inquiringmind Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 This is from the FAIR web site, and I'd like to know what you think of it here.Question: Today in our Sunday School class an individual expressed the belief that the sons of perdition would be given another chance to achieve celestial glory. Could you direct me to any specific reference on this topic? Answer: Different General Authorities have had different perspectives on the eventual fate of the sons of perdition. The ultimate issue lies in the nature of man and intelligences...After Joseph was killed, the complexities of the King Follett sermon led to a few differing interpretations regarding the soul which have lasted until today in the Church. On a few occasions Brigham Young discoursed on intelligence or spirit "recycling" (for lack of a better term), particularly regarding those sent to outer darkness, or at least those who forsake the gospel. It seems Brigham diverged from the teachings of Joseph Smith that the "mind" (or identity) is eternal
Questing Beast Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 It does: if you go around preaching "recycling souls", i.e. the impermanence of "eternal damnation", you will be disciplined. I know this to be a fact....
SilverKnight Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 It does: if you go around preaching "recycling souls", i.e. the impermanence of "eternal damnation", you will be disciplined. I know this to be a fact....If you insist on preaching speculative doctrines in church you may indeed be asked to please stop, probably quite nicely initially.Disciplined? Only if you persist in repeatedly defying church leaders, upsetting other members, and generally being a pain in the rear.
BCSpace Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 I don't see how you could have a recycling but not an annihilation or a reincarnation. I've always tended to think in thermodynamic terms. Because of entropy, there is no more available energy to advance or otherwise change these souls.
thesometimesaint Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 I believe it is a matter of Agency. They are expressing their own WILL(desire) not to change.
Doug the Hutt Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 This is from the FAIR web site, and I'd like to know what you think of it here.http://en.fairmormon...n/Eventual_fateIs it fair to say that the Church doesn't take an official position on this issue?No, it's more accurate that the Church officially teaches that:"Sons of PerditionSee also Damnation; Death, Spiritual; Devil; Hell; Unpardonable Sin.The followers of Satan who will suffer with him in eternity. Sons of perdition include (1) those who followed Satan and were cast out of heaven for rebellion during premortality, and (2) those who were permitted to be born to this world with physical bodies but then served Satan and turned utterly against God. Those in this second group will be resurrected from the dead but will not be redeemed from the second (spiritual) death and cannot dwell in a kingdom of glory (D&C 88:32, 35).[*]None of them is lost but the son of perdition, John 17:12[*]It is impossible to renew them again unto repentance, Heb. 6:4
frankenstein Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 I think it is fair to say that unless you find *it in an Official Publication of the LDS Church, then the LDS Church does not teach it.Though, this is a very interesting subject you bring up. One of the first people I tracked into on my mission said "Your church teaches women to keep having babies so that dead people who were bad can be reborn into mormon families"I thought, "This is lady is a knutter", now I repent for that thought, because there is some basis for her to think that.
cinepro Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 This is from the FAIR web site, and I'd like to know what you think of it here.http://en.fairmormon...n/Eventual_fateIs it fair to say that the Church doesn't take an official position on this issue?inquiringmind, your first few days on this board certainly confirm the accuracy of your moniker. If you wouldn't mind, I'm curious what brings you here to ask all these questions, and what your background with Mormonism is. If you have a second to share, it might help people in answering your inquiries.
Jason Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 It does: if you go around preaching "recycling souls", i.e. the impermanence of "eternal damnation", you will be disciplined. I know this to be a fact....That doesn't mean that the Church has an official position against such ideas - just that they don't want them taught as if they were doctrine.
inquiringmind Posted February 16, 2011 Author Posted February 16, 2011 Part of my family is Protestant, and part is Catholic, and I've been interested in Mormonism since suffering a personal lose.I've asked the clergy questions about why some of us have to live, age, and suffer, if others just go straight to heaven after having lived only a matter of minutes.I didn't get any answers (even from those who called themselves "Christian Universalists"), but I was asked if I knew anything about the Mormons (and I thought maybe I should learn.)I take it from most of the replies here that the FAIR article is simply wrong, but if the answer is that cut and dried, what does D&C 76:45 mean?"And the end thereof, neither the place thereof, nor their torment, no man knows"
inquiringmind Posted February 16, 2011 Author Posted February 16, 2011 That doesn't mean that the Church has an official position against such ideas - just that they don't want them taught as if they were doctrine.Thank you.I'd like to think that Brigham might have been right here, but there are passages in the BOM that would seem difficult to reconcile with his speculation.(I'm still reading it, and there are a lot of things I don't understand.)
