Repentance after death


pam
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Then get off your high horse and dialogue without a condescending nature to me.

Even were I condescending, my getting off my alleged high horse would change nothing. Your good and decent mind is cemented in old light and knowledge. Nothing will change that.--as undeniably demonstrated over and over and over again. Even the piercing laser light of D&C 76  made not a microscopic impression. on you. Your pride is too strong., and completely prevents you from seeing a need for repentance in this case--which, likewise is an object lesson for why good people may not progress from resurrected kingdom to resurrected kingdom. 

:little did you know that in your attempts to proselytize your pet belief about the after life, you unwittingly provide convincing evidence to the contrary..

The Lord certainly works in mysterious ways, his wonders to behold. 

In short, I care about you too much to waste your time. I also care a lot about my sore head from continually butting against your brick wall. That is why I am fine with leaving to each their own, and devoting my energies to productive causes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, zil said:

Damnation sounds kinda like hell.  Yet the degrees of glory below the highest still include glory and salvation through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.  Thus, these degrees combine both salvation and damnation to an extent (but no exaltation - that is reserved for the highest glory only - which includes 100% exaltation and 0% damnation).  And none of them are where "the devil and his angels go" - that is outer darkness, a place of no glory, no salvation, 100% damnation.  Thus, Wade never claimed that "a large part of heaven" is "the eternal hell spoken of in scripture where the devil and his angels go".

That is an interesting way to look at it. Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Even were I condescending, my getting off my alleged high horse would change nothing. Your good and decent mind is cemented in old light and knowledge. Nothing will change that.--as undeniably demonstrated over and over and over again. Even the piercing laser light of D&C 76  made not a microscopic impression. on you. Your pride is too strong., and completely prevents you from seeing a need for repentance in this case--which, likewise is an object lesson for why good people may not progress from resurrected kingdom to resurrected kingdom. 

:little did you know that in your attempts to proselytize your pet belief about the after life, you unwittingly provide convincing evidence to the contrary..

The Lord certainly works in mysterious ways, his wonders to behold. 

In short, I care about you too much to waste your time. I also care a lot about my sore head from continually butting against your brick wall. That is why I am fine with leaving to each their own, and devoting my energies to productive causes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Your pride gets in your way. Its clear from discussing with you that you feel I am below your superior understanding. You honestly feel like I have a limited capacity of intelligence. Your dialogue with me is thus of a condescending nature. Good day my brother.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Again, if there is anyone else besides Rob who is inclined towards his position, or who has questions or doubts about mine, I would be happy to entertain them. 

If not, then I may move on.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Move on, Wade. And may I just say I’m rather in awe of you right now reading through this thread. Your posts are so patient and well thought out and respectful. You are a gentleman and a scholar. Well done, sir.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Damnation, noun

1. Sentence or condemnation to everlasting punishment in the future state; or the state of eternal torments.

How can ye escape the damnation of hell. Matt.

xxiii

2. Condemnation. http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Damnation

This is exactly how Joseph Smith used the word damnation. It is exactly how every scripture that uses this word is defined. There is no proof to tge contrary that it means something besides this. One cannot be condemned into a reward in heaven. There is no condemnation of a soul who gets saved into the heavenly glories. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SALVA'TION, noun [Latin salvo, to save.]

1. The act of saving; preservation from destruction, danger or great calamity.

2. Appropriately in theology, the redemption of man from the bondage of sin and liability to eternal death, and the conferring on him everlasting happiness. This is the great salvation

Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation 2 Corinthians 7:10.

3. Deliverance from enemies; victory. Exodus 14:13.

4. Remission of sins, or saving graces. Luke 19:9.

5. The author of man's salvation Psalms 27:1.

6. A term of praise or benediction. Revelation 19:1. http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Salvation

And this is how Joseph Smith used the word salvation. As one can see it is the opposite of damnation, or the saving of one from damnation.

 

Edited by Rob Osborn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

SALVA'TION, noun [Latin salvo, to save.]

1. The act of saving; preservation from destruction, danger or great calamity.

2. Appropriately in theology, the redemption of man from the bondage of sin and liability to eternal death, and the conferring on him everlasting happiness. This is the great salvation

Godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation 2 Corinthians 7:10.

