Calm

Thanks for being so detailed, it makes it very easy to understand your thoughts. Not really going in circles though, just stuck at the end as I feel there’s a bit more to the story to be fully resolved. I want to know what you see as possible as the end result in eternity of someone who knowingly rejects the gospel. You have covered everything except the possible outcomes at judgment time after they have repented and turned to Christ and the Father. I did try to list the possibilities, that was apparently confusing, so I will keep to the simplest phrasing this time…I hope. But some people see it as justice that someone who rejects exaltation with sufficient knowledge (as judged by Christ) in this life to never get the chance to accept exaltation in the next life no matter if they repent and resume obedience. I am wondering if you are one of them and if so, your reasoning. So my question boils down to “can such people receive exaltation?” Think of it as step 16 where step 15 is “through obedience he has progressed as far as possible”. Your use of “the covenant path” makes me believe you don’t believe they are limited in any way since most consider the covenant path the path that ends in exaltation. Btw, I agree that your description is the current revealed doctrine on the process though I see hell and Paradise as more states of mind and ability to be one with God and each other than locations, not sure from your phrasing how you see them. I very much believe it is better to repent as early as possible to avoid unnecessary suffering and to benefit from the blessings one receives through obedience. Probably the only thing I might really differ with you on in this context is how much of an actual choice is involved with acceptance or rejection of the Gospel in this life appears to occur. On that I am undecided.

Not looking at the video yet, but thought maybe Chat could save me the effort and find the sources for me. Story not located, but there is a liquor merchant in Nauvoo who was listed as blind in 1850 census. His name was Pulaski S. Cahoon according to Chat…which makes things up to satisfy the customer. https://youtu.be/DP15Nh1Jew8?si=b3Mgd64pGrs1Z0vN Story in video is it’s Hyrum’s Book of Mormon he gives to Reynolds Cahoon, a fellow counselor, who gives it to his son, Pulaski. But it appears Hyrum sold it to him (they sold the book on missions rather than giving it away, so it sounds to me like it was a missionary copy rather than a personal copy of Hyrum since the inscription was “Hyrum Smith’s book” which could have been added by anyone if I understand correctly, not so cool as it being a personal treasure for Hyrum if so, it’s a bit odd if Hyrum charged Reynolds the going missionary cost if it was a personal copy as noted in Hyrum’s journal). The family who had the copy were emancipated slaves in Missouri of Pulaski Cahoon, the former tavern owner. Cahoon gave the family china, crystal, linens, etc along with the Book of Mormon when they moved north after they were freed, the report was the Cahoons treated their slaves as more like tenants. He didn’t go into detail on that story like he did the provenance of the Book of Mormon, so impossible unless another source is found to tell if the story was created later after Pulaski went blind or actually happened. https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/person/pulaski-stephens-cahoon ” That best portion of a good man's life — His little, nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and love. — Ibid. Pulaski Stephen was the third child of Reynolds Cahoon and Thirza Stiles. He was born Sept. 18th, 19th or 20th, 1820 at Harpersfield, Astabula County, Ohio. He assisted in the construction of the Temples at Kirtland and Nauvoo. He was married to Louisa Leopold, Feb. 9th, 1840. Louisa, daughter of Valentine and Elizabeth Leopold, was bom April 1st, 1822. The marriage of Pulaski and Louisa was solemnized Jan. 30, 1846 in the Nauvoo Temple by Brigham Young.* Pulaski was a merchant and early history of the Church tells us that at one time Pulaski wished to purchase the ship called the "Maid of Iowa", which belonged to the Church but Joseph Smith did not desire to sell it. Later, it was in this ship that Joseph and Hyrum left for the place called "Safety", previous to their death in the Carthage Jail. John Pulaski Cahoon, son of Andrew Cahoon of Salt Lake City, Utah, visited with the family of Pulaski Stephen and tells us that he had a carpenter and leathershop in Missouri and although blind, was still working at his vocation. Louisa, his wife, died March 17, 1890 and two years fol- lowing on Feb. 15, 1892, Pulaski Stephen passed away https://archive.org/stream/reynoldscahoonhi00shur/reynoldscahoonhi00shur_djvu.txt

Documentation please as this is a new one for me.

Even if they had good intentions? Such as they thought someone would be better off? Curious, not challenging as I believe there are consequences to not telling the truth though I wouldn’t phrase it as God punishes because I don’t see the need for God to punish us in most, if not all cases as natural consequences will eventually catch up to people, whether in this life or the next. Lying even with good intentions may prevent someone from having the close type of relationships they actually want because they can’t trust others because they know they themselves are not trustworthy on all levels, for example.

But will he in the end as he goes through repentance and possibly have a change of heart be able to progress to exaltation as if he had never procrastinated or at least the Celestial Kingdom? Iow, I am unsure what you mean by less access to the power of the Atonement. Do you mean it will be harder for them until they become more accepting or that they will not be able to access the full Atonement even if they want to as they lost that Chance or perhaps they had proven their nature will never actually want to full power of the Atonement and they will stop at a certain point of progression because of lack of desire to progress more and that nature can never be changed even with eternities and infinite experiences to come (in essence they were born that way, to receive a certain level of progress and no more)? Or something else?

