inquiringmind Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 I found this quote from Joseph F. Smith interesting.If Judas really had known God's power, and had partaken thereof, and did actually "deny the truth" and "defy" that power, "having denied the Holy Spirit after he had received it," and also "denied the Only Begotten," after God had "revealed him" unto him, then there can be no doubt that he "will die the second death. That Judas did partake of all this knowledge—that these great truths had been revealed to him—that he had received the Holy Spirit by the gift of God, and was therefore qualified to commit the unpardonable sin, is not at all clear to me. To my mind it strongly appears that not one of the disciples possessed sufficient light, knowledge nor wisdom, at the time of the crucifixion, for either exaltation or condemnation; for it was afterward that their minds were opened to understand the scriptures, and that they were endowed with power from on high; without which they were only children in knowledge, in comparison to what they afterwards become under the influence of the Spirit.....But not knowing that Judas did commit the unpardonable sin; nor that he was a "son of perdition without hope" who will die the second death, nor what knowledge he possessed by which he was able to commit so great a sin, I prefer, until I know better, to take the merciful view that he may be numbered among those for whom the blessed Master prayed, "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."(Joseph F. Smith Gospel Doctrine p 433-435)But if this is true, why would Jesus say "But the Son of Man goeth as it is written of him; but woe unto that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It had been good for that man if he had not been born" (Matt. 26:20, JST; Matt. 26:24 KJV)?I've never understood this passage.Is Jesus saying it would have been better for Judas if he never existed?If he were never born as a spirit child in pre-mortality?Or if he had never been born and received a body here on earth?If He's saying he would have been better off if he never existed (or were never born as a spirit child in pre-mortality), how could Joseph F. Smith be right (and how could he ever find mercy)?If He's saying he'd have been better off not to have been born on earth, wouldn't that mean that his punishment will be worse than Satan's?Worse than the devil and his angels (who were never born on earth, and never had any bodies)?If Joseph F. Smith is right, what could this passage mean?
inquiringmind Posted November 24, 2011 Author Posted November 24, 2011 Thank you.But I don't get the video, and I've always had a problem with hyperbole.Does anyone have anything more helpful to say?
Stargazer Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 Thank you.But I don't get the video, and I've always had a problem with hyperbole.Does anyone have anything more helpful to say?Hyperbole is a form of exaggeration for effect. The effect is a matter of teaching in the case. Namely, it is a bad bad bad thing to do what Judas did. But JFS is saying that he doesn't think that Judas' offense rises to the level of SoP. I feel he may be correct in that. When Jesus said that if someone were to harm one of those "little ones" it would be better if someone had tied a millstone around their necks and tossed them into the sea. He was not advocating that this is what is in store for them. It is again, hyperbole. Namely, this is also a very very very very bad thing that they did.Sometimes some things in the scriptures are not meant to be taken quite so literally. Radical notion, perhaps, but valid I think.
inquiringmind Posted November 24, 2011 Author Posted November 24, 2011 (edited) Hyperbole is a form of exaggeration for effect. The effect is a matter of teaching in the case. Namely, it is a bad bad bad thing to do what Judas did. But JFS is saying that he doesn't think that Judas' offense rises to the level of SoP. I feel he may be correct in that.When Jesus said that if someone were to harm one of those "little ones" it would be better if someone had tied a millstone around their necks and tossed them into the sea. He was not advocating that this is what is in store for them. It is again, hyperbole. Namely, this is also a very very very very bad thing that they did.Sometimes some things in the scriptures are not meant to be taken quite so literally. Radical notion, perhaps, but valid I think.Thank you.I can imagine things far worse than having a millstone tied around your neck, and being thrown into the sea.If David's been suffering in spirit prison for 27 or 28 hundred years, I would imagine that's literally worse then death by drowning, and one of the problems I have with hyperbole is identifying when it's being used.Are there any clear examples of hyperbole in the Standard Works?Also, is it possible to take Christ's words about Judas literally, without assuming he was an sop?I think it was suggested somewhere on another thread that there may be loyal spirits who never came to earth because they were afraid of falling.Could Christ have simply been saying that it would have been better for Judas if he hadn't chosen to come here when he did? Edited November 24, 2011 by inquiringmind
volgadon Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 Thank you.But I don't get the video, and I've always had a problem with hyperbole.Does anyone have anything more helpful to say?Stargazer hit the nail on the head. Hyperbole is exaggeration for effect, such as plucking out your own eyeball rather than looking indecently at a woman.The point of the song is in the line "he;ll rue the day someone named him Oliver." Whenever my siblings and I were getting into trouble my Dad would quote that. It is like saying "whn I catch you you'll wish you never were born." I think it is a mistake to start minutely analysing the statment from a philosophical POV when the point is that you are in deep, deep trouble.
