David lost his exaltation

[BCSpace]

I choose to believe the Book of Mormon and the power of the Atonement over the repentant.

I am not sure where we get that David will suffer for his sins and then be resurrected to a telestial glory. I have heard this many times yet I fail to see where this comes from the scriptures. All we are told is that he lost his exaltation and committed an unpardonable sin. For all we know he will have his part in the lake of fire and brimstone "after" the millennium.

Yes, well D&C 76:84 seems to say that those who go to hell are ultimately redeemed into the Telestial glory. Of course sons of Perdition remain in hell when it is cast into the lake of fire and brimestone, but I am quite sure David does not or ever did meet the requirements for being an sop.

[mercyngrace]

we do know where sons of perdition go.

Actually, we don't know the fate of the sons of perdition...

D&C 76:

44 Wherefore, he saves all except them

[frankenstein]

Actually, we don't know the fate of the sons of perdition...

LDS Church publications suggests otherwise.

Bible Dictionary: On the other hand, the devil and his angels, including the sons of perdition, are assigned to a place spoken of as a lake of fire

[Zakuska]

I am not sure where we get that David will suffer for his sins and then be resurrected to a telestial glory. I have heard this many times yet I fail to see where this comes from the scriptures. All we are told is that he lost his exaltation and committed an unpardonable sin. For all we know he will have his part in the lake of fire and brimstone "after" the millennium.

I think this is unlikely since Nathan tells him this will not happen because Christ ransomed him from that fate.

2 Sam 12

13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

He wouldn't die (be cast into OD) for his sin but he was greatly punished and plagued all the days of his life. All the way to the final judgment, fulfilling Paul's perscription for such a person.

1 Corinthians 5:5

To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Nathan left David at that point leaving him to the buffetings of Satan.

2 Sam 12

15

[Rob Osborn]

I think this is unlikely since Nathan tells him this will not happen because Christ ransomed him from that fate.

2 Sam 12

13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the Lord. And Nathan said unto David, The Lord also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

He wouldn't die (be cast into OD) for his sin but he was greatly punished and plagued all the days of his life. All the way to the final judgment, fulfilling Paul's perscription for such a person.

1 Corinthians 5:5

To deliver such an one unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Nathan left David at that point leaving him to the buffetings of Satan.

2 Sam 12

15

[Zakuska]

But compare these two scriptures-

13 And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath put away thy sin; thou shalt not die.

(Old Testament | 2 Samuel 12:13)

13. And David said unto Nathan, I have sinned against the LORD. And Nathan said unto David, The LORD also hath not put away thy sin that thou shalt not die.

(JST | 2 Samuel 12:13)

It seems that the JST changes the meaning to the exact opposite. If we take the JST to be the real truth then the Lord has not forgiven David his sin and his sentence of death remains. I am not suggesting that he not go to a telestial glory, I am just questioning the reasoning behind it if the scriptures basically say he committed an unpardonable sin. It is my understanding that people who committ unforgivable sins do not get raised to dwell in glory.

27 The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which shall not be forgiven in the world nor out of the world, is in that ye commit murder wherein ye shed innocent blood, and assent unto my death, after ye have received my new and everlasting covenant, saith the Lord God; and he that abideth not this law can in nowise enter into my glory, but shall be damned, saith the Lord.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 132:27)

I guess the question here then is this- Under what provision or law does David get to advance into telestial glory? We are not just speaking of general murder here, we are speaking of murder in full knowledge that he was in the order of the priesthood in marriage.

If telestial heirs are forgiven their sins, and we know that this type of sin isn't forgivable, then how do reconcile it all?

A question of timing... David wasn't under "the new and everlasting covenant". God will only hold you accountable to the covenants that you make and then break.

One example of that is found in Jeremiah...

Jeremiah 31

27

[mercyngrace]

LDS Church publications suggests otherwise.

I defer to the scriptures which are the standard. Maybe someone in the correlation dept. is a "partaker thereof"...

Do you have any Official LDS source as to your interpretation - so a CFR as to "endless" and "everlasting" having a different meaning in that verse in section 76.

Yes. I do. D&C 19. I posted that as a reference already in the very post you responded to. Here it is again:

4 And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless.

5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name

[Rob Osborn]

A question of timing... David wasn't under "the new and everlasting covenant". God will only hold you accountable to the covenants that you make and then break.

One example of that is found in Jeremiah...

Jeremiah 31

27

[Zakuska]

But David was in the new and everlasting covenant (specifically the sealing power of marriage by the priesthood), that is why he isn't forgiven.

Can you show us the Covanent David made with God? He was under tha Law of Moses. Not the New covenant.

[frankenstein]

I defer to the scriptures which is the standard. Maybe someone in the correlation dept. is a "partaker thereof"...

well at least you are willing to allow others to understand your personal opinion, which personal opinion does not acknowledge Official LDS statements on the matter.

I honestly and sincerely appreciate your candor. I am not joking either.

It is much easier to discuss a matter with a person when one understands that persons position.

frankenstein: Do you have any Official LDS source as to your interpretation - so a CFR as to "endless" and "everlasting" having a different meaning in that verse in section 76.

mercyngrace: Yes. I do. D&C 19. I posted that as a reference already in the very post you responded to. Here it is again:

Quoting Section 19 does not satisfy the CFR. You claimed that "endless" and "everlasting", which are in section 76, have a different meaning to the Lord than to us.

