Conference tecrus::mormonism

    You said Hoffman was a Son of Perdition (if guilty of course) and 
    compared him to King David. I have no interest in arguing one way or the
    other, just wondering if this means that David became a Son of Perdition 
    by his actions?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Ed
    

	RE: Note 174.13

>    You said Hoffman was a Son of Perdition (if guilty of course) and 
>    compared him to King David. I have no interest in arguing one way or the
>    other, just wondering if this means that David became a Son of Perdition 
>    by his actions?
    
	Ed,
		I am using D&C 132 for my references.  Verse 27 points out 
	that the shedding of innocent is the blasphemy against the Holy
	Ghost and will not be forgiven in this world nor the next.  In verse
	39, David sinned by shedding Uriah's innocent blood and he lost his
	exaltation.  Also, in D&C 76, verse 34 points out that no forgiveness
	in this world nor in the world to come represents those who are the
	sons of perdition (verses 32 - 39).

	Charles

This discussion began in note 174, and I have moved several replies from
that note to this one.

================================================================================
Note 174.11                    The Hofmann Murders                      11 of 15
BSS::RONEY "Charles Roney"                           67 lines   6-MAR-1990 12:37
                                -< My opinion. >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	Hi Matt,
			I have not read the book or seen the movie, but I am
	a Mormon and I would like to make a comment on your thoughts.

		First let me say that Mr Hoffman, if he is indeed guilty of
	shedding innocent blood, is then a Son of Perdition, and there is 
	no forgiveness in this world or in the world to come.  How did he 
	come to this sorry state?  The same way King David did.  By allowing 
	the things of the world to become their God, their sole desire for 
	happiness.

		Now, the thing to always remember is that as a human being, 
	we are human.   The human nature of us is fleeting, and will be 
	destroyed.  That is the human body.  The real nature of us all is 
	contained in our immortal spiritual bodies.  That is which is 
	eternal.  That is what God gives light to.  How we conduct our 
	lives, develop our desires, control our passions - that is what 
	we are left with as the character or nature of our spirits.  
	However, human as we are, there are mistakes that are made.  We 
	can be fooled by others.  We can be fooled by ourselves.  
	Only God will not fool us.

		God is real.  His gospel is real.  His son, Jesus Christ, 
	is real.  They are perfect.  We, as humans, are not.  We make 
	mistakes.  My church is made up of humans.  They make mistakes. 
	I make mistakes.  But I have learned, and I have been commanded 
	by God, to not judge my fellow beings.  Now, I can apply 
	principles to situations, as in the case of Mr Hoffman and 
	King David, but the final judgment is left up to God.

		The so-called "Mormon Murders" does nothing in regards to 
	trying my faith.  It has nothing to do with it.  I care for nothing
	about any "historical" documents that are dug up. (Not withstanding
	the Book of Mormon or other scripture.  I refer exclusively to the
	kind that Hoffman came up with.)  

		The church organization has nothing to do with my faith in 
	Jesus Christ!  Because of that faith, I follow the brethren.  BUT! 
	In all cases I still have my agency to determine whether or not 
	what the brethren say is right.

		In my opinion, anyone who feels that this incidence has
	anything to do or is potentially critical of my faith does not
	understand the underlying principles of the LDS faith.  Here is
	where we must separate "faith" as a church and "faith" as in Jesus
	Christ.

		Should what happened to Jimmy Swagart dampen anyone's faith
	in Jesus Christ?  No, it should not have anything to do with it.
	If your pastor were found in adultery, would that have anything to
	do with your faith in Jesus Christ?  No, it should not.  These people
	are as human as we are.  They make mistakes.  Jesus Christ died on
	the cross for those mistakes.

		I belong to the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
	Is that a *faith*?  It is not what I have faith in, and anything
	that happens regarding it is separate from what caused me to join it.
	Even if the Church hierarchy is proven wrong in secular matters, it
	makes no difference.

		I believe my faith is based on truth, and it will hold up 
	to any test.  I also believe that the LDS church, or faith, is based
	on truth, and it will hold up until Christ comes to claim it.

	Charles

Charles,

I think we have to be a bit careful when we say anyone is a Son of
Perdition.  I don't think we really know, and only God will judge.

It is true, as you pointed out, that D&C 132:27 refers to murder,
shedding innocent blood, and blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, but the
meaning of that verse seems to be different than murder as the world knows
it.

There is a quotation in the teachers manual for one of the Seminary classes
that states that murderers will go to the Telestial kingdom.  It's been several
years since I taught Seminary, and I'm sorry I don't remember which Church
president was being quoted.  Who ever he was, he said that murder is an
unforgivable sin only in the context of the Celestial kingdom, i.e. once
a person commits murder he/she will forever be denied the opportunity for
the Celestial kingdom, and that person will eventually be given the Telestial
kingdom.  Based upon that statement, we have to say that David was not a
Son of Perdition and that he will eventually inherit the Telestial kingdom
after he has suffered for his act of murder.