3. Deliverance from enemies; victory. Exodus 14:13.

4. Remission of sins, or saving graces. Luke 19:9.

5. The author of man's salvation Psalms 27:1.

6. A term of praise or benediction. Revelation 19:1. http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Salvation

And this is how Joseph Smith used the word salvation. As one can see it is the opposite of damnation, or the saving of one from damnation.

 

Ah yes. Websters. An inspired God-authorized work. Useful. Let's all stone the prophets and apostles now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

Where do you think the people in Josephs day got their definitions and understandings?

 

Ah yes. That's right....Joseph translated the Book of Mormon from Websters. And I believe he used it exclusively in his revelations too. Yes. That's the pattern we learned. Use your brain like Rob does to work things out according to what Websters tells us and then you'll know truth. I believe that is in the D&C now that you mention it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Ah yes. That's right....Joseph translated the Book of Mormon from Websters. And I believe he used it exclusively in his revelations too. Yes. That's the pattern we learned. Use your brain like Rob does to work things out according to what Websters tells us and then you'll know truth. I believe that is in the D&C now that you mention it.

Yeah, thanks for the idle commentary from the peanut gallery.

I highlighted the 1828 dictionary to explain how the words were commonly used in the early 1800's in America.

(BTW, sometimes its better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt)

Edited by Rob Osborn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

from the peanut gallery.

Do you really believe this sort of this has any effect? Like I'm going to think, "Oh no...he implied I'm the peanut gallery! I'm so ashamed." Or, "Ah man...that random guy on the internet trying to convince people the teachings of the church are wrong thinks I'm a fool. Woe is me. How will I ever bear it!?"

:rofl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Do you really believe this sort of this has any effect? Like I'm going to think, "Oh no...he implied I'm the peanut gallery! I'm so ashamed." Or, "Ah man...that random guy on the internet trying to convince people the teachings of the church are wrong thinks I'm a fool. Woe is me. How will I ever bear it!?"

:rofl:

Im just kind of sitting back and watching how stupid works. Keep it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I contend that canonized scripture is the word of God and constrained by eternal truth and not by Webster's dictionary. I further contend that God knows that His kingdoms of glory below the Celestial Kingdom are a form of damnation, that He has repeatedly revealed the same to prophets and apostles in plain wording over the course of His line-upon-line revelation to us. I further contend that denying these teachings and promoting the denial of these teachings is harmful to the church and to the salvation of souls.

I'm really not interested in a "no...you're stupid" -- "no...you're stupid" -- "no...you're stupid" childish game, to which I can really only reply, grow up and deal with the topic at hand..., which is whether Joseph was constrained by Websters. but I expect that point will have no impact. C'est la vie. Name call away. It doesn't change what our living prophets and apostles have taught, continue to teach, and will teach, despite your best efforts to prove they are wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Your pride gets in your way. Its clear from discussing with you that you feel I am below your superior understanding. You honestly feel like I have a limited capacity of intelligence. Your dialogue with me is thus of a condescending nature. Good day my brother.

[Edited for reasons of futility]

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Damnation, noun

1. Sentence or condemnation to everlasting punishment in the future state; or the state of eternal torments.

How can ye escape the damnation of hell. Matt.

xxiii

2. Condemnation. http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Damnation

This is exactly how Joseph Smith used the word damnation. It is exactly how every scripture that uses this word is defined. There is no proof to tge contrary that it means something besides this. One cannot be condemned into a reward in heaven. There is no condemnation of a soul who gets saved into the heavenly glories. 

I am not addressing this question to Rob since that would be futile, but is anyone else here believe that there is only one degree of condemnation and punishment in the hereafter?  In other words, do you believe the condemnation and punishment of Mother Teresa for not accepting the fullness of the gospel (assuming that is the case) but doing good continually, will be the same as someone like Joseph Stalin, who was responsible for the death/murder of 20 to 25 million people?

Also, is there anyone here (not including Rob) who doesn't believe that damnation prevents or limits people from progressing?

Just curious.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited by wenglund
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, wenglund said:

I am not addressing this question to Rob since that would be futile, but is anyone else here believe that there is only one degree of condemnation and punishment in the hereafter?  In other words, do you believe the condemnation and punishment of Mother Teresa for not accepting the fullness of the gospel (assuming that is the case) but doing good continually, will be the same as someone like Joseph Stalin, who was responsible for the death/murder of 20 to 25 million people?

Also, is there anyone here (not including Rob) who doesn't believe that damnation prevents or limits people from progressing?

