This weeks quote is from the 2nd Mormon President Brigham Young.
“There are sins that men commit for which they cannot receive forgiveness
in this world, or in that which is to come, and if they had their eyes open to see their true condition, they would be perfectly willing to have their blood spilt upon the ground, that the smoke thereof might ascend to heaven as an offering for their sins; and the smoking incense would atone for their sins, whereas, if such is not the case, they will stick to them and remain upon them in the spirit world. I know, when you hear my brethren telling about cutting people off from the earth, that you consider it is strong doctrine; but it is to save them, not to destroy them” (Brigham Young, September 21, 1856, Journal of Discourses 4:53).
Please leave your thoughts.
This one is very concerning. To be fair as far as I know this is not believed in the LDS church of today, however the idea that Jesus blood is not enough for our forgiveness and for some sins we need to go through some punishment in this life or the next to atone for our own sin is still very much there.
However biblically ALL sin can be forgiven through confession of it, not to a leader of a Church but to God.
1John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
“However biblically ALL sin can be forgiven through confession of it, not to a leader of a Church but to God.”
I am sorry Bob but you are wrong.
Mark 3:22-30 states,
“And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem said, ‘He has Beelzebub,’ and, ‘By the ruler of the demons He casts out demons.’ …’Assuredly, I [Jesus] say to you, all sins will be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they may utter; but he who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is subject to eternal condemnation;’ because they said, ‘He has an unclean spirit’”
and In Matthew 12:31-32, Jesus says to the Pharisees,
“Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven men. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man, it will be forgiven him; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either in this age or in the age to come”
This is the basis of Young’s claim, however dubiously he used it, but unintentionally misleading your readers helps no one, or your cause.
When Jesus himself says their are unpardonable sins as a Christian you have to accept that ad the fact that othe religious leaders are going to quote him on it.
Doh wrong am I, oh well let me try to explain. Consider again what I said.
“However biblically ALL sin can be forgiven through confession of it, not to a leader of a Church but to God.”
Even in light of the very correct and valid verses you have quoted i still stand by this statement, let me explain.
The bible says:
“If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.” (1 John 1:9) #
“There is therefore now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus …” (Romans 8:1)
Ok so biblically if we confess our sins He can cleanse us from all unrighteousness, also there is no condemnation for those in Christ, Christians. This would appear to be a contradiction with the idea of an unforgiveable sin, if you ignore the first part of my statement. Sins can be forgiven through confession of it.
I went through a phase early in my Christian life where i worried if I had commited the unforgivable sin, this was really just because in worrying about commiting it i thought i had then commited it. However I was still asking for forgiveness, so according to biblical context i must have still been forgiven, there in lies my argument on this. If you are someone who would truly commit this sin my view is your heart must be so hard toward God that you will not be asking Him for forgiveness afterwards.
Consider Pharoah in Exodus, Exodus 10:20 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh’s heart, and he would not let the Israelites go.
We can see here that Pharoah would not have been asking God for forgiveness due to His hardness of heart, Pharoah could have been forgiven if he asked for his actions but due to this God given hardness of heart he would not have been asking.
We see in Romans 1 that God has given sinful humanity over to their lusts etc, we see in John 6:44 that no one comes to the Father unless He draws them in,
so if someones heart has turned in such a way toward God that they humbly ask for forgiveness God will grant it, this is a biblical guarantee. However if their heart is so hard that they blaspheme the Holy Spirit they will remain dead in their sins.
So I stand by my initial statement but appreciate you bringing context to it, I am sure there is a good chance you will disagree with and not accept this, which is totally fine and what this blog is all about, however just making the statement “you are wrong” is childish and not helpful for discussion, I hope you will in the least see that I have considered the issues you are raising.
“however just making the statement “you are wrong” is childish and not helpful for discussion, I hope you will in the least see that I have considered the issues you are raising.”
Dear Bob
Pointing out an error and then backing up my assertion with Biblical precedent is not simple childish gainsaying, it is legitimate argument and discussion.
My point being that you made a claim that Biblically all sins can be forgiven, this is not true, and the Statement comes as a direct quotation from Jesus himself. Arguing that Paul and John the seer could counter this with a vague platitudes some fifty years later, undermines the importance of the words of Christ as being imperfect and countermandable, which is I am afraid heresy and blasphemy since the perfection of Christ is the cornerstone of the faith.
“If you are someone who would truly commit this sin my view is your heart must be so hard toward God that you will not be asking Him for forgiveness afterwards.”