Now, let's take a closer look at D&C 132:7 to see what it is teaching about
murder.

    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. (D&C 132:27)

The Sin against the Holy Ghost is defined as one shedding innocent blood and
assenting unto Christ's death after he/she has received the new and everlasting
covenant.  It's important that the shedding of innocent blood be coupled with
the assent of Christ's death.  McConkie explained it in these words.

    To commit this unpardonable crime a man must receive the gospel, gain
    from the Holy Ghost by revelation the absolute knowledge of the divinity
    of Christ, and then deny "the new and everlasting covenant by which he
    was sanctified, calling it an unholy thing, and doing despite to the Spirit
    of grace." (Teachings, p. 128)  He thereby commits murder by assenting
    unto the Lord's death, that is, having a perfect knowledge of the truth
    he comes out in open rebellion and places himself in a position wherein
    he would have crucified Christ knowing perfectly the while he was the
    Son of God.  Christ is thus crucified afresh and put to open shame.
    (pp. 816-817).

In other words, the shedding of innocent blood referred to in verse 27 is
the blood of Christ, for he is the only one with "innocent blood".  We
become a Son of Perdition when we murder Christ a second time and shed
his blood (figuratively speaking, of course).  Verse 27 is not referring
to murder as committed by David or Hofmann.

You pointed out that D&C 132:39 states that David lost his exaltation because
of committing murder.  That is correct and agrees with the statement of the
unnamed President of the Church that I referred to.  That verse, however,
does not say or imply that David had become a Son of Perdition, only that
he had lost his exaltation.

Allen

	RE: 343.5

>I think we have to be a bit careful when we say anyone is a Son of
>Perdition.  I don't think we really know, and only God will judge.

	True, I have said that all along.

>It is true, as you pointed out, that D&C 132:27 refers to murder,
>shedding innocent blood, and blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, but the
>meaning of that verse seems to be different than murder as the world knows
>it.

	I was not discussing it in the way the world knows it.

>murder is an
>unforgivable sin only in the context of the Celestial kingdom, i.e. once
>a person commits murder he/she will forever be denied the opportunity for
>the Celestial kingdom, and that person will eventually be given the Telestial
>kingdom.  

	Murder is shedding innocent blood, but this only applies to those 
	who have the word of God. (See below.)

>Based upon that statement, we have to say that David was not a
>Son of Perdition and that he will eventually inherit the Telestial kingdom
>after he has suffered for his act of murder.

	I disagree.  The murderers of the telestial kingdom never had the word
	of God, therefore it is not the same.  I believe that David had the 
	light and knowledge of the gospel.

>Verse 27 is not referring
>to murder as committed by David or Hofmann.

	I don't see it that way.



	Allen,

		Thanks for your thoughts on this subject.  However, before you
	judge me too harshly, let me reiterate what I said :

		"I can apply principles to situations, as in the case of 
		 Mr Hoffman and King David, but the final judgment is 
		 left up to God."

	As far as I am concerned, as David's wives were given him through the
	prophet Nathan (i.e. Melchizedek priesthood), (D&C 132 : 39), then 
	David first had the knowledge of the ways of the Lord.  Now, in 
	2 Samuel 9, when Nathan gives David God's judgment upon him, he 
	said quite plainly, in referring to David, "thou hast killed Uriah 
	the Hittite ...".  In D&C 42 : 18 the Lord tells us that "... he
	that kills shall not have forgiveness in this world, nor in the 
	world to come."  In both cases the shedding of innocent blood is
	what took place, and not just the fact that someone was killed.

	To digress a little bit here in regards to this matter, remember that
	the laws and commandments are of the utmost importance only to those
	who have received them from God.  The Lamanites that Ammon converted
	had shed much blood, but they were not under the same condemnation
	as they had been deceived by their fathers, et al.  Once they had
	received the word of God, they would rather die that bare arms again.
	1000 did just that, to the betterment of 3000.  But that is another
	story.  The point I want to make is that things are different to
	those who have taken upon them the name of Christ as compared to 
	those who have not.  To really see this look at those who will inherit
	the telestial kingdom :

	    D&C 76:82  "These are they who received not the gospel of Christ,
			neither the testimony of Jesus."

		I can apply the above principles to David's situation and say
	that I think he is a son of perdition.  I leave the passing of 
	judgment on him to God.  I don't really care whether David is or not,
	but just that I feel he meets the qualifications.  In the same manner,
	I think Mr. Hoffman does too.  As a returned missionary with his 
	endowments from the House of the Lord, and that he has shed innocent
	blood.  He meets the criteria.  I do not feel that I am passing a
	judgment upon him, because I am unable to - only God can do that.  
	But I think he meets the principles or criteria.

