Jump to content

Doctrinal Clarification Needed Part II


LDS Guy 1986

Recommended Posts

No I am not shifting anything here, there is a difference between teachings repentance and a knowledge of the fullness of the Gospel.

I think that you are shifting our ground; and the reason for it is that you are trying to accurately define an indefinable quantity; so you don

Link to comment

Are you saying that God is incapable of forgiving unless man repents, or are you suggesting God chooses not to forgive unless man repents?

It is kind of both. God cannot look upon sin "with the least degree of allowance". It does not say "will not" or "may not," but cannot. Other scriptures say that if God were to allow any degree of sin or injustice, He would "cease to be God" (Alma 42:13, 22. 25; Moroni 9:19). So the only two options He has is to either allow sin, or stop being God! Faced with those options, I think you can guess which one He is likely to choose.

Link to comment
You are now slowly coming round to my position, without admitting it, that determining in precise terms when someone has committed the unpardonable sin is a humanly impossible thing to do, even though for God (or for someone receiving revelation from God) it may not be.

This isn't a competition, I am not shifting anything, and my position has changed one bit to become more like or less like yours. You don't know me so to assume you know my position on anything is very presumptive. My position is the same from the beginning, it does seem though that you would rather act like I am changing instead of having any discussion on the position so I bid you farewell.

If you want to discuss anything of merit, I am here, but your refusal to address the challenges presented and to try and take the discussion off topic by wrongly admitting I am changing my opinion to mirror your's is not constructive or worthy of discussion any further.

I am here to discuss as the site says, I am not here to debate nor listen to poor debaters act like they are persuading me to change anything without solid and contextual support.

I have always believed that man could not tell if someone else had committed an unforgivable sin, only the most arrogant and spiritually lost people can think they know if someone is or isn't repentant.

What we can know is what is the unforgivable sins so we can judge ourselves (and the occasional theoretical example) to better understand what is an unforgeable sin and take all due caution to avoid this great and this eternally destructive sin.

To imply at all that I or any other person mentioned in this thread by me at any time assumed, implied, or tried to tell someone else they had committed an unforgivable sin, is absolutely wrong.

That is not the point of this thread, it never was, nor will it ever will be.

Link to comment

This isn't a competition, I am not shifting anything, and my position has changed one bit to become more like or less like yours. You don't know me so to assume you know my position on anything is very presumptive. My position is the same from the beginning, it does seem though that you would rather act like I am changing instead of having any discussion on the position so I bid you farewell.

If you want to discuss anything of merit, I am here, but your refusal to address the challenges presented and to try and take the discussion off topic by wrongly admitting I am changing my opinion to mirror your's is not constructive or worthy of discussion any further.

I am here to discuss as the site says, I am not here to debate nor listen to poor debaters act like they are persuading me to change anything without solid and contextual support.

I have always believed that man could not tell if someone else had committed an unforgivable sin, only the most arrogant and spiritually lost people can think they know if someone is or isn't repentant.

What we can know is what is the unforgivable sins so we can judge ourselves (and the occasional theoretical example) to better understand what is an unforgeable sin and take all due caution to avoid this great and this eternally destructive sin.

To imply at all that I or any other person mentioned in this thread by me at any time assumed, implied, or tried to tell someone else they had committed an unforgivable sin, is absolutely wrong.

That is not the point of this thread, it never was, nor will it ever will be.

I think you are shifting your ground. Let

Link to comment

Are you saying that God is incapable of forgiving unless man repents, or are you suggesting God chooses not to forgive unless man repents?

I wouldn't say incapable as much as cannot, incapable means that one has insufficient means to do something and God is never incapable. Being able to do something those doesn't mean one can do something though, I am capable of taking one of my many firearms and murdering someone in cold blood. I have the means, the power, and the understanding to do this thing, now I cannot murder someone in cold blood because I know that this act is evil and that doing so even though I am capable of doing so is not beneficial to me or the other person.

The same goes with God, he has the capability of forgiving someone that is unrepentant, because he is God and he can do anything he is all powerful. God is also all just and all understanding, he knows that for him to forgive someone who is unrepentant is not beneficial to God (because it makes him break the laws that he made for his and own benefit) or to man (because we do not gain a sufficient understanding of things to be worthy of certain rewards).

Link to comment

There is not point repeating the obvious there is no change or shifting I what I believe or what Elder Anderson said. This conversation has no where to go except to continue to derail the thread, if you wish to continue in PM or another thread, but I have answered all you asked and addressed the questions you posted if you carefully review the posts you should see this.

If you think you are going to shake me off your back by accusing me of

Link to comment

Not according to your representation and interpretation of what Elder Anderson said, you mean.