This of course is true but an is irrelevance to the point I made. In philosophy this is called a straw man argument.
Ultimately you have to say Christianity is based on the teachings of Christ, or else it is not Christianity, this is why you and I agree on the idea that Mormonism is not traditional Christianity and that the followers of Mormonism follow a different Christ to the rest of Christendom.
Christ affirms that there are unforgivable sins therefore in asserting “biblically ALL sin can be forgiven through confession of it, not to a leader of a Church but to God.” is wrong.
That is not childish it is a statement of fact, it is not unhelpful, because it informs the readership of truth and therefore by passing on factual information it is helpful.
I’m sorry you found my correction “is childish and not helpful for discussion” I had believed you wanted to stimulate and engage in actual discussion. Obviously I was wrong too.
Hey mr lions touché with your last point there haha, but yes I am very interested in some discussion hence me replying to your comments.
You agree that someone who commits the unforgivable sin would not ask for forgiveness yet you call it weak philosophy, interesting but I showed you consistent bible teaching, saying that I am putting John and Paul against Christ is also not at all how I see it, as 2 Timothy 3:16 says all scripture is God breathed, I consider the words of John and Paul in the bible as equally true as the words of Christ however everything must be seen in context hence I have shown that my statement that all who ask for forgiveness will receive it is a true contextual statement from the bible.
And also I am liking having you here mate so don’t by any means be put off by my earlier comment, I think just in this discussion to declare someone as wrong so early does not show a willingness to dialogue, I see with you this may not be the case. Talk soon
How scary. I can’t imagine living in Brigham Young’s day. What a desperate and lonely life some people must have lived. This quote reinforces that LDS leaders are poor spiritual guides, with a long track record of inaccurate teachings.
Matthew 26:28
28 This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Only Jesus’ blood will do. We can not atone for ourselves. I know this quote is put into the “doesn’t count” file by the LDS , but it was taught by an LDS prophet.
http://en.fairmormon.org/Blood_atonement
Bobby, do you plan to only post quotes that you find troubling? Will there be no balance with the VAST majority of teachings from LDS leaders that are inspiring?
Hey James when I run out of troubling quotes I might move onto inspiring ones, could take a while though….
James the article you gave link to, ended with an official statement by the LDS church which ended with this.
We believe in and teach the infinite and all-encompassing atonement of Jesus Christ, which makes forgiveness of sin and salvation possible for all people.
Is this really what Mormons believe, what about Murder, is the blood of Jesus sufficient for forgiveness for Murder without any effort on the sinners part other than genuine repentant faith in Christ?
Bobby,
Yes, even murderers can take upon themselves the name of Christ through faith and repentance. Though, I suspect you and I differ on what “repentance” constitutes. But it certainly doesn’t constitute the shedding of one’s own blood.
Brigham Young said,
“There is also a man down the street who tried to exhibit the endowments to a party who was here. You will see what becomes of that man. Do not touch him. He has forfeited every right and title to eternal life; but let him alone, and you will see by and by what will become of him. His heart will ache, and so will the heart of every apostate that fights against Zion; they will destroy themselves. It is a mistaken idea that God destroys people, or that the Saints wish to destroy them. It is not so. The seeds of sin which are in them are sufficient to accomplish their destruction.”
- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 11:262. (12 August 1866).
In the interest of being fair and balanced (I assume those are qualities you aspire to) are you going to put that quote in the main body of this blog post? It seems like the most Christlike thing to do.
Hi James I would be interested to know what you say repentance constitutes, so we can have a more complete discussion.
And I will not add that quotation of Brigham Young simply because it is not from the same part of the JOD, if it was and came before or after the quote I used then I would have, to say that is Christlike for me to add it seems to me to just be manipulation which I am not going to give in to.
However interestingly there seems to be a contradiction between what Young says here and in my quote, why would you say that is?
Bobby,
You won’t add it because it is from a different part of the JoD? I’m failing to see the logic in that. Why does it matter what part of the JoD it is printed in? I suggest that the “Christlike” or, if you prefer, the “Christian” thing to do would be to provide a more fair sampling of Young’s statements on the subject. I assume that you want to give a fair hearing to these matters. But, if you aim is merely partisan polemicizing, then I can see why you’d avoid showing evidence that hurts your thesis.
The “contradiction” is explored in the FAIRwiki link I provided.
As for the notion of repentance in LDS beliefs, that is a whole other can of worms.
Thanks.