	Charles

>	Thanks for your thoughts on this subject.  However, before you
>	judge me too harshly, let me reiterate what I said :

I'm sorry that I came across in a judgmental way.  Whether you believe
David and Hofmann are Sons of Perdition is not my concern--that is between
you and the Lord.  My interest in this discussion concerns what constitutes
the unforgivable sin, and I think you and I have different opinions about
that.

I need to do some study about this, and I'll get back after I've checked a
few things out.

Allen

The question of what constitutes the unpardonable sin is one I haven't
understood very well.  I've done a lot of research on it during the past
week, and I think (hope) my thoughts are clear about it.

I'm going to post my understanding of the unpardonable sin in several replies,
so I can order my thoughts.  In this reply I'm going to discuss a principle
that underlies the concept of unpardonable sin.

As recorded in the Doctrine & Covenants, Jesus explained that those who do
not repent will have to suffer themselves for their sins, i.e. his suffering
as he completed his atonement will not cover them.

    For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they
    might not suffer if they would repent;

    But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I; (D&C 19:16-17)

That is, because of the law of Justice, all sins must be "paid" for by
suffering.  Jesus suffered in the Garden and on the cross for the sins of
everyone.  If we repent from our sins, then his suffering for us pays the
price for our sins.  But, if we don't repent, then we will have to suffer
for our sins ourselves, and this suffering is very great, for Jesus went
on to say

    Which suffering caused myself even God, the greatest of all, to tremble
    because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body
    and spirit--and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink--

    Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my
    preparations unto the children of men. (D&C 19:28-19)

Keep in mind that if we don't repent, we will have to suffer pain beyond
our comprehension to pay the "price" for our sins.  I'll return to this
principle in a moment.

Let's review the scriptures that talk about the unpardonable sin.

    Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be
    forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not
    be forgiven unto men. (Matthew 12:31)

    For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have
    tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,

    And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to
    come,

    If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they
    crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open
    shame. (Hebrews 6:4-6)

    But, behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son 
    unto me, saying: After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed
    unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the
    baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the
    Holy Ghost, and can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue
    of angels, and after this should deny me, it would have been better for
    you that ye had not known me. (2 Nephi 31:14)

    And he [Sherem] said: I fear lest I have committed the unpardonable
    sin, for I have lied unto God; for I have denied the Christ, and said
    that I believed the scriptures; and they truly testify of him.  And
    because I have thus lied unto God I greatly fear lest my case shall
    be awful; but I confess unto God. (Jacob 7:19)

    I say unto you, that the man that doeth this, the same cometh out in
    open rebellion against God; therefore he listeth to obey the evil spirit,
    and becometh an enemy to all righteousness; therefore the Lord has no
    place in him, for he dwelleth not in unholy temples. (Mosiah 2:37)

    For behold, if ye deny the Holy Ghost when it once has had place
    in you, and ye know that ye deny it, behold, this is a sin which is
    unpardonable; yea, and whosoever murdereth against the light and
    knowledge of God, it is not easy for him to obtain forgiveness; yea,
    I say unto you, my son, that it is not easy for him to obtain a
    forgiveness. (Alma 39:6)

    Pray for them, my son, that repentance may come unto them.  But
    behold, I fear lest the Spirit hath ceased striving with them; and in
    this part of the land they are also seeking to put down all power
    and authority which cometh from God; and they are denying the Holy
    Ghost. (Moroni 8:28)

    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. (D&C 42:18)

    [speaking of the Sons of Perdition] Having denied the Holy Spirit after
    having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the
    Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame.
    (D&C 76:35)

    
    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. (D&C 132:27)

There are probably other verses that could be given, but these are the ones
that were listed in the Topical Guide.

Notice that with the exception of the verses from D & C 42 and 132, all of the
verses have a common theme:  the unpardonable sin is denying the Holy Ghost and
crucifying Christ to themselves.  I've explained in note 4.7 (and others
in other notes) that the mission of the Holy Ghost is to give us spiritual
truths and to testify of Jesus Christ.  Thus, when we deny the Holy Ghost we
are denying the spiritual truths and testimonies that He gives to us.

How about the two scriptures from the D & C?  What does it mean when it says
those who kill will not have forgiveness in the world to come?  Likewise, what
does it mean when it says the unpardonable sin is the shedding of innocent
blood?

D & C 42:18 states that those who kill will not have forgiveness in the world
to come.  At first glance, it might seem that that verse is teaching that
murderers have committed the unpardonable sin; that verse was given to the
Church, so we might qualify our first impression to mean that murderers who
have received the Gospel have committed the unpardonable sin.  

That is a reasonable impression to gain from that verse.  However, if we
study the context of the Gospel and the writings of our Latter-day prophets,
we will realize that that verse was teaching something very different.