Log Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 What meaneth this scripture: While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled.In conjunction with this: [F]or the 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.And this: Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve.It must be noted, to forestall an obvious knee-jerk response, that Satan is not the son of perdition, but is Perdition himself.
Stargazer Posted November 24, 2011 Posted November 24, 2011 Could Christ have simply been saying that it would have been better for Judas if he hadn't chosen to come here when he did?Possibly. We take a risk coming here. We take risks making decisions of all kinds while we're here. Father expects us to take certain risks -- the parable of the talents showcases two risktakers who succeeded in doubling their stakes, and one who refused the risk, or the test, as it were, and he got kicked in the heiny for the refusal. I wonder if the punishment for one who had taken a risk and lost the stake would have been so bad? I don't know, but...In the series of books put out by Hartman and Connie Rector, "No More Strangers...", a collection of conversion stories, there was the story of a Protestant minister who converted to the Church. He recounted having received a personal revelation (a dream) in which the Lord told him that he could stay in the beautiful garden he had built (a successful ministry in a particular church), or he could come with the Lord and "play for higher stakes." While bothered that the Lord would use the language of a gambler, and that He would mix his metaphors (yikes!), he did understand the Lord's meaning, which was that there was a risk of failure in taking that step into the darkness. In other words, the Lord gave him a choice. I take it that the choice to join the LDS church was one that could lead to greater rewards than his then-present course, but that the rewards of his then-present course were not inconsiderable -- and he was doing a lot of good where he was, which the Lord recognized.FWIW
LeSellers Posted November 25, 2011 Posted November 25, 2011 It must be noted, to forestall an obvious knee-jerk response, that Satan is not the son of perdition, but is Perdition himself.Indeed. "Perdition" is one of his myriad of name titles. This one means the "Lost [One]". To become his son is to be a liar. We need to keep in mind that "to lie" is not merely to tell an untruth, but to know you are telling an untruth when you do so. Not everyone is able to tell lies about Jesus Christ because so few actually know Him. To know Him requires that He be "introduced" by a mutual acquaintance, the Holy Ghost.Lehi
inquiringmind Posted November 25, 2011 Author Posted November 25, 2011 (edited) Indeed. "Perdition" is one of his myriad of name titles. This one means the "Lost [One]". To become his son is to be a liar. We need to keep in mind that "to lie" is not merely to tell an untruth, but to know you are telling an untruth when you do so. Not everyone is able to tell lies about Jesus Christ because so few actually know Him. To know Him requires that He be "introduced" by a mutual acquaintance, the Holy Ghost.LehiBut what of Joseph F. Smith's thoughts about Judas??Do they contradict what Christ said in Matt. 26:24 (or 26:20 in the JST)?Was Jesus saying the Judas was a sop?What else could "good were it for that man if he had not been born" mean???And what of Log's point about Satan entering into him?Was he still possessed by Satan when he died?What of this?Then Judas, who had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, repented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders,Saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed the innocent blood.And they said unto him, What is that to us? See thou to it; thy sins be upon thee.And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went, and hanged himself on a tree. And straightway he fell down, and his bowels gushed out, and he died. (Matt. 27:3-6, Joseph Smith Translation.)What does "repented himself" mean here? Edited November 25, 2011 by inquiringmind
Rivers Posted November 27, 2011 Posted November 27, 2011 When I read about Judas in the scriptures, I see some remorse. I think the fact that he returned the pieces of silver demonstrates that he wasn't evil enough to deserve perdition. I would even go as far as saying that if Satan ever felt bad about what he did and repented, God would welcome him with open arms.
ged1650 Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 To All,I found a nit to pick. Satan is not Perdition. Cain is Perdition. This is stated in Moses Chapter 5. I am at the office so I don't have my scriptures with me. I can't give the verse. I think we need to see what Judas witnesses. He saw miracles beyond belief, the Feeding of the 5,000 men, the 4000 men (this could be 30,000 people), raising of the dead, so no and so forth. He was probably present when Peter affirmed Jesus Christ as the Son of God (Matt 16). He experienced much. I could see him denying. In my opinion, he could be a S o P.Ged
ged1650 Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 I pulled up the PofGP from lds.org. Boy am I a genius. Verse 24 God calls Cain Perdition.Ged
Log Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 (edited) To All,I found a nit to pick. Satan is not Perdition.D&C 76:26. Stuff after that verse is relevant to this thread too. Edited November 28, 2011 by Log
ged1650 Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 Log,What is God teaching us then? Cain has a body consequently he is going to rule over Satan. I have always felt since Cain was going to rule he was Perdition with all this entails (ie Lucifer). I could be wrong but this is how I see it.
