D&c 64:9

[Archaea]

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.

Is anybody familiar with greater explanation than this?

[BlueK]

Originally Posted by Archaea

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.

Is anybody familiar with greater explanation than this?

The way I think of it is like this: person A wrongs person B. Person B holds a grudge and refuses to get over it. Person A eventually repents but person B still can't forgive. Person B has the greater sin. I don't think it means Person B has the greater sin if Person A never repents, as that doesn't make any sense to me at all. Nevertheless, person B still has to forgive. But that's just my way of looking at it.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by BlueK

The way I think of it is like this: person A wrongs person B. Person B holds a grudge and refuses to get over it. Person A eventually repents but person B still can't forgive. Person B has the greater sin. I don't think it means Person B has the greater sin if Person A never repents, as that doesn't make any sense to me at all. Nevertheless, person B still has to forgive. But that's just my way of looking at it.

In my mind, A, the first sinner, must repent. Assumption 1.

Given Assumption 1, what is being said, other than, if you don't forgive another, you have sin upon you.

Is it because, (a), the sinner has repented, and (b) the unforgiver now has sin, or (c) the sinner's sin comes upon the unforgiver, thereby giving unforgiver the sinner's sin plus his own?

Is there any other calculus here?

[MikeWaters]

Person A has an awesome set of bike wheels. Person B does not. Person A does not give said wheels to Person B.

Person A is in the wrong.

That's pretty much how I read it.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Person A has an awesome set of bike wheels. Person B does not. Person A does not give said wheels to Person B.

Person A is in the wrong.

That's pretty much how I read it.

If Person A gives wheel set to Person B, then Person B has awesome wheel set that Person must immediately return to Person A. And since we start from the beginning, Person A is simply saving time by not giving to Person B.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Archaea

If Person A gives wheel set to Person B, then Person B has awesome wheel set that Person must immediately return to Person A. And since we start from the beginning, Person A is simply saving time by not giving to Person B.

the blessings are in the thought?