The CFR requested of you is to prove they have a different meaning, quoting section 19 does not prove anything. You must show that the endless and everlasting have a different meaning to the Lord, than what it would mean in the common english tongue.

From Websters:

Endless:

1: being or seeming to be without end <an endless speech> 2: extremely numerous <all the multiplied, endless, nameless iniquities

[Zakuska]

From Websters:

Endless:

1: being or seeming to be without end <an endless speech> 2: extremely numerous <all the multiplied, endless, nameless iniquities

[frankenstein]

zak, don't just address the part definition

being without end

or

seeming to be without end

regardless, Church publications indicate where the Sons of Perdition will despite personal opinions to the contrary.

[nicolasconnault]

regardless, Church publications indicate where the Sons of Perdition will [sic] despite personal opinions to the contrary.

Indicating "where" they will end doesn't indicate to any degree what their condition will be like. Indeed, that specific aspect, probably the most important one, is precisely what D&C says will not be revealed except to those who are partakers thereof.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Indicating "where" they will end doesn't indicate to any degree what their condition will be like. Indeed, that specific aspect, probably the most important one, is precisely what D&C says will not be revealed except to those who are partakers thereof.

Their condition will be bad... very bad. That's all we need to know.

[Zakuska]

zak, don't just address the part definition

being with end

or

seeming to be without end

regardless, Church publications indicate where the Sons of Perdition will despite personal opinions to the contrary.

Theres the problem... the definitions you gave are broad enough to encompass a long period of time that does have an end < an endless speech> ( and what the D&C says) as well as a period of times the never ends.

Your eye sees the part of the definition that you want to see and my eye sees another.

So which definition is correct?

If the word had one and only one meaning there wouldn't be all the confusion.

PS... Ever had a pair of pants last for eternity?

3: wearing indefinitely <everlasting twill pants>

[frankenstein]

Indicating "where" they will end doesn't indicate to any degree what their condition will be like. Indeed, that specific aspect, probably the most important one, is precisely what D&C says will not be revealed except to those who are partakers thereof.

ugh....go back to page 3 and start reading.

I stated "we do know where the sons of perdition go"

Mercyngrace claims we do not know, she also does not accept the numerous Church publications on the issue. she seemingly is using section 76 as her foundation for not knowing where sons of perdition go.

[BCSpace]

I stated "we do know where the sons of perdition go"

Mercyngrace claims we do not know, she also does not accept the numerous Church publications on the issue. she seemingly is using section 76 as her foundation for not knowing where sons of perdition go.

Verse 36 seems quite plain to me on where they go.

[mercyngrace]

well at least you are willing to allow others to understand your personal opinion, which personal opinion does not acknowledge Official LDS statements on the matter.

I honestly and sincerely appreciate your candor. I am not joking either.

It is much easier to discuss a matter with a person when one understands that persons position.

Frank, I didn't write D&C 76.

Honestly, I don't know why you have decided to take exception to this. It's right there in your triple combination that no one can know unless they are a partaker of the same fate.

Quoting Section 19 does not satisfy the CFR. You claimed that "endless" and "everlasting", which are in section 76, have a different meaning to the Lord than to us.

The CFR requested of you is to prove they have a different meaning, quoting section 19 does not prove anything. You must show that the endless and everlasting have a different meaning to the Lord, than what it would mean in the common english tongue.

From Websters:

Endless:

1: being or seeming to be without end <an endless speech> 2: extremely numerous <all the multiplied, endless, nameless iniquities

[frankenstein]

i will venture to say that when one hears the word "endless" or "everlasting" in a religious context one thinks without end. So I do see how the Lord would mean something different, more importantly how one can say "The Lords does not mean without an end"

as for sons of perdition, numerous Church publication indicate where they go, they go to the same place as satan.

[frankenstein]

Verse 36 seems quite plain to me on where they go.

quite plain.

[TAO]

Mmm... why are we discussing endless punishment, when God said that endless was his name, did he not? Therefore, would it not translate to God's punishment, and not punishment without end?

[mfbukowski]

Mmm... why are we discussing endless punishment, when God said that endless was his name, did he not? Therefore, would it not translate to God's punishment, and not punishment without end?

Stop confusing us with the facts- you're no fun at all!

[MDalby]

I repeat, save for the exception of the very few who defect to perdition, there is no habit, no addiction, no rebellion, no transgression, no apostasy, no crime exempted from the promise of complete forgiveness. That is the promise of the Atonement of Christ.

(Boyd K. Packer,

[MDalby]

I think most scriptures will state that it is unforgivable but we need to keep this in mind.

3 Retaining all power, even to the destroying of Satan and his works at the end of the world, and the last great day of judgment, which I shall pass upon the inhabitants thereof, judging every man according to his works and the deeds which he hath done.

4 And surely every man must repent or suffer, for I, God, am endless.

5 Wherefore, I revoke not the judgments which I shall pass, but woes shall go forth, weeping, wailing and gnashing of teeth, yea, to those who are found on my left hand.

6 Nevertheless, it is not written that there shall be no end to this torment, but it is written endless torment.

7 Again, it is written eternal damnation; wherefore it is more express than other scriptures, that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name

[toon]

Did he write this particular psalm after the Uriah incident?

Did he even write that particular psalm?