Denying the holy Ghost

[Alkili]

What do you have to do to deny the Holy Ghost? I think it is basically loving satan more then God. I don’t think that most of us could even understand someone who would just want to be evil for the sake of being evil.

[Surfah]

My belief is that you have to have a sure knowledge of Christ and denying him, essentially by aligning yourself with Satan. These are the sons of perdition. I think that there are very few even eligible candidates.

[Indy Coug]

My understanding is that most people are incapable of even being guilty of it because you essentially need to have a sure knowledge (more than even very strong faith) of the truth and willfully rebel against it.

[Alkili]

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

My understanding is that most people are incapable of even being guilty of it because you essentially need to have a sure knowledge (more than even very strong faith) of the truth and willfully rebel against it.

I found it interesting that in Revelations, it says that we fight another war in heaven after everything on earth is said and done. That makes me think that it is one final effort to get people to simply accept what is already done for them. It gives me hope that all is not lost for me.

[SteelBlue]

I've heard 2 different thoughts on this one:

1) That there are very few eligible candidates. It requires a sure knowledge that very few obtain. You know, the ol' "you can count on both hands the number of eligible people" routine. This is the explanation I prefer.

2) The turning completely from the Melchizedek Priesthood condemnation. In the oath and covenant we read that "whoso breaketh this covenant after he hath received it, and altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come." I believe that this exact phrasing is used in the NT to describe the sin against the Holy Ghost. I guess what is important in this line of thinking is what exactly constitutes "turn[ing] altogether therefrom." If this were all that was required to commit the unpardonable sin, then one can imgaine there being a whole host of candidates.

[Surfah]

Originally Posted by SteelBlue

I've heard 2 different thoughts on this one:

1) That there are very few eligible candidates. It requires a sure knowledge that very few obtain. You know, the ol' "you can count on both hands the number of eligible people" routine. This is the explanation I prefer.

2) The turning completely from the Melchizedek Priesthood condemnation. In the oath and covenant we read that "whoso breaketh this covenant after he hath received it, and altogether turneth therefrom, shall not have forgiveness of sins in this world nor in the world to come." I believe that this exact phrasing is used in the NT to describe the sin against the Holy Ghost. I guess what is important in this line of thinking is what exactly constitutes "turn[ing] altogether therefrom." If this were all that was required to commit the unpardonable sin, then one can imgaine there being a whole host of candidates.

I think you can reconcile both. It's not either or. My personal belief is that to break the oath would be to have an absolute understanding of the priesthood power and from where that power is derived. With that knowledge there are certain keys one must possess in order to qualify as well. Essentially one must have his calling and election made sure to become such is my opinion. That is part of receiving the covenant. Being ordained into the Melchezidek priesthood isn't the same as entering into this covenant. Just like being baptized doesn't quite mean that you take upon yourself the name of Christ. That doesn't happen until you make that covenants in the temple.

[outlier]

One could infer from D&C 132:27 that cold-blooded murder is evidence of HG denial. In fact, it may not even require inference if you consider "blasphemy against the HG" to be the same as denial.

http://scriptures.lds.org/dc/132/26-27#27

But either way, I'm pretty sure most of us are safe.

o