Broke you? If so, why would you want a personality trait that likely harms those who depend on or love you? (Serious question, you have a way of writing that often makes me quite curious about the way you think, no judgment of it being good or bad, just mysterious to me )

A better place for whom though? Themselves or others? Serious question, I haven’t studied any of them well enough to have an opinion on their motivation. With TB, knowing he has to have known the consequences of the way he goes about ‘saving children’ because of his background and the criticisms of his work he is obviously imo aware of (because of his responses) that include result data, I believe his motivation is his ego and pocketbook, he wants to make the world better for himself. Perhaps initially he cared about helping kids, etc (certainly hope so and in this give him the benefit of the doubt), but if he truly did still, he would be at the very least hesitant about some of the things he is promoting. Not ruling out possible mental issues including paranoia, delusions, etc. That would explain a lot if he’s going as extreme as it appears from your comments. Going with a more probable explanation that would be hard to prove or disprove would be better for him legally, imo, and keep him with more mainstream appeal. Julie Rowe prophesied herself out of a mass following because she started seeing herself as a messiah figure.

If one accepts that Scripture is not God breathed, but transmitted through men that get things messed up and can even lie themselves or who could just be clueless (for example, not realizing a scroll was not one story but two because those who saved the stories thought both had value and stuck them in the same scroll for safe keeping), one can believe God never lies, but still recognize that scripture has cases where men have presented him as lying. I prefer to approach scripture with the question “what might this teach me today?” rather than “what must I learn from it?”.

It helps to look at the Fall and other Bible stories as not one story, but two or more as well as it is humans interpreting what they have learned from others about God, anything in the Old Testament is not a story that came straight to us from a prophet’s pen, but it’s gone through a mass of editors, some inspired, others not. New Testament might have fewer editors between us and the original writers, but not all writers were who they claimed to be and not all the writings are necessarily inspired…even some of the authors state they are giving their opinion at times. Plus someone chose what to gather as the Bible and there is no guarantee that I am aware that all the choices were inspired, Therefore, don’t try to harmonize it, even in the individual stories, imo. Instead, accept the fractures and take each tidbit that inspires you on its own. The complete picture is meant to be you, not scriptures, imo. Scriptures are a path for the Spirit to reach out to you. Scripture doesn’t have to be inspired for the Spirit to inspire you any more than the mundane or traumatic events of our life have to be inspired in order for the Spirit to teach us through them. This isn’t to say all scripture is uninspired. I do believe there’s quite a bit of it that is, especially modern scripture, but even much*** of the D&C was pieced together by others besides Joseph. ***have no clue of the percentage or how much was done after Joseph’s death or what the approval process was as they didn’t have Correlation back then.

Or so you hope. As do I. Why would there be a special place in hell for them if God doesn’t punish you?

If you believe God lies, why would you trust that there is good reason to keep covenants? God might be a parent telling us what we are capable of using to progress, he may be limited by our nature rather than by his own…maybe there is no other way to mature our spiritual brains just as mortal parents can’t speed up a toddler’s neural development so the kid can comprehend why they shouldn’t do certain things and should do other things. Or God may be a very twisted entity who intends that we all suffer excruciatingly in the future because he feeds off of others’ pain and giving some of us hope is simply because it will intensify our pain. (Seems like if there was such a being it could do a better job at removing inconsistencies to remove doubt.)

Has anyone actually suggested that? Even Duncan was open to there being about 12 who had made the choice of rejecting the Gospel for pleasure in his first post. My position is standard operating procedure is at the end of the path or close to the end when we have the ability to be truly fully informed, but I believe if there can be sons of perdition such as Cain as described in the scripture, some must be able to make such a fully informed choice in this life. What do you believe could give someone a valid chance to have a true choice in mortality would consist of? I am truly curious, not challenging, at least not much. No one has described what could be a valid chance yet, just claimed such existed and the reason the Gospel would be rejected by at least some in that position would be pleasure. Unless someone has assumed the man in Pres. Nelson’s example was a valid chance? If so, can you who believe that explain how you are sure it is or could be? PS: I am not denying it can happen, so please don’t assume that is my belief. And you shouldn’t if you have been reading what I have written above on the subject.

I am not claiming Longview has a view shared by no true LDS. It may be the dominant view of LDS for all I know. I remember being taught when younger that even opening the door to missionaries and saying “no thanks” might be enough to cause a person to lose their one and only chance at entering the Celestial Kingdom as they would be judged less valiant, not enduring to the end (it was to encourage kids to develop excellent proselytizing skills so no one would give into temptation to shut the door in their faces as missionaries…people’s eternal destiny depended on them. Is there an assumption in Longview’s comment or is there not an assumption that people can get a true chance in mortality to receive the Gospel and reject it knowingly for pleasure and therefore never be able to fully receive God’s atonement…which I assume means no chance at exaltation and possibly the Celestial Kingdom (perhaps he can clarify). I am not claiming here I am teaching church doctrine, btw.