First, from Paul.

    For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of 
    the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. (Hebrews 10:26)

In saying there is no sacrifice for sins for those who sin wilfully after
having received the knowledge of the truth [via the Holy Ghost], Paul is
saying that the Savior's atonement does not cover those people.

Next, from the Student Manual for the Seminary course on the Doctrine and
Covenants, we have the following statement about murderers being forgiven.

    Murder (vss 18-19 [of D&C 42]).  There is no forgiveness in this world
    or in the world to come, because the atonement of Christ does not 
    cover murder committed by one who has joined the Church--a murder must
    suffer for the sin himself (see Smith, 'Teachings, p. 339). (p. 83)

The reference to p. 339 of the 'Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith' gives
the following.

    A murderer, for instance, one that sheds innocent blood, cannot have
    forgiveness.  David, sought repentance at the hand of God carefully with
    tears, for the murder of Uriah; but he could only get it through hell:
    he got a promise that his soul should not be left in hell.

What Joseph Smith is saying is that the suffering of Jesus Christ for the
sins of mankind does not remove the sin of murder and that murderers will
have to remain in hell until after the Millennium and suffer for their sin.
We know from other scriptures that those who inherit the Telestial kingdom
remain in hell (spirit prison) during the Millennium and suffer for their
sins.

If we put all of this together, we understand that D & C 42:18 is not teaching
that Church members who are murderers will have no forgiveness in the
absolute sense, i.e. they are Sons of Perdition, but it is teaching that
they will have no forgiveness from the atonement of Jesus Christ and will
have to suffer for their sins themselves.

Now, lets go back to my earlier reply about D & C 19 in which Jesus Christ
said those who do not repent will have to suffer for their sins themselves.
Murderers can not repent because they can not give back the life they took.
Thus, they will have to endure the pain of hell during the Millennium and make
restitution for their sin without the relief that comes from forgiveness
through the Savior's atonement.  That is, there is no forgiveness of sin
via the atonement for them.

How about D & C 132:27 where it states that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost
is the shedding of innocent blood.  I've already explained in .5 that
that verse is speaking symbolically of murder.  Those who deny the truth
of Jesus Christ that they have received from the Holy Ghost and who reject
Christ commit murder symbolically of Him and crucify Him symbolically.
The innocent blood spoken of is the blood of Jesus Christ.

As explained in on p. 332 of the Seminary manual.

    As used in the scriptures, "innocent blood" has a more specific
    meaning than it does in normal usage.  Ultimately, as Elder Bruce R.
    McConkie pointed out, the only truly innocent blood is that of the Savior:
    "the innocent blood is that of Christ; and those who commit blasphemy
    against the Holy Ghost, which is the unpardonable sin (Matt. 12:31-32),
    thereby 'crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an
    open shame.' (Heb. 6:6.) They are, in other words, people who would
    have crucified Christ, having the while a perfect knowledge that he
    was the Son of God." (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 3:345)

I think that statement by McConkie ties everything together: Sons of
Perditions are those who have a perfect knowledge via the Holy Ghost that
Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God and who go ahead anyway and
fight against Him and his servants.  This does not imply that all who fight
the Church are Sons of Perdition, because we don't know to what degree they
have a perfect knowledge of Jesus Christ.  God will judge that.

In an earlier reply, I quoted Joseph Smith's statement that David would
be released from hell after he had suffered for his sin of murder.  President
Joseph F. Smith expressed his opinion that he also believed that David was
not a Son of Perdition.

    ...for the crime of adultery with Bathsheba, and for ordering Uriah
    to be put in the front of battle in a time of war, where he was slain
    by the enemy, the Priesthood, and the kingdom were taken from David, the
    man after God's own heart, and his soul was thrust into hell.  Why?
    Because "the Holy Ghost spake by the mouth of David"--or, in other
    words, David possessed the gift of the Holy Ghost, and had power to
    speak by the light thereof.  But even David, though guilty of adultery
    and murder of Uriah, obtained the promise that his soul should not be
    left in hell, which means, as I understand it, that even he shall escape
    the second death. (Gospel Doctrine, p. 434)

President Smith also said he didn't think Judas was a Son of Perdition
because the Holy Ghost didn't come to the Apostles until Pentecost; thus
Judas committed his sin without the sure knowledge given by the Holy Ghost
(p. 433).

	RE: Note 343.10

>D & C 42:18 states that those who kill will not have forgiveness in the world
>to come.  At first glance, it might seem that that verse is teaching that
>murderers have committed the unpardonable sin; that verse was given to the
>Church, so we might qualify our first impression to mean that murderers who
>have received the Gospel have committed the unpardonable sin.  

	In the context of church members, that is exactly what this scripture
	says.  Plain and simple.

