Alma 20:17-18 and Salvation for the Dead

[Bernard Gui]

When Lamoni’s father threatens to kill him because of his alliance with a Nephite, Ammon stops him and says,

Quote

17 ...Behold, thou shalt not slay thy son; nevertheless, it were better that he should fall than thee, for behold, he has repented of his sins; but if thou shouldst fall at this time, in thine anger, thy soul could not be saved.
18 And again, it is expedient that thou shouldst forbear; for if thou shouldst slay thy son, he being an innocent man, his blood would cry from the ground to the Lord his God, for vengeance to come upon thee; and perhaps thou wouldst lose thy soul.

Lamoni’s father had not heard the gospel. 

How would you reconcile this with the doctrine of vicarious salvation for the dead?

Edited January 12, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[ksfisher]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

When Lamoni’s father threatens to kill him because of his alliance with a Nephite, Ammon stops him and says,

Lamoni’s father had not heard the gospel. 

How would you reconcile this with the doctrine of vicarious salvation for the dead?

You’re assuming that Ammon had the same understanding of salvation for the dead as we do today.

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

When Lamoni’s father threatens to kill him because of his alliance with a Nephite, Ammon stops him and says,

Lamoni’s father had not heard the gospel. 

How would you reconcile this with the doctrine of vicarious salvation for the dead?

I think those who have not heard the gospel are still responsible for the light they possess (the light of Christ which everyone is born with). If they leave this world with murderous hatred, it will be harder for them to recognize the messengers of salvation in the prison to come. 

In verse 17, his soul definitely could not be saved at this time (in this world) because he would be dead and have lost any space for repentance. In verse 18, perhaps he would not be saved in the spirit world if he went there with a bad attitude.

[Stargazer]

I'm not sure this conversation constitutes a doctrinally correct teaching.  

But on the other hand, the shedding of innocent blood seems to be a pretty darned serious thing in the Lord's eyes.

Is deliberate murder subject to repentance and forgiveness?  I believe so.  But I have my doubts that even a repentant murderer will be worthy of the terrestrial kingdom -- though usually I feel that a repentant and forgiven sinner (of other than murder) is going to merit at least the terrestrial kingdom.

[JAHS]

Perhaps he is thinking of this doctrinal principle:

"for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world."

He did say "perhaps" he would lose his soul. But if he takes that same spirit of anger with him into the spirit world he might not be able to be saved. (Alma 34:34)

[Maidservant]

Ditto to KS, and I wouldn't go into scriptures with the necessity that they be reconciled all together in one.  That is crazy making.

[3DOP]

Hi Bernard,

It would seem that Ammon is revealing to the father of Lamoni that should he decide to do murder and leave this life in unrepented anger, that he should not expect to be able to give up his anger, receiving the baptism of repentance in the next life. This passage is talking about one individual and a distinct state of soul at time of death. It might be a revelation applying only to this one particular soul. It might be stretched to a revelation about all souls who die as it was feared Lamoni might. But as a non-LDS, I could never use this passage to prove that the Book of Mormon contradicts itself here. At most, it is saying that one or some souls may not be suited for baptism after death. It certainly isn't excluding everyone from post-mortal baptism.

Maybe there are teachings about free will that contradict such an interpretation? Unless there are, as a non-LDS, I would be satisfied if you understood this passage as a prophecy that this particular man's will could be so fixed after death that he would not change his mind if he could.  

 

Edited January 12, 2019 by 3DOP

[Robert F. Smith]

30 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Hi Bernard,

It would seem that Ammon is revealing to the father of Lamoni that should he decide to do murder and leave this life in unrepented anger, that he should not expect to be able to give up his anger, receiving the baptism of repentance in the next life. This passage is talking about one individual and a distinct state of soul at time of death. It might be a revelation applying only to this one particular soul. It might be stretched to a revelation about all souls who die as it was feared Lamoni might. But as a non-LDS, I could never use this passage to prove that the Book of Mormon contradicts itself here. At most, it is saying that one or some souls may not be suited for baptism after death. It certainly isn't excluding everyone from post-mortal baptism.

Maybe there are teachings about free will that contradict such an interpretation? Unless there are, as a non-LDS, I would be satisfied if you understood this passage as a prophecy that this particular man's will could be so fixed after death that he would not change is mind if he could.  

Welcome back.  Still truckin?

Yes, and Romans 2:14-15, "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another"

In other words, those not having the Gospel or the Mosaic Law, are judged by their own cultural norms and their own conscience.  It would be unfair to do otherwise.

[let’s roll]

2 hours ago, JAHS said:

Perhaps he is thinking of this doctrinal principle:

"for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world."

He did say "perhaps" he would lose his soul. But if he takes that same spirit of anger with him into the spirit world he might not be able to be saved. (Alma 34:34)

This.

[JLHPROF]

I agree with Stargazer.

The scripture expressly says this would be shedding of innocent blood.  IF they had an understanding of work for the dead at all, they may still not have considered salvation a possibility in that case.

