tresspassing against your brother and then repenting].

But for the non-academic record: Just repent, already!  (And forgive!)

Edited October 30, 2023 by zil2

[laronius]

On 10/30/2023 at 10:28 AM, zil2 said:

I guess I didn't get that the first sin was not repented of.  (Obviously, refusing to forgive is an unrepented of sin.)  So, in that case:

Are you sure that D&C 64:9 says that [refusing to forgive sin X] is worse than [committing and refusing to repent of sin X]?  I've spent a couple hours on this so far, and have not found another scripture (and can't remember one) that teaches this principle.  Unless the search engine is flawed, the phrase "greater sin" doesn't occur anywhere else in scripture.  The Lord establishes truth via 2 or 3 witnesses, so this may suggest that the principle being taught is closely tied to the situation.

...So, the section is addressed to Church leaders.

The preceding verses seem to suggest that this is a case of forgiveness being asked for but withheld.  In verse 7, the Lord says, "I forgive people who repent" (the subtext is, "so should you").  Verse 8 suggests the disciples in question looked for reasons to hold grudges against each other - trying to remain offended, refusing to forgive even when asked (yes, I'm reading that in, but I don't think the interpretation is unfounded).

Verse 9 talks about brothers and trespasses.  This does not sound like vile sins (Hitler can go back in the drawer for some other thread).  The phrase "there remaineth in him" seems like the one who won't forgive is the one where something remains, but not so with the original trespasser (nothing about his sin here) - but we know from a multitude of witnesses that the only way that trespasser is forgiven is if he repents.

Subsequent verses do say we are required to forgive all and let God mete out justice, but it doesn't repeat the "greater sin" part, nor is it entirely clear about "forgive when they ask for it" or "forgive whether or not they ask" - it's silent on this aspect.  This principle is repeated many times in scripture:

It then goes on to teach how to deal with those who don't repent (also taught many times), and hints at forgiveness regardless of repentance:

So, is [refusing to forgive your rapist (which is an unrepented of sin, BTW)] worse than [unrepented of rape]?  I don't know.  We only have this one verse to suggest it.  If it is, then it is.  But the question is academic - any and all unrepented of sins are enough to keep us from salvation and exaltation, no matter how great or small.

Personally, I think the verse in context seems to be saying: [withholding forgiveness when asked to forgive] is worse than [tresspassing against your brother and then repenting].

But for the non-academic record: Just repent, already!  (And forgive!)

I just realized I never responded and after all the effort you put in it demands a response. 😃

But in answer to your question of whether I'm interpreting this verse right I am most definitely not sure. I'm am interpreting it at face value as I see it but that very interpretation makes me doubt my interpretation. But I think your response is probably as close to stating our current understanding of that verse as I've seen. So thank you. Having said that, I am definitely going to try to not hold grudges just in case my initial interpretation is correct. 😁

[Anddenex]

On 10/29/2023 at 2:56 PM, laronius said:

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?

I'm obviously late to this discussion, and I've only read a portion of the first page of responses. I may duplicate a response.

First, I'm glad you bring this up because this is one verse of scripture I do not completely understand. I've read and heard many different interpretation but none have caused me to be "edified" and "rejoice." Now, in saying that, I'm not saying they didn't provide good response. I'm saying, I haven't felt what I have usually felt when truth is revealed to me by the Holy Ghost. In that sense, I'm still left desiring the answer.

Second, my understanding has been the standard that was shared on the first page of the responses I read. That somehow the greater sin is not to forgive, but this has never settled well with me (e.g. The example you provided with Hitler). I also didn't have any trouble with this verse until specific experiences in my life have caused me to reflect how is there greater sin in me, when in comparison to the one who sinned against me? Since then, I have experienced confusion with this verse.

Third, this is inline with others, but maybe a small nuance. The Atonement is personal -- a one-on-one experience. The Atonement pays for my sins. As I have pondered this two doctrines come to my mind: love your enemy (as Christ even loved his enemies), and blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy. To some degree our lack of forgiveness damns us. It is hard to progress to the love of Christ, to become like him, when we withhold forgiveness. In that light, I can somewhat understand a "greater" sin is within, not a "greater" sin than the perp -- but a "greater" sin in that we damn ourselves from the blessings of the Atonement that is "freely" (so to speak) offered.

I'm reminded of the conference talk where this was being discussed, and the question provided was (paraphrased), "You want them to suffer twice for their sin? When I already paid the price for their sin"? And if I'm being totally honest, to the individuals in my life, my spirit right now would say, "Yes. They don't care. They haven't apologized. They don't think they did anything wrong. They apparently need to suffer so they can see what they have done. There is no justice if I forgive them."

I'm more inclined to think the "greater" is not pertaining to the antagonists sin, but is more the greatness of not forgiving damns us to the Atonement to some degree. I'm still not yet satisfied with the answer. I'm still waiting for light and knowledge, truth revealed by the Holy Ghost where I know. Right now, this is where I have come to but still feel I'm missing the mark, the main point.