>That is a reasonable impression to gain from that verse.  However, if we
>study the context of the Gospel and the writings of our Latter-day prophets,
>we will realize that that verse was teaching something very different.

	Your study of the Gospel context and the writings of Latter-day 
	prophets is much different from mine.  Some of your assumptions
	I do not agree with and I will go into them as they come up.

>
>First, from Paul.
>
>    For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of 
>    the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins. (Hebrews 10:26)
>
>In saying there is no sacrifice for sins for those who sin wilfully after
>having received the knowledge of the truth [via the Holy Ghost], Paul is
>saying that the Savior's atonement does not cover those people.

	That is right, because these scriptures are talking about the sons of 
	perdition. (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary 3:191), and so does 
	Hebrews 6:4-9. (3:160-161)


>Next, from the Student Manual for the Seminary course on the Doctrine and
>Covenants, we have the following statement about murderers being forgiven.
>
>    Murder (vss 18-19 [of D&C 42]).  There is no forgiveness in this world
>    or in the world to come, because the atonement of Christ does not 
>    cover murder committed by one who has joined the Church--a murder must
>    suffer for the sin himself (see Smith, 'Teachings, p. 339). (p. 83)
>
>The reference to p. 339 of the 'Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith' gives
>the following.
>
>    A murderer, for instance, one that sheds innocent blood, cannot have
>    forgiveness.  David, sought repentance at the hand of God carefully with
>    tears, for the murder of Uriah; but he could only get it through hell:
>    he got a promise that his soul should not be left in hell.

	No big deal - all spirits in hell will not be left there.  In fact,
	hell itself will cease to exist. (Rev 20:14)  The sons of perdition
	will be cast into the kingdom of outer darkness and the rest of the
	spirits in hell will go to the telestial kingdom.
>
>What Joseph Smith is saying is that the suffering of Jesus Christ for the
>sins of mankind does not remove the sin of murder and that murderers will
>have to remain in hell until after the Millennium and suffer for their sin.

	Yes, and he is also saying that a murderer in shedding innocent blood
	"cannot have forgiveness."

>
>If we put all of this together, we understand that D & C 42:18 is not teaching
>that Church members who are murderers will have no forgiveness in the
>absolute sense, i.e. they are Sons of Perdition, but it is teaching that
>they will have no forgiveness from the atonement of Jesus Christ and will
>have to suffer for their sins themselves.

	No, I do not understand that.  You have all the necessary ingredients,
	but the wrong conclusion.  D&C 76:25-38 plainly and clearly teaches
	that the devil and his angles have no forgiveness in this world or the
	world to come.  D&C 42:18 teaches that murderers have no forgiveness in
	this world or the world to come.  D&C 84:41 teaches that those who break
	the oath and covenant of the priesthood "shall not have forgiveness ...
	in this world nor in the world to come."  D&C 132:27 says the same 
	thing.  It is very simple - the sons of perdition will not have any
	forgiveness in this world or the world to come AND murderers fit in
	this category. (when in the context of knowing the laws of Christ)

>but it is teaching that
>they will have no forgiveness from the atonement of Jesus Christ and will
>have to suffer for their sins themselves.

	The atonement of Jesus Christ does not in any way shape or form cover 
	the unpardonable sin.  How can anyone then have forgiveness FROM or BY
	the atonement if it does not even cover it?  D&C 19:17 states that "if
	they would not repent" then they must suffer.  (murders suffer anyway)
	The atonement only covers repentable or forgivable sins.  That is why 
	it is called the "unpardonable sin", because there is no repentance 
	available for it.  (for salvation anyway) 


	RE: Note 343.11

>How about D & C 132:27 where it states that blasphemy against the Holy Ghost
>is the shedding of innocent blood.  I've already explained in .5 that
>that verse is speaking symbolically of murder.  Those who deny the truth
>of Jesus Christ that they have received from the Holy Ghost and who reject
>Christ commit murder symbolically of Him and crucify Him symbolically.

	That verse is more than just speaking symbolically of murder.  It is 
	a type in that (1) murder with the shedding of innocent blood is the
	blasphemy against the Holy Ghost (and the unpardonable sin), and 
	(2) this then is symbolic in the fact of assenting of Christ's death.
	The prophet, Joseph Smith, told us that "The unpardonable sin is to 
	shed innocent blood, or be accessory thereto." (Teachings, 301)  
	No symbology to it.  There it is.


>The innocent blood spoken of is the blood of Jesus Christ.

	No, even though Christ's blood was innocent, the blood spoken in verse
	27 is that blood spilt that was innocent in Gods eyes.  Able had
	innocent blood.  Joseph and Hyrum Smith had innocent blood.  Uriah
	had innocent blood.