Yeah?

Because he did (choice wasn’t restricted only to mortality, but it seems to me he was talking about those who had the chance in mortality and rejected it):

Where does it say he was convinced? It just said he was taught and understood it as taught. He could have been in the position of thinking it might be right, that thr Gospel has a beautiful promise, but that he didn’t know and couldn’t know and it’s a lot to do without having stronger assurances of some type. However, getting proxy baptized and seal is a no risk, no loss situation, so it makes logical sense to keep that option open in case it was true.

Not everyone, I danced happily all the way down.

Also, what does a valid chance look like up close in mortality? And please be pretty specific as vague descriptions just create more questions for me and we might be here for the next week with me trying to figure out what Longview means.

I think he thinks certain portrayals of the Gospel, and not the Gospel itself, are a bad thing…like excluding people forever from the Celestial Kingdoms when they haven’t had a valid chance to receive and comprehend the gospel as was being portrayed by Longview iirc. Longview was claiming there were those who had a true chance to hear the Gospel and rejected it for pleasure. My reading of Duncan was there would very, very few who qualified for Longview’s description (maybe the few who had visions of God or who like Cain had apparently walked and talked with God himself to hear the Gospel from him directly…or perhaps he meant Jesus and the 12 apostles, but they come across as pretty clueless for much of the NT). If I am wrong and he’s still interested, he can correct me.

Why would it be a check against the restored Gospel? We have been promised a true choice. We have not been told when the true choice takes place imo. I don’t believe it occurs when we encounter the Gospel in its mortal form in the here and now, but when we encounter its eternal form when we come before Christ. In the here and now we are given lots of opportunities to practice in eternally safe ways…we can’t damn ourselves eternally by mistaken ideas or foolish choices, God is protecting us until we are ready for moving out if the sandbox into his university and then universe. It doesn’t diminish the Gospel that we can’t comprehend its reality in this life and therefore are incapable of making a true and informed choice. I think you are misunderstanding Duncan’s intent in posting his comments as much as you seem to misunderstand mine here if you think I see this as a negative feature of the Church and not a positive one. For me the only negative on this topic is how eager and earnest some members appear to be to push the choice to an earlier time when people are not as spiritually developed and almost seem to delight that some would fully reject the Gospel rather than find that the ultimate tragedy of a life. That’s not an issue with the Restored Gospel, that imo is someone not paying enough attention to what God has said is the purpose of his Gospel. I not saying this is you, but it may be Longview or teddy, I need more detail on their views to be sure though, would like to hear what he sees as an example of a true choice to accept or reject the Gospel).

That makes no sense. If we are one with the Father, he is one with us and if all that he has, we will have, then he will have all that we have. It’s hardly a competition or territorial battle. It’s a cooperative effort, God’s glory grows as our glory grows. We can never outshine him nor will we want to.

What’s wrong with playing whac a mole? It’s fun. And energetic, gets the heart pumping and mind jumping. Just need to avoid tacky music in the background. We believe in continuing revelation so it’s good to see evidence of it, imo, of our leaders being inspired with new knowledge or new ways of looking at old knowledge as well as our doctrine of fallible leaders. We as members, imo, need to be more humble and don’t assume we have all the answers, either personally or through our leaders vicariously. I think if we felt we were to be more actively out there helping our leaders create a culture that invites revelation, our leaders would either be receiving more or sharing more that they now receive, but must treasure up to themselves for now.

You should at least qualify it with “this sometime Protestant method” because it isn’t used by every Protestant, either individual or denomination (source is personal experience).

The categorization is there though it’s overly broad. It’s the labels he put on the two broad categories and the implications he was trying to attach to them (if internet Mormons are more often found on the internet than in the Chapel, we are less devout for example) that were the problem because the categories existed long before the internet and plenty of Saints who spend enormous time on the internet are the so-called chapel Mormons and those he labeled “internet” would be more likely to be seen in the chapel being highly committed than many other Saints. He also presented it as some sort of schism, iirc. And I don’t see that. It’s more of an interest variation. My husband would qualify as a chapel Mormons in many ways (he never discusses religion on line and only when I force him to do so offline, lol, but doctrinally speaking we line up pretty well and if he hasn’t speculated in areas I have…which he doesn’t do much, he finds my reasoning rational and grounded even if he feels no obligation to accept it since nothing authoritative about it. And it’s been the same with every truly chapel Mormon I have discussed things with over the decades. The only ones who call me out for false doctrine or apostasy (only a few times personally, more my type of apologists in general) are individuals who have joined internet communities to discuss religion. So his claims for the groups were off along with the implications.

Why? Why can’t a female be involved in a nonbiological creation process? What about creation says “men only” to you?