[mrmarklin]

7 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

When Lamoni’s father threatens to kill him because of his alliance with a Nephite, Ammon stops him and says,

Lamoni’s father had not heard the gospel. 

How would you reconcile this with the doctrine of vicarious salvation for the dead?

We only have a snippet of the entire story here. We don’t know the level of the father’s knowledge. 

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, ksfisher said:

You’re assuming that Ammon had the same understanding of salvation for the dead as we do today.

I'm not making any assumptions. 

[Bernard Gui]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think those who have not heard the gospel are still responsible for the light they possess (the light of Christ which everyone is born with). If they leave this world with murderous hatred, it will be harder for them to recognize the messengers of salvation in the prison to come. 

In verse 17, his soul definitely could not be saved at this time (in this world) because he would be dead and have lost any space for repentance. In verse 18, perhaps he would not be saved in the spirit world if he went there with a bad attitude.

I have been thinking along these same lines. 

[teddyaware]

19 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

When Lamoni’s father threatens to kill him because of his alliance with a Nephite, Ammon stops him and says,

Lamoni’s father had not heard the gospel. 

How would you reconcile this with the doctrine of vicarious salvation for the dead?

When the all facts are brought to the table, the explanation is simple and reasonable. 

1) First, Ammon’s words of dire warning to the king must be understood in the context of someone trying to prevent a rash act of murderous violence against a beloved brother in the faith. Ammon’s warning was obviously far less an attempt to teach the King some of the principles of the plan of salvation than it was an emergency effort to strike sufficient fear into the heart of the king to cause him to stop, think, and then back down from his bloody intentions..

2) I find it remarkable that in almost the very same breath Ammon immediately mitigates the apparent unavoidability of his previous warning of eternal damnation with the words that “perhaps” the king might lose his soul. Considering the present emotion charged situation he was in, one wonders why Ammon would have had the presence of mind to immediately qualify the seeming inevitably of his previous threat, that eternal damnation would be so, with the assertion that it only might be so?  Here’s the reason: It’s because Ammon wanted his words to comport with the truth. You see, in his heart Ammon already knew that although it was an extremely difficult thing to bring to pass that it actually WAS POSSIBLE for someone who was not also blaspheming against the Holy Ghost to obtain forgiveness for murder. Ammon’s close friend and brother in the Lord, Alma, explains the Nephite belief on the subject.

6 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

So Ammon very likely DID KNOW it was possible that the king might ultimately been forgiven for the murder of his son, and that’s why heimmediately amended his previous apparent warning of unavoidable eternal damnation with the assertion that that the king only MIGHT be damned to hell forever

 

 

Edited January 13, 2019 by teddyaware

[The Nehor]

One trembles to imagine what kind of sick or perverse society would suggest a father killing his son for converting to another faith would be an acceptable act. That is messed up.

Deuteronomy 13:

6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

 

Oh........never mind.

 

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, teddyaware said:

When the all facts are brought to the table, the explanation is simple and reasonable. 

1) First, Alma’s words of dire warning to the king must be understood in the context of someone trying to prevent a rash act of murderous violence against a beloved brother in the faith. Alma’s warning was obviously far less an attempt to teach the King some of the principles of the plan of salvation than it was an emergency effort to strike sufficient fear into the heart of the king to cause him to stop, think, and then back down from his bloody intentions..

2) I find it remarkable that in almost the very same breath Alma immediately mitigates the apparent unavoidability of his previous warning of eternal damnation with the words that “perhaps” the king might lose his soul. Considering the present emotion charged situation he was in, one wonders why Alma would have had the presence of mind to immediately qualify the seeming inevitably of his previous threat, that eternal damnation would be so, with the assertion that it only might be so?  Here’s the reason: It’s because Alma wanted his words to comport with the truth. You see, in his heart Alma already knew that although it was an extremely difficult thing to bring to pass that it actually WAS POSSIBLE for someone who was not also blaspheming against the Holy Ghost to obtain forgiveness for murder.

6 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

So he DID KNOW it was possible that the king might ultimately been forgiven for the murder of his son, and that’s why Alma immediately amended his previous apparent ironclad warning of unavoidable eternal damnation with the assertion that that the king only might be damned to hell forever

 

 

Thank for the interesting comments and the link to Alma 39.

[3DOP]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Welcome back.  Still truckin?

Yes, and Romans 2:14-15, "For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another"

In other words, those not having the Gospel or the Mosaic Law, are judged by their own cultural norms and their own conscience.  It would be unfair to do otherwise.

Not truckin'. Although I kept my CDL...yesterday...in my new home state.  I don't know the story of this man. Anyway...peace on earth to men of good will. Only haters go to hell. It seems like this fellow in Alma might be in danger of hating God or man, who we are enjoined to love as ourselves.

 

 

[Bernard Gui]

6 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

We only have a snippet of the entire story here. We don’t know the level of the father’s knowledge. 

Do you have any ideas about how the father could have had gospel knowledge? He believed in a Great Spirit, but didn’t seem to know much about it. He also believed that being king entitled him to do anything he wished.