Just curious.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Here’s something critically important to consider: A careful reading of D&C sections 19, 76, 88 and 138 will make it clear to the careful reader that, except for the sons of perdition, by the time of the final judgement all are going to obtain a remission of their sins. In addition, these sections also make it clear that suffering for one’s own sins while on earth and/or in the spirit prison cannot ever successfully atone for the sins of an individual. As the astute reader of these sections soon realizes, while one can suffer for his sins the only way to actually obtain forgiveness is to come unto Christ in faith and sincerely repent.

No amount of suffering for one’s own sins will ever bring forgiveness, for God’s punishment for sin is endless punishment. God’ punishment for sin is calculated to soften the human heart to the truth that one must either come unto Christ or forever perish in their sins. This means by the time of the final judgement that all, including Mother Teresa, will have to come unto the true Christ of the LDS Church and receive his forgiveness or perish for all eternity in their sins.

Alma the younger suffered for his own sins in exquisite agony, but it wasn’t until his heart was softened by his suffering that he came to realize he needed to either come unto Christ for forgiveness and relief or continue to suffer for his sins forever. In the end, all but the sons of perdition will come unto the true Christ in faith and thereby receive a full remission of their sins through the atonement of Christ.

Rob’s mistake is that he takes these principles a step or two too far, negating the truth that while all will eventually be forgiven that all will not have precisely the same degree of spiritual aptitude and capacity. He discovered an important truth but then put his own spin on it, while ignoring the scriptures that teach us for the forgiven there are three kingdoms of post-resurrection heavenly glory.

Edited by Jersey Boy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jersey Boy said:

In the end, all but the sons of perdition will come unto the true Christ in faith and thereby receive a full remission of their sins through the atonement of Christ.

I'm not sure the red part is 100% accurate. I'm not denying it per se, because there are semantic issues involved. But...it does seem that a "full" remission of sin implies what Rob is suggesting: that all would thereby qualify for Celestial Glory. Spiritual "aptitude" is directly related to repentance, humility, etc. If everyone humbles themselves fully, repents of their sins, etc., then by what claim are they not spiritually "apt" enough to receive Celestial glory?

Edit: incidentally, I have my own thought on this, but wanted to see what your take was first.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, wenglund said:

I am not addressing this question to Rob since that would be futile, but is anyone else here believe that there is only one degree of condemnation and punishment in the hereafter?  In other words, do you believe the condemnation and punishment of Mother Teresa for not accepting the fullness of the gospel (assuming that is the case) but doing good continually, will be the same as someone like Joseph Stalin, who was responsible for the death/murder of 20 to 25 million people?

Also, is there anyone here (not including Rob) who doesn't believe that damnation prevents or limits people from progressing?

Just curious.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

i don't think so Wade - i mean about Mother Teresa and Stalin.  i think the role of religion is to bring people to God and Jesus.  It - to me at least - is a means to the end.  Others will no doubt disagree - and that's fine.  

Ordinances or participation in a religion don't create a pure heart - and, in my opinion, it is that (ie who we are) in the end that really matters.  Not what religion we participated in.  One take away for me from the Gospels is that Jesus cared a whole lot more about the heart of a person than He did than how closely they adhered to the tenants of their religion.

i actually believe everyone who wants to be saved will be saved.  The roads you have to walk back when you sin are not pleasant, but in the end, assuming you are willing to walk them, you'll be able to.  i think that's true even after these bodies we inhabit for now die.  Maybe a son of perdition is someone who no longer wants to be saved - just conjecture on my part.

i guess that's a bit different from Rob - but somewhat along the same lines.

But i don't need to prove this to anyone else or get them to agree with me - doesn't make a bit of difference.  Just what i believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

Ordinances or participation in a religion don't create a pure heart - and, in my opinion, it is that (ie who we are) in the end that really matters. 

This is only true in that those who are pure in heart will accept ordinances and participate in Christ's true "religion".

38 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

One take away for me from the Gospels is that Jesus cared a whole lot more about the heart of a person than He did than how closely they adhered to the tenants of their religion.

This is flatly FALSE. Jesus cared about obedience to God -- adherence to the true "religion". What He didn't care about is adherence to false, man-made, things.

39 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

i actually believe everyone who wants to be saved will be saved. 

That depends on what is meant by "wants".