	By the way, to digress a bit on this - do you not think that God, the
	Father, and Jesus Christ, have to obey their own commandments.  Of 
	course they do!  Then how would you account for Sodom and Gomorrah?
	Jerico? All the destruction of one people against another, driven and
	directed by God himself?  Because those who died did not have innocent
	blood!  But Lot did.  Why do you think God allows people to ripen in
	inequity? (But this should maybe be another topic.)

	
>I think that statement by McConkie ties everything together: Sons of
>Perditions are those who have a perfect knowledge via the Holy Ghost that
>Jesus is the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God and who go ahead anyway and
>fight against Him and his servants.  This does not imply that all who fight
>the Church are Sons of Perdition, because we don't know to what degree they
>have a perfect knowledge of Jesus Christ.  God will judge that.

	I agree with the conclusion here, but you are saying the same things
	I have been saying.  If Peter could have that "perfect knowledge via
	the Holy Ghost" then I don't see why Judas couldn't also have. Or David.
	Or Mr Hoffman.  I do. Don't you?  Of course you do, or you wouldn't
	be so good in this conference.  Again, I am looking for criteria and
	basing on that.  In all cases I will let God be the final judge.


	RE: Note 343.12

>In an earlier reply, I quoted Joseph Smith's statement that David would
>be released from hell after he had suffered for his sin of murder.  President
>Joseph F. Smith expressed his opinion that he also believed that David was
>not a Son of Perdition.

	But as an opinion only.  He stated that he did not know and would give
	David, as well as Judas, the benefit of the doubt.
	(Gospel Doctrine, p. 433-435) 


>President Smith also said he didn't think Judas was a Son of Perdition
>because the Holy Ghost didn't come to the Apostles until Pentecost; thus
>Judas committed his sin without the sure knowledge given by the Holy Ghost
>(p. 433).

	Ah. The Holy Ghost.  Does he have to be a permanent companion to give
	his testimony.?  How did Peter answer when Christ asked, "But whom say
	ye that I am?"  Where did Peter get the information?  From the Holy
	Ghost.  (Matt 16:15-18)  If Peter knew, then why not Judas.  Also, 
	did not Peter and the rest of the apostles receive the priesthood 
	before they were sent out to preach?  (Matt 16:19 ; 10:1 ; Mark 6:7 ;
	Luke 9:1)  Could they not cast out devils?  By what authority did they
	do this?  Did you notice the scripture I slipped in? D&C 84:41.  After
	receiving this power and authority, and then denying is not forgiven
	in this world or the next.


	I have more in the next reply.

	Charles

	Allen,
		I do hope you will forgive me for chopping up a lot of
	your entries, but I wanted to answer each concept that I did not
	agree with.  I am using another entry here to delve deeper into this
	subject and try to shed what light I can on it.  First, let us look 
	at the unpardonable sin in the context that it is an unforgivable sin 
	in this world and the next or one to come.  

	The spirit world does not constitute the next or "world to come."  It
	is only a way station where we receive rest or punishment.  
	(Alma 40:6-14)  Hell is the place of the devil where he can met out the 
	necessary punishments to those who would not repent. (D&C 19:16-19, 
	76:103-106)  The "world to come" will be after the final judgment 
	and we receive one of four kingdoms available to us.  Now, this 
	particular aspect of the unpardonable sin is mentioned in D&C 42:18, 
	79; 76:34; 84:41; 132:27.  The context is that it is unforgivable
	in this or the next world.  There is no atonement made for it.  The
	atonement is for the forgiveness of sins.  How could there be atonement
	for an unpardonable sin?  There can't and there isn't.  

	I would also like to make sure that it is understood that the law of
	Christ applies only to those who have it.  In Alma 40, he is talking 
	to a member of the church.  The whole purpose of the spirit prison 
	(not hell or the spirit world) is to teach those who died without the
	law where they could then be judged according to men in the flesh.

	Next, the particular aspect of the witness of the Holy Ghost should be
	considered in the context that it is not necessarily the "gift" of the
	Holy Ghost, but the sure knowledge he gives.  Now this is spoken of by
	Alma in Alma 39:5 when he introduces two aspects of the unpardonable
	sin when he said "the shedding of innocent blood or denying the Holy
	Ghost."  In verse 6, Alma states that the unpardonable sin is denial
	once it "has had place in you."  D&C 132:27 states that the shedding
	of innocent blood by murder is the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost.  Now
	is this denial of the Holy Ghost?  I would think that knowing the laws
	of Christ by the power of the Holy Ghost should be sufficient.  It is
	interesting to look at the term "murderer" in the context of 1 John 3,
	verses 14 - 17 and see that we can become a "murderer" just by hating.
	It is even more interesting that Proverbs 6:17 puts a proud look and
	a lying tongue along with hands that shed innocent blood.  I wonder if
	there is not more to this than just what is seen on the surface?

	The third aspect of the unpardonable sin is the rejection of the oath
	and covenant of the priesthood after receiving it (D&C 84:41).