Doug the Hutt Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 That's just God making seemingly contradictory statements again -- He already said in vs 4444Wherefore, he saves all except them
frankenstein Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 That's just God making seemingly contradictory statements again -- He already said in vs 4444Wherefore, he saves all except them
Questing Beast Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 D&C 19:4-12 is not just "one misapplied word." It is clear that "Endless and Eternal" are names of God.A "God" who would consign anyone to hell for eternity is a lot less charitable than I am! I wouldn't send anyone to "hell" as it is described in the scriptures and believed in by traditional "Abrahamic religionists". And I am certain that God is NOT less charitable than me....
inquiringmind Posted February 16, 2011 Author Posted February 16, 2011 Wherefore, he saves all except them
inquiringmind Posted February 16, 2011 Author Posted February 16, 2011 Here is what Joseph Smith said (thanks Mercyngrace for pointing this out in another discussion similarly themed as herein) D&C 76:44
frankenstein Posted February 16, 2011 Posted February 16, 2011 But is he talking about teaching it as doctrine, or is he saying it's been clearly revealed that the very idea is false?did he use the term "doctrine" in the same meaning as the word is commonly understand? No, I do not think so. He also used the term "communion" which the LDS do not call their Sacrament.I think what he is saying, is that NO ONE has can say anything beyond what is writing in the Doctrine and Covenants. So did Joseph Smith mean the whole idea (recycle of souls is false), I can not say, but what I will say with confidence is that Joseph Smith said NO ONE but the Sons of Perdition can know what is going to happen to the Sons of Perdition. So based on JS statement, of which BY most likely knew , I do not believe what BY said should be considered as anything other than BY opinion.
inquiringmind Posted February 16, 2011 Author Posted February 16, 2011 So based on JS statement, of which BY most likely knew , I do not believe what BY said should be considered as anything other than BY opinion.The FAIR article didn't say it was anything more than his opinion, but it seemed to imply that it was a legitimate opinion, and concluded by saying "the Church doesn't take an official position on this issue."I was just trying to find out if that's true.
TAO Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 D&C 19:4-12 is not just "one misapplied word." It is clear that "Endless and Eternal" are names of God.A "God" who would consign anyone to hell for eternity is a lot less charitable than I am! I wouldn't send anyone to "hell" as it is described in the scriptures and believed in by traditional "Abrahamic religionists". And I am certain that God is NOT less charitable than me....QB, yes, endless and eternal are names for God. But what makes it truly without end, is that it says 'the worm never dieth'. Notice the similarities to 'without end'.I truly think God wishes he didn't have to assign them to endless misery, but they wouldn't even be humble enough to realize their faults - which they need even for telestial glory, that they do.
TAO Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 The FAIR article didn't say it was anything more than his opinion, but it seemed to imply that it was a legitimate opinion, and concluded by saying "the Church doesn't take an official position on this issue."I was just trying to find out if that's true.I'd say that the FAIR article is correct. And Frankenstein's quote of JS's statement is the position, I think.
inquiringmind Posted February 17, 2011 Author Posted February 17, 2011 I'd say that the FAIR article is correct. And Frankenstein's quote of JS's statement is the position, I think.Thank you.