James
James mate my final word on this regarding your quote is that I have added this quote for the sake of discussing blood atonement, you as part of this discussion have added another quote by Brigham Young to help bring further context to it, this is absolutely fine and something I would hope you would do, however I am not editing original posts simply because you ask me to and tell me I am not being Christlike not to. The reality is Brigham Young came out with some extremely wrong and unhelpful things and I am just showing one of those things.
And regarding the LDS repentance that is fine not to discuss it, however from what I understand of it the LDS repentance process involves people having to atone for their own sin by working and proving to the church that they are repentant, that can involve various types of punishments, which is also from what I understand part of the LDS view that Jesus blood is not enough for our forgiveness, while this is no longer blood atonement it is a kind of personal atonement. Which is where I got my point from that this doctrine still has its place in LDS theology just in a different form, which I think is the case for many or all of the problematic LDS leader quotes.
Which is why I will keep quoting them, and why when you say this is not a part of LDS doctrine I will be time and time again showing how it is.
Bobby,
Have you ever read anything from a modern LDS leader about repentance? No LDS would ever describe repentance as involving “people having to atone for their own sins”. That is directly contrary to what LDS believe. I suggest you spend a little time reading about repentance at LDS.org.
Thanks.
James
Hi James I feel a post coming on with this subject, watch this space.
James,
Let me ask you a question, if you you committed adultery and went in and confessed it to your bishop, what would likely happen? Would he hold a council of love with the stake president and whoever else makes up that council? Would they decide how you are to repent of the sin? Would you maybe be disfellowshipped for awhile? Would you maybe be excommunicated? Before you say no, let me tell you that I have a friend who did commit adultery and he was excommunicated for a year while he worked hard to repent and atone for the sin. I also had a friend who had sex with his girlfriend soon after he came home from his mission and he was disfellowshipped for a year while he worked hard to repent and atone for his sin. This is very much a part of Mormonism.
Sorry, it’s “court of love”.
I should also point out that while these two men were being punished they were not allowed to hold ANY position or calling in the church and were not worthy to partake of the Sacrament every week. Making it sort of public knowledge. My missionary friend said that it was such an embarrassing and horrible thing to go through that if he ever did it again, he wouldn’t confess it.
Kate said:
The answer to all of those questions is “yes”. The purpose behind Church discipline is (1) to help sinners fully repent, (2) protect the innocent and (3) protect the Church. The second two are not really controversial, I think, so perhaps a focus on the theology fo the first is helpful. Church disciplinary measures are simply to help those who have committed serious transgressions to come to have a “broken heart and a contrite spirit” so that they are sufficiently humble and conscious of their offense to God. It has nothing to do with suffering as a means of atoning for one’s own sins (which Bobby wants it to be). Instead, it serves as a catalyst to compel the sinner to true, full repentance. In our view, repentance is made possible by the Atonement of Christ, and full repentance involves fully recognizing the weight of your sins and approaching God with a “broken heart and a contrite spirit”. In some cases that is best done by removing certain privileges. It is similar to a mother sending her disobedient child to his room, missing out on playing with his friends, so that he can think about his actions and find humility.
Kate said:
Yep. It is very much a part of Mormonism. But not just Mormonism, because institutional discipline is very much a part of Judaism and Christianity. Mormons didn’t invent the concept of “excommunication”. It is very much a Christian practice. We are hardly unique.
That is unfortunately a consequence. But public embarrassment, in my view, is not what these sorts of disciplinary measures are aimed at though. If public embarrassment were the goal then the Bishop would announce people’s sins from the pulpit every Sunday. The sacrament, attending the temple, holding callings, etc., are all privileges and blessings that one is allowed to participate in when one is keeping their covenants with God. When those covenants are violated in a serious way those privileges are rightly withheld until sincere repentance is manifest. If you think public embarrassment is bad in Mormonism, you should read about they did in ancient Judaism.
Never confuse any of this with atoning for one’s sins. Latter-day Saints are emphatic that only Jesus Christ atones for sins (though it appears that some clever anti-Mormon Evangelicals may be attempting to link Church discipline with blood atonement. That link cannot pass scrutiny). Consider for example this statement by Elder C. Scott Grow in the latest General Conference (and while reading it consider your earlier statement, Kate, that LDS leaders make terrible spiritual guides):
Whatever degree of pain or anguish is felt by a sinner is simply the natural result of standing before God with an impure heart. The pain is taken away through repentance, but repentance can’t work until the sinner fully recognizes the weight of his sins, which recognition naturally involves the spiritual pain of sin.
James
James,
Dictionary.com defines atone this way:
1.to make amends or reparation, as for an offense or a crime, or for an offender (usually followed by for ): to atone for one’s sins.