	To summarize, the unpardonable sin is

		1. murder wherein innocent blood is shed
		2. denial of the witness of the Holy Ghost
		3. breaking the oath and covenant of the priesthood

	In doing these things, the offender assents to the death of Christ and
	puts him to open shame.

	Most of these concepts are tied together by the phrase or idea of "sins
	not forgiven in this world or the world to come."  Then murderer or the
	shedding of innocent blood.  Even D&C 132:26 talks about "... murder 
	wherein they shed innocent blood, ..."  I also went back to D&C 76 and
	looked at those who inherit the telestial kingdom (81-85; 98-106).  The
	term "murderer" did not come up.  But the term for the sons of perdition
	was the same as the unpardonable sin.  This, with my statements in the
	previous note, still lead me to believe that the conditions as set
	forth are met by David and Mr Hoffman.

	Charles

Hi Charles,

This is an interesting theological topic, but unfortunately one that isn't
clearly explained in the scriptures and hence one that is open to
interpretation of the verses.

We've both explained our viewpoints so those following this discussion will
have both sides, and I don't think there is much more that I can contribute.
I would like, however, to summarize what I feel are the key points that are
open to interpretation and hence the key points that are ambiguous.  In giving
this summary, I will be stating how you interpret certain verses; in saying
this, I'm really giving my understanding of what you have said, and if I
misrepresent you, please forgive my not fully understanding your viewpoint.

The scriptures we've discussed speak of "shedding innocent blood".  You feel
the verses are referring to people being killed who are innocent in the eyes
of God.  I think it is speaking figuratively of our crucifying Christ through
rejection and fighting him after we've received a sufficiently strong 
witness from the Holy Ghost that Christ is the Son of God.  Another ambiguous
thing is how strong ones testimony has to be in order to be eligible to be a
Son of Perdition.

The scriptures speak of no forgiveness in this world or the world to come.
You believe this is an absolute thing, those persons are never forgiven and
hence are Sons of Perdition.  I believe the word "forgive" is referring to
the suffering of Christ satisfying the Law of Justice; those who do not
repent (including murderers who can't repent because they can't restore life)
will have to satisfy the Law of Justice by suffering for their sins instead
of having Christ's suffering satisfy the Law of Justice; hence, those persons
do not have forgiveness but do the suffering themselves.  Once they have
suffered for their sins, the Atonement enters with mercy, and they inherit
the Telestial kingdom.  I feel that D & C 19 is speaking of other sins
besides murder and the oath of the Priesthood, and that it refers to any
sin from which we don't repent, i.e. many who will not be Sons of Perdition
will have to suffer for their own sins and will then inherit the Telestial
Kingdom.

If I understand your thoughts about Hell correctly, you believe that David
will come from Hell to be judged and will then be cast into outer darkness
as a Son of Perdition.  I believe that the Hell in which the wicked will 
remain during the Millennium is Outer Darkness.  During the Millennium, the
wicked will be with Satan and suffer for their sins.  Because they are with
Satan, they are in Outer Darkness for the 1000 years.  Those who inherit the
Telestial kingdom will be freed from Outer Darkness or Hell, while those who
are Sons of Perdition will remain there. (I recognize that the Sons of
Perdition will be judged by God, so in a technical sense they come from Outer
Darkness to be judged and then go back).  Joseph Smith and Joseph F. Smith
seemed to believe that it was significant that David was not to remain in Hell
(I understand and agree with you that this is only their opinion) and was thus
not a Son of Perdition.  I think the important concept is whether my claim
is true that Hell during the Millennium is the same as Outer Darkness; if so,
then David was to be released from Outer Darkness and was thus not a Son of 
Perdition.  If not, then David was released from Hell and could be assigned
to Outer Darkness.  As with the other controversial concepts, this one is
subject to interpretation.

I appreciate you're sharing your ideas with me, and I assume you appreciate
my sharing mine.  As time goes on, we may come to a more complete understanding
of theological things and can better see the full picture of God's religion.
In the meantime, you've helped me to look at this topic from a different
viewpoint, and I appreciate that!

Allen

	Hi Allen,
			Yes, I appreciate it very much that we are able to
	share ideas.  It gives me a lot of pleasure to be able to gather
	more information and topics in relation to a subject.  

	Eight or nine years ago I spent a great amount of time studying the 
	spirit world and the relationships about the final judgment kingdoms 
	and stuff like that.  I had a daughter die in 1980 when she was 
	seventeen days old.  It took me a while to get over it, and even now 
	I can still feel the pain as she was a very special child.