Lareliw Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 Is it so much a consignment as a matter of choice? If someone does not wish to be in the presence of God, and wishes to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, should God force them into Heaven with him? I have always thought of it less that God tosses them out and such, and more that He allows them to make their own choice. I could very well be mistaken though D&C 19:4-12 is not just "one misapplied word." It is clear that "Endless and Eternal" are names of God.A "God" who would consign anyone to hell for eternity is a lot less charitable than I am! I wouldn't send anyone to "hell" as it is described in the scriptures and believed in by traditional "Abrahamic religionists". And I am certain that God is NOT less charitable than me....
inquiringmind Posted February 17, 2011 Author Posted February 17, 2011 But if they retain consciousness, intelligence, and agency, it would seem that they'd have to realize that they made a horrible mistake sooner or latter.How could they continue to choose outer darkness, torment, and the total absence of everything thst could make their existence anything less than an unending nightmare?It occurs to me that Alma could have been called a son of perdition when he experienced "eternal torment," in the sense that he ws headed in that direction..David likewise, when he murdered Uriah.Now I've heard it said that Judas and Cain are sons of perdition, but is it possible that they could change?That there wont be any sons of perdition in the end? Put another way, there's a saying that goes "to know him is to love him."If that's true of anyone, it's true of God.Is it possible that no one fully (ultimately, finally, and with full knowledge of what they're doing) rejects God (or His Spirit)?I don't know Mormon scripture well enough to say whether that's a legitimate speculation, but I'd like to hear from those who do.
Questing Beast Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 To take a metaphor to be a literal state is hazardous. "Worm dieth not" is not literal. Yet "endless and eternal" are literal concepts. And we are told that they are names of "God".You are wedded to a literalness that puts enormous limits on "God"; all apparently fitted to your capacity to understand. This need to be in control, to categorize and compartmentalize "God" is just something that you'll have to get over sooner or later. Much like those whose "worm dieth not" will have to get over their self-limiting way of thinking about "God" before they can progress out of anger and hatred toward Joy.Where "God" will not intervene is in using compulsion. Space-time is eternal, linear and irreversible to those inhabiting it; but not to "God". The concept of "recycling souls" is just one way of making sense out of what appears to be an irreversible condition; because the imagination rebels at the concept of "God" wanting something that is impossible, i.e. wanting souls to be happy yet they choose to be otherwise. To deliberately create souls with the foreknowledge that they are irredeemable is perverse: it is gamesmanship, puppet-mastering, etc. It is not the "work and the glory" at all. It is selective "salvation and damnation" and repugnant to even my finite mind, so I can only imagine how repugnant it must be to an infinite mind!....QB, yes, endless and eternal are names for God. But what makes it truly without end, is that it says 'the worm never dieth'. Notice the similarities to 'without end'.I truly think God wishes he didn't have to assign them to endless misery, but they wouldn't even be humble enough to realize their faults - which they need even for telestial glory, that they do.
Questing Beast Posted February 17, 2011 Posted February 17, 2011 But if they retain consciousness, intelligence, and agency, it would seem that they'd have to realize that they made a horrible mistake sooner or latter....Is it possible that no one fully (ultimately, finally, and with full knowledge of what they're doing) rejects God (or His Spirit)?I don't know Mormon scripture well enough to say whether that's a legitimate speculation, but I'd like to hear from those who do.Of course, it's not only possible, it must be the reality. How can a sapient being reject its Creator? Forever? Every breath you take, every thought you have, must have a Cause; your very Existence must have a Cause: and we are made to seek continually after that Cause, to join with it in ultimate intimacy. And we are not made to be miserable but rather to be Joyful. But in order to appreciate what Joy is we must experience all the things that "God" rejects that are continually possible: the "dark side" of "God's" Existence, the anti-Joy things. These must be powerful enough to be in balance with the Joyful things, i.e. they must tempt us to indiscretions. Without the temptations to darkness, we would not even comprehend the light and turn to it instead. We would as Lehi said be created as a "thing for naught". We would remain insensible of purpose or even Joy, not being able to contrast what it is with its opposite. So to be eternally Joyful, we must have an opposite state of eternal misery. But to consign a soul to a state of never learning to turn to Joyful things and reject misery is to assert that "God" created such beings of failure with malice-aforethought. That I simply do not believe in....
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.