2.to make up, as for errors or deficiencies (usually followed by for ): to atone for one’s failings.
3.Obsolete . to become reconciled; agree
You love definitions
Would you say that my friends were making amends or reparation, as for an offense or a crime? Were they making up as for errors or deficiencies? Were they becoming reconciled to the LDS church? I think Bobby’s point to all of this is that Jesus’ atonement isn’t sufficient in Mormonism. The LDS member has to repent and “atone” for his own sins. Jesus blood and promise aren’t enough. Have you ever talked to people who have subjected themselves to a court of love with the bishopric, stake presidency and the high councilmen??? 17 or so men that ask very personal, inappropriate questions and then proceeding to judge them to decide what the punishment should be. Now let me just say that all of these men are themselves sinners. I know one man who was in the bishopric judging people, he was even a police officer and guess what? He had been molesting his little neighbor girl for years. He’s now in prison. Who knows if these men are even “worthy” to judge others? That’s why God is to judge, not us, we are commanded to love. Sorry, but laying your most personal sins bare in front of all those judging men who you may have to see in your daily lives is not healing as you say. It’s extremely harmful. You can sure bet that most of their wives know all the dirt on people. Gossip is spread. I have actually witnessed this. I don’t buy the whole “they are judges in Israel” thing. Sorry, I’m also not buying what you are selling. 
Kate,
You’ve provided us with the definition of “atone” from dictionary.com. Very good. The definition that most closely matches my use of the word (and the use of most Christians, I think) is number 2. When we sin we are estranged from God, and we have no ability to correct this state of affairs. Jesus Christ suffered for our sins and provided us with the magnificent gift of repentance. Repentance is merely the act of extending our hand to accept the gift of forgiveness. It is in no way meriting the forgiveness.
I’d say exactly what I said before. They were being disciplined so that they could obtain godly sorrow, which, according to Paul, is required for forgiveness and salvation. 2 Cor 7:10
I wouldn’t say that your friends were earning, meriting, or making reparations for their sins. We can’t make reparations for our sins (reparations are payments that make up for some harm that is done). We believe that all our repentance would be completely for naught were it not for the saving sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
Again, Latter-day Saints would never, ever, suggest that they “atone” for their own sins. As I said in the other blog discussion, if you are going to meaningful criticize our faith then you need to do it from within, not from without. We aren’t going to bothered just because from your Evangelical perspective we somehow are “atoning” for our sins. We simply disagree. We don’t see it that way. It would like expecting a Republican to feel hurt when a Democrat says he isn’t raising taxes enough.
But there is a basic sense in which, yes, Latter-day Saints don’t believe that Christ’s atonement is sufficient for complete salvation. But we are hardly unique in this. Our Catholic and Armenian Protestant friends also hold to a form of synergistic salvation. Synergism is a very normal, ancient, and well entrenched Christian belief. We didn’t invent the idea that man shares some responsibility in coming unto Christ. Unless you are a Calvinist, you probably believe in something quite similar.
Yes I have. I know an individual who was excommunicated and rebaptized into the Church. He has talked about that experience to me.
You are talking about a formal disciplinary council at the Stake level. These are usually done only in cases where excommunication is possible. It involves the Stake Presidency (3 people), the High Council (12 people), and the subject’s Bishop (1 person). First, it is merely your opinion that they ask inappropriate questions. They are simply trying to find out the nature of a person’s sins. The person being questioned is there of their own free will and choice. They know what they are getting into. They don’t have to come. They are volunteering information. Second, only one (1) person decides what the punishment will be: the Stake President. The others do not act as a jury, and they do not decide the disciplinary measures that will be taken. They are there to help, but nothing more.
I can’t speak to any particular case. I don’t know all the details, and I’m certain you don’t either. You say that these disciplinary councils are not healing, but that testimony contradicts the testimonies of many others who describe the process as incredibly vital on their road to repentance and forgiveness.
James
James.
You say that you agree with #2. Well it isn’t talking about Jesus. It’s talking about a person making up for or atoning for one’s failings. You sort of spun that one. Once again, It is Mormonism who has attacked Christianity and claims to be the true restored Christianity and I really don’t need to look at anything through a Mormon framework. Christianity has been around for nearly 2000 years and it is up to Mormons to prove their doctrine, not the other way around. I’m headed out for a two week vacation, so I guess in a way you get a vacation too right LOL! Have a great day!
This discussion has grown rather boring anyway, so I’m glad we are taking a break. Have a fun trip.