The way it works is thus. Two things are place before us, both enticing (good and evil). We choose which we want MORE. That doesn't mean we didn't want both. If we didn't...one or the other would not be enticing.

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/bofm/2-ne/2.16?lang=eng&clang=eng#p15

42 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

But i don't need to prove this to anyone else or get them to agree with me - doesn't make a bit of difference.  Just what i believe.

Yep. Just what "you" or anyone believes has no bearing on the teachings of the church and the truth of Christ's gospel.

Now what the scriptures and the living prophets and apostles teach...that does make a bit of difference...and ignoring such in favor of what one "believes" is only to one's own peril.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, lostinwater said:

i don't think so Wade - i mean about Mother Teresa and Stalin.  i think the role of religion is to bring people to God and Jesus.  It - to me at least - is a means to the end.  Others will no doubt disagree - and that's fine.  

Ordinances or participation in a religion don't create a pure heart - and, in my opinion, it is that (ie who we are) in the end that really matters.  Not what religion we participated in.  One take away for me from the Gospels is that Jesus cared a whole lot more about the heart of a person than He did than how closely they adhered to the tenants of their religion.

i actually believe everyone who wants to be saved will be saved.  The roads you have to walk back when you sin are not pleasant, but in the end, assuming you are willing to walk them, you'll be able to.  i think that's true even after these bodies we inhabit for now die.  Maybe a son of perdition is someone who no longer wants to be saved - just conjecture on my part.

i guess that's a bit different from Rob - but somewhat along the same lines.

But i don't need to prove this to anyone else or get them to agree with me - doesn't make a bit of difference.  Just what i believe.

 

I like what you have said – may I add something.  What is true is not a matter of proof – what is right and true is independent of any proof.  Seeing or comprehending truth is a matter or a process that must be learned.  Some call it “Desire”.  Jesus often said that as we desire in our heart – so shall we be”.  But in this context, many – especially in religion confuse desire with want.  So, they think they can be or understand what they want.

I will purport that desire is very different than want.  Want is undisciplined and ungoverned where desire is disciplined and obtained only through effort (practice) to achieve.  I will use the example of playing a musical instrument and a wealthy lady after a profound and wonderful solo violin concert met the violinist and said, “I would give my life to play as wonderfully as you”.  To which the violinist responded with, “I did”.  This illustrates the difference between want and desire – the wealthy lady wanted to play but the violinist desired to play.

What I believe is missing from our discussion about repentance is this difference between desire and want.  There are some – and in this discussion, it would appear that @Rob Osborn is our best example (at least here on this forum) – that wants eternal Celestial life.  They may want to so badly that they confuse their want with desire – so in the case of Rob – his want is so great he had defined all that he studies and reads to that end.  Any information contrary to his want – only confuses him and so he thinks it pointless and argues endlessly according to his “want” or ignors it.

And so, want changes what is seen or perceived to conform that ever it is that is wanted.  Desire is different – desire changes us to conform to whatever it is that we desire.  So, it is that repentance is different than guilt.  Guilt leaves us as we are and disconnects us from what could or should have been (changing only how we perceive or define things).  Repentance on the other hand changes us from the inside out and allows desire to make discipline us into becoming something that – in the words of scripture – is reborn into a new creature. 

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, lostinwater said:

i think the role of religion is to bring people to God and Jesus.  It - to me at least - is a means to the end. 

I believe and agree with this statement as you've stated it.  But I think it is incomplete.

It is basically like my engineering degree.  I go to school to get the paper.  But the most important thing is that I've learned all that I needed in order to do the job.  I have to actually understand an have a working relationship with codes, engineering principles, tons of reasearch, etc.  But there are two question (opposite sides of a coin) that are often brought into question.

1) Can someone learn all they need to without having gone to school for the "piece of paper"?
2) Can someone get the piece of paper and yet not really understand much of what they've gone to school for?
3) IDEALLY, one should go get the learning and really EARN that piece of paper.

Answer #1:

In all my life I've met only two people who have been able to figure things out on their own and do things because of natural talent.  They could go to the board and apply for a license and probably pass the exam and receive the license.  But this was after 30 years of on-the-job training that they accidentally fell into.  Without having been in just the right place at just the right time, they never would have been able to learn much of it at all.  For most people there really is no practical way to learn all the knowledge you need without going to school for it.

Answer #2:

All the time, unfortunately.