There is a reason why the CHI includes an instruction for members not to use GA's comments from meetings for anything but personal use without permission from that individual:

http://lds.org/handb...ang=eng#21.1.39

Thank you. Unfortunately it will be a cold day in hell before LDSGuy will acknowledge that he should not have reopened this topic in this way.

Link to comment

Thank you. Unfortunately it will be a cold day in hell before LDSGuy will acknowledge that he should not have reopened this topic in this way.

I did what you specifically asked me to do, I presented only what I was told in direct response as per the inquiry you presented to take this to the Stake President, well I took it to a Seventy instead. Though that would of made you happy, since you wanted to know what happened, but as the past has shown I don't think you are capable of any positive commentary, on this forum.

Link to comment
I did what you specifically asked me to do, I presented only what I was told in direct response as per the inquiry you presented to take this to the Stake President, well I took it to a Seventy instead. Though that would of made you happy, since you wanted to know what happened, but as the past has shown I don't think you are capable of any positive commentary, on this forum.

Here is what I said in the prior discussion thread, the one from which you were banned for personal attacks, about your Stake President. As you will see, I invited you to share your posts from that thread with your Stake President, and then to invite him to join the thread so we could hear directly from him. The last thing we need is your hearsay reports of what someone else has said.

Stake Presidents are fallible.
Might I suggest that you assemble the posts from this thread and share them with your Stake President. Then, invite him to the discussion. I'd love to hear from his mouth exactly what it is he is teaching.

P.S. What stake are you in?

Thanks.

As for whether or not I contribute anything positive to the forum, I guess that is a matter of perspective. I understand your perspective.

Take care.

Link to comment

Of course--there comes a point where someone can put themselves in a position where they can no longer repent,

You have stumbled into the truth.

"God will not offer a gift to those who will tread upon that gift." "God will not be mocked."

They themselves have lost the ability to repent, and reject the gift of grace.

Link to comment

As far as I understand the scriptures and Elder Anderson yes, to take upon yourself the name of Christ and enter into these promises with God to follow Christ, and then break you word and never repent and seek salvation through the atonement is a sin against the Holy Ghost and is an unforgivable (or unpardonable) sin

And, again, my response is that you and, to the extent Elder Anderson is saying the same thing you've been saying, Elder Anderson are quite obviously completely ignoring the historical context of section 84 and the development of Joseph's doctrine of salvation, including the development of second anointing, calling and election, second endowment, and his notion of what constitutes the unpardonable sin of denying the Holy Ghost. But, hey, whatever floats your boat.

Link to comment

So, to open a whole new can of worms (since I have nothing better to do), tonight at Stake Conference we have a GA presiding Elder Wilford W. Andersen of the Seventy.

He opened the floor for questions pertaining to salvation, the spirit pressed upon my to ask about D&C 84:41 because I wanted to know and because many here have asked I seek further explanation and no better source of information than a living prophet of God.

So a member of the Q70 is now a 'living prophet of God', of which there is 'no better source of information'.

And to think that last week you were poo-poo-ing the GC talks of Apostles because they are "not as authoritative as the scriptures".

He response paraphrased for brevity (and the fact I can't write down word for word that quickly) is to break the covenant and turn away from it completely is to live in violation of the covenants made without repentance and to die within your sins. If you do this with any covenant (not just the priesthood covenant he also mentioned the temple covenants and the baptismal covenants) and die without ever repenting you have broken the covenant and turned away from it completely and you cannot be forgiven in this life or the next.

For the record, what this GA said, and what you were saying in the other thread, are vastly different.

Don't pretend you were right all along.

He said the reason why, is that when you take these covenants (especially the temple covenants you start the process of learning everything that God knows (he called it the graduate program for everything) if you start this process and turn away from it and never repent you cannot receive forgiveness for this in this life or the next.

Repentance in the afterlife is a big part of mormon theology. I maintain that it is possible even for the most heinous of covenant breakers.

So this General Authority statements say something different than many current and past LDS leaders who 'outrank' him.

What do you guys think?

I think you should have directly repeated the lunacy you were spouting before, namely that breaking priesthood covenants is worse than mass murder, and not being a diligent home teacher makes one a Son of Perdition.

Link to comment

So, to open a whole new can of worms (since I have nothing better to do), tonight at Stake Conference we have a GA presiding Elder Wilford W. Andersen of the Seventy.

He opened the floor for questions pertaining to salvation, the spirit pressed upon my to ask about D&C 84:41 because I wanted to know and because many here have asked I seek further explanation and no better source of information than a living prophet of God.

I don't know about the rest of your question, but I can clarify for you that Seventies aren't "prophets".

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...