Edited January 13, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, JAHS said:

Perhaps he is thinking of this doctrinal principle:

"for that same spirit which doth possess your bodies at the time that ye go out of this life, that same spirit will have power to possess your body in that eternal world."

He did say "perhaps" he would lose his soul. But if he takes that same spirit of anger with him into the spirit world he might not be able to be saved. (Alma 34:34)

That would show consistency in Alma’s teachings.

[Bernard Gui]

2 hours ago, The Nehor said:

One trembles to imagine what kind of sick or perverse society would suggest a father killing his son for converting to another faith would be an acceptable act. That is messed up.

Deuteronomy 13:

6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers;

7 Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;

8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:

9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.

10 And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the Lord thy God, which brought thee out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage.

 

Oh........never mind.

 

A number of heretic Nephites suffered such fates.

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/12/2019 at 2:17 PM, 3DOP said:

Hi Bernard,

It would seem that Ammon is revealing to the father of Lamoni that should he decide to do murder and leave this life in unrepented anger, that he should not expect to be able to give up his anger, receiving the baptism of repentance in the next life. This passage is talking about one individual and a distinct state of soul at time of death. It might be a revelation applying only to this one particular soul. It might be stretched to a revelation about all souls who die as it was feared Lamoni might. But as a non-LDS, I could never use this passage to prove that the Book of Mormon contradicts itself here. At most, it is saying that one or some souls may not be suited for baptism after death. It certainly isn't excluding everyone from post-mortal baptism.

Maybe there are teachings about free will that contradict such an interpretation? Unless there are, as a non-LDS, I would be satisfied if you understood this passage as a prophecy that this particular man's will could be so fixed after death that he would not change his mind if he could.  

 

Thanks for answering from a non-LDS perspective. The Lamanites were murderous people. Lamoni’s himself was guilty of killing servants who failed in their responsibilities.

Quote

Alma 18:5 Now this was the tradition of Lamoni, which he had received from his father, that there was a Great Spirit. Notwithstanding they believed in a Great Spirit, they supposed that whatsoever they did was right; nevertheless, Lamoni began to fear exceedingly, with fear lest he had done wrong in slaying his servants;
6 For he had slain many of them because their brethren had scattered their flocks at the place of water; and thus, because they had had their flocks scattered they were slain.

He learned from Ammon that this was sinful. Lamoni and his father were converted to the Lord.

On 1/12/2019 at 1:12 PM, Stargazer said:

Is deliberate murder subject to repentance and forgiveness?  I believe so.  But I have my doubts that even a repentant murderer will be worthy of the terrestrial kingdom -- though usually I feel that a repentant and forgiven sinner (of other than murder) is going to merit at least the terrestrial kingdom.

Lamoni’s was guilty of murder, yet he was saved in a miraculous way.

Quote

Alma 19: Now, this was what Ammon desired, for he knew that king Lamoni was under the power of God; he knew that the dark veil of unbelief was being cast away from his mind, and the light which did light up his mind, which was the light of the glory of God, which was a marvelous light of his goodness--yea, this light had infused such joy into his soul, the cloud of darkness having been dispelled, and that the light of everlasting life was lit up in his soul, yea, he knew that this had overcome his natural frame, and he was carried away in God

He had been taught by his father that because of their entitled positions whatever they did was right. Lamoni was distressed when he learned this was not only incorrect, but was a violation of God’s law and put him in eternal jeopardy. After his conversion and baptism, he became innocent, thus Ammon’s warning to his father about shedding innocent blood. 

 

Edited January 14, 2019 by Bernard Gui

[Bernard Gui]

10 hours ago, CV75 said:

I think those who have not heard the gospel are still responsible for the light they possess (the light of Christ which everyone is born with). If they leave this world with murderous hatred, it will be harder for them to recognize the messengers of salvation in the prison to come. 

Lamoni and his father believed that their positions gave them the right to take human life, but Lamoni betrayed his fear that their belief could be false when he mistakenly thought Ammon was the Great Spirit who had come to punish them for their murders. Apparently there was a glimmer of the light of Christ in Lamoni’s soul. It lead him and his father to conversion. 

 

[teddyaware]

8 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Thank for the interesting comments and the link to Alma 39.

I edited my comment to reflect the fact that we’re talking primarily about Ammon, not  Alma.

[mrmarklin]

10 hours ago, Bernard Gui said:

Do you have any ideas about how the father could have had gospel knowledge? He believed in a Great Spirit, but didn’t seem to know much about it. He also believed that being king entitled him to do anything he wished.

I’m only pointing out that by extrapolating doctrines  from a two verse passage of scripture is a common error that in my experience is largely in the realm of Protestants. 

[Bernard Gui]

On 1/13/2019 at 9:42 AM, mrmarklin said:

I’m only pointing out that by extrapolating doctrines  from a two verse passage of scripture is a common error that in my experience is largely in the realm of Protestants. 

Could you explain what you mean by extrapolating doctrines from a two verse passage?