	When my third child was born, a daughter also, I awoke one night and
	saw a child standing by my bed.  I thought it was my three year old
	daughter (second child).  As I sat up to receive her, she disappeared.
	It really shook me up and I woke my wife and told her what happened.
	We decided that there was another daughter meant to come to us.  A few
	years latter, we were driving down the street talking about the 
	incident, and the name Christine Elizebeth came to my mind.  I told
	everyone and they all agreed it was a perfect name.  We were sort of
	disappointed when the next child was a boy, but we kept him anyway
	knowing there was one more to come.	

	And she did come.  We were quite happy as she was two weeks late with
	a lot of delivery problems.  however, she was extremely healthy
	looking with big eyes that looked all around.  She was born on a
	Sunday, and the following was fast Sunday.  I told my wife that we
	would bless here then.  She asked why we couldn't wait until next
	month.  I told her that I felt real strong about doing it the next
	Sunday and not waiting.  The following Wednesday we noticed that she
	looked different when she breathed and so we took her to the doctors.
	He sent us to Childrens Hospital in Denver where we then learned she
	was dying.  Bad heart.  On the autopsy we learned that the heart was
	only half developed.  Anyway, I got some elders up there to bless her.
	While I looked at here with all those tubes connected, it was like
	someone standing next to me saying, "It is my will that she comes back
	to me."  I instructed the elders to not bless her to live, but that she
	would not have a great amount of pain.  We had her for a week after 
	that.  She died at home in her mothers arms.  Even thought I know for
	a certainty that Jesus is the Christ and that God does live, the pain
	was terrible.  The scriptures did not console me.  I understood with
	my mind, but the heart could only be soothed by time.

	I take great pleasure in the spirit of God.  It is the only thing that
	will lift me up from the world.  The pain of living sometimes is too
	great.  And then when I am in the service of the Lord and his spirit
	attends to my soul, I can have peace and happiness.  Now days I do
	not get mad over those who refuse the Lord and his servants.  But the
	sorrow in my soul can only be comforted by his spirit when I read the
	scriptures or go out and visit.

	I guess I have rambled on, and only because of how I am feeling right
	now constrains me from deleting this reply.  Maybe I will try to find
	my old material and put it in some order and start a new topic.  But
	I do want you to know how grateful I am to be able to discuss these
	topics in the spirit of the gospel and not of the world.

	Charles

    That was very touching, Charles.  Thanks!  Having a son and a daughter
    I have some appreciation for how much a parent loves a child.  I dread
    the thought of being deprived precious moments with my children.  It
    must have been really hard.  I rely on the Gospel to keep me from going
    nuts about the thought of what would happen if I were to lose my
    children.  It helps to know that God loves them probably even more than
    I do.
    
    Just a side comment, the questions about unpardonable sin have always
    struck me as not a big deal since it will probably not be my 
    responsibility to determine who has committed unpardonable sin at the
    resurrection.  I figure the extent of my concern is with myself and my 
    responsibility for my children, other family and friends as far as making 
    sure that they have a shot at the benefits of the Gospel.  If someone has 
    shed innocent blood, society may judge that he give up his life.  After 
    that, he owes no more to society.  It's even and justice is served 
    between that individual and society.  But, he still must face God.  We've 
    been given little indication that society in general will have anything to 
    do with that judgement, although some individuals might be called upon to 
    play some part of the judgement.  (I don't pretend to understand the 
    extent of the role of such individuals, but there is precedance for this 
    in the Scriptures.)
    
    
    Steve

    How touched I was by your entry, Charles!  I, too, lost a child, a boy
    8 days old and know of the heartache that experience brings. Even
    though the Gospel gives hope and understanding, there still exist the
    grieving and pain.  Even now, as I write this.
    
    BUT, that feeling is certainly soon replaced by the knowledge of having
    a child in the Celestial Kingdom, who can perhaps work some good for
    his family here on earth. And knowing that I have a son in that sphere
    brings me joy and happiness for him.
    
    I want to suggest that perhaps we should start another note on dealing
    with the death of a loved one, and through the discussion perhaps we
    can console/teach one another.  Yet, I do know that some of the
    experiences surrounding death are so special as to almost be sacred and
    thus, not really open for scrutiny.  I know that my experience with
    death is certainly that way. However, I did learn a remarkable lesson
    from it.
    
    Moderators - what are your thoughts for such a topic?
    
    Paul
            

Paul,

That would be a very appropriate topic for discussion, and I expect it would
be a great help to many who read these notes.  My suggestion would be to
continue in note 128.  That note was started because of the death of a
persons's father, and the entries that are currently there concern death of
loved ones.  

Charles,

Thanks for sharing your feelings with us!  At times like that, we have a
greater appreciation for the Atonement of Jesus Christ and for his love for
us.

Allen

    I was once told that the unpardonable sin (blasphemy of the Holy
    Spirit) is the rejection of salvation through Jesus Christ.  Since God
    forgives all sin upon salvation, it's obvious that the unpardonable sin
    is the rejection of Christ.
    
    Mike