LeSellers Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 (edited) Satan is not Perdition. Cain is Perdition. This is stated in Moses Chapter 5. I am at the office so I don't have my scriptures with me. I pulled up the PofGP from lds.org. Boy am I a genius. Verse 24 God calls Cain Perdition.Not so fast, bright guy! 25 And this we saw also, and bear record, that an angel of God who was in authority in the presence of God, who rebelled against the Only Begotten Son whom the Father loved and who was in the bosom of the Father, was thrust down from the presence of God and the Son, 26 And was called Perdition, for the heavens wept over him—he was Lucifer, a son of the morning.The usage of a name (and especially a name-title) for a son or descendant is common in the scriptures. "Israel" is a proper name (and a title) of Jacob, the younger son of Isaac and Rebecka. We use it today to refer to anyone descended from him, and for the whole of us in that category.For God to have called Cain "Perdition" is not to say that he was the only, nor the original, "Perdition", but that he, Cain, had become "Perdition", a lost one, as his spiritual father, Lucifer, was.There are twenty-two uses of the word "perdition" in scripture (including eight in the JST, all of which are in the Bible or Moses, so fourteen unique ones). The two in Revelation (not "Revelations") speak of a place (Outer Darkness), the others divided into three subcategories: Lucifer, the accuser/liar/etc.; those who follow him in general; and, as best I can tell, Judas Iscariot, a distinct one of the latter. Judas references appear in 3 Nephi as well as the Bible.Lehi Edited November 28, 2011 by LeSellers
ged1650 Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 Cain is told he was Perdition before the world was in Moses 5:23-24 (I 'd bring it up in the post but I'm computer retarded, I'm lucky I can post). Either God is contradicting himself or there is something more going on. God also told Cain he would rule over Satan. Maybe Satan/Cain/Lucifer are one in the same being.GedI wish one could type sarcastically then all would know when I called myself a genius it was dripping with irony.
LeSellers Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 (edited) Cain is told he was Perdition before the world was in Moses 5:23-24 (I 'd bring it up in the post but I'm computer retarded, I'm lucky I can post). Either God is contradicting himself or there is something more going on. God also told Cain he would rule over Satan. Maybe Satan/Cain/Lucifer are one in the same being.We have no explicit scripture explaining who Cain was in pre-mortality, so anything anyone reads anywhere is speculation. Cain could have been one who had decided to follow Satan and then changed his mind for the wrong reasons. Who knows?We do know that Lucifer/Satan/the devil has never been, nor ever will be born on the earth (or any other planet). He is eternally denied a physical body. Thus Cain could not have been Lucifer.God did not contradict Himself. Won't happen. What He said was that Cain was lost in pre-mortality, not that he had been Lucifer, nor that he would be more evil than Satan. He, because he would be resurrected, would rule over the devil, precisely because Lucifer would never, ever, have a physical body (which is one reason he hates us, we who do, so much).Lehi Edited November 28, 2011 by LeSellers
ged1650 Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 Lehi,Have you read Moses 5:23-24? Please do so. I don't add to my posts cause I can't.Ged
LeSellers Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 I've been reading Moses for fifty years or more. I believe I have it down as well as most. 23 If thou doest well, thou shalt be accepted. And if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door, and Satan desireth to have thee; and except thou shalt hearken unto my commandments, I will deliver thee up, and it shall be unto thee according to his desire. And thou shalt rule over him; 24 For from this time forth thou shalt be the father of his lies; thou shalt be called Perdition; for thou wast also before the world.What is it you want to make this say?Lehi
ged1650 Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 I haven't been reading Moses for 50 years but I have read it for 35. I want it to say what it says. Cain was called Perdition before the world was. Also Cain would rule over Satan. If we read it differently, it's okay with me. If Satan didn't have Cain the lies are Satan's. Once Cain becomes fallen I believe the lies becomes Cain's because he rules over Satan.Ged
LeSellers Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 As I read it, Cain was a liar before the world was, not "Perdition".Lehi
ged1650 Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 So we disagree. I don't think this will disqualify one of us for the Kingdom. We see it differently.Ged
LeSellers Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 So we disagree. I don't think this will disqualify one of us for the Kingdom. We see it differently.Doesn't stop your being wrong. Lehi
Calm Posted November 28, 2011 Posted November 28, 2011 ged, your post is now over 25 so you can edit your comments and start new threads in the main forums.
Recommended Posts