STATEMENT #3:

Looking at it from a Mormon's perspective, the Lord has set up His Kingdom on earth to be that school.  Could some people get it without going to school?  Very few.  But if you have the opportunity to go to school -- i.e. it's offered to you with the only qualification that you work hard at it. -- then your rejection of it would tend to say that you probably aren't going to get it on your own.  However, if you simply didn't have the opportunity and were forced to simply figure it out on your own, then that's different.

There are plenty of members of the Church (both active and inactive) who have ordinances done, but they simply don't understand the importance of covenants or the need for them.  They don't really reach the level they need to to be a Celestial Mormon (c.f. Bruce R. McConkie Terrestrial Mormons).  So, in such cases, the ordinances and covenants don't mean anything because they never learned what they needed to through the covenants.

ONLY A MEANS TO AN END

I absolutely agree.  Where we disagree is that I believe that these are the ONLY means of truly coming to Christ on a celestial level.  Too many people think they can do it on their own.  And they go away sorrowful.  And the heavens weep at their loss because they come to Christ on a telestial or terrestrial level only.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm not sure the red part is 100% accurate. I'm not denying it per se, because there are semantic issues involved. But...it does seem that a "full" remission of sin implies what Rob is suggesting: that all would thereby qualify for Celestial Glory. Spiritual "aptitude" is directly related to repentance, humility, etc. If everyone humbles themselves fully, repents of their sins, etc., then by what claim are they not spiritually "apt" enough to receive Celestial glory?

Edit: incidentally, I have my own thought on this, but wanted to see what your take was first.

 

I think I see what you may be saying and agree.  Sometimes I think words like fully and completely confuse the matter.  I honestly do not see how "full" or "complete" remission of sins is any different from a remission of sins.  At the same time - it would seem to me that since someone may not know the difference between Terrestial and Celestial Glory that they would argue that there is no difference - so one is the same as the other.  In essence if they obtained the Terrestial glory - they would think it Celestial and see no reason change anything.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, wenglund said:

I am not addressing this question to Rob since that would be futile, but is anyone else here believe that there is only one degree of condemnation and punishment in the hereafter?  In other words, do you believe the condemnation and punishment of Mother Teresa for not accepting the fullness of the gospel (assuming that is the case) but doing good continually, will be the same as someone like Joseph Stalin, who was responsible for the death/murder of 20 to 25 million people?

Also, is there anyone here (not including Rob) who doesn't believe that damnation prevents or limits people from progressing?

Just curious.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I think there are ways of reading that can lead to such Ideas.

Most of the scriptures present a very binary view of Salvation and Damnation.   However said view tends to vary on the ratio.  The scriptures focused on God's Love and Grace tend to point to a nearly universal Salvation and Limited Damnation, were as those focused on Works tend to flip the other way.   We see this in any Grace vs Works debate.

With the greater light and knowledge we can see how both views are correct and truly stated.  In the church we know that Exaltation is not equal to Salvation and our goal is Exaltation not just Salvation.  This can cause us to equate the two because the scripture don't talk about Exaltation much but they do talk about Salvation a lot and there are plenty of scriptures about not procrastinating our Salvation and we use them when we mean Exaltation.  It works but it can be a bit confusing.

A very easy read of the scriptures and modern light and knowledge could have one take that Salvation equals any Kingdom of Glory and Damnation is any non Glory state.  The various Degree of Glory are not various degrees of Damnation or Salvation but instead are various rewards for Works.

I tend to favor that personally, but I am well aware of the degrees of Salvation/Damnation model many in the church talk about.  I consider the differences between the two to be mostly in terminology rather then a fundamental disagreement.  If someone has a mini damnation or simply did not earn the reward the result is the same... They stop progressing.  (Unless you want to debate the progression between Kingdom idea which is another subject)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank-you @Carborendum @Traveler and @The Folk Prophet

You make excellent points.

Have no need to argue any points.  i've thought it over and feel at peace with it - and feel like God and Jesus say it's good.  My beliefs are just between me and Them - as are any person's.  But i've most definitely been wrong before.  If i am, i'll make you all a  cup of herbal tea (with cream) as an apology, and we can have a good laugh over my stupidity.  Though if i'm right, i'm going to need to ask you all to muck out my pony's stall - after which we can all go on a gallop. :) 

Or perhaps one of us will burn in hell for eternity for our error - but i really hope that's not the case.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share