Is There No Possibility Of Repentance For Ex Mormons Who Die Without Returning?

[Log]

I understand.

King Benjamin is contradicting Doctrine and Covenants, what I've been told is all wrong, and anyone who has the commandments of God and wastes the days of their probation here is a son of perdition (even if they've never been baptized.)

Is that right?

I dunno. When you finish reading the paper - because it is clear you have not finished it - you tell me if your summary was right or not.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Log

[why me]

Is that right?

Who knows. It could be but then again it could be wrong. I don't think that it is a one size fits all. We can not know just how god judges his children and how he does so. A human life is a complicated life with much outside socialization coming from family, work, friends, relatives, and experience. We, poor humans, cannot put ourselves in the place of god when we discuss such things.

But we can assume at are own risk.

Edited April 20, 2012 by why me

[why me]

King Benjamin's teaching has relevance to my salvation, but exactly how is for me to determine. It has relevance to your salvation, but that's not for me to worry about; it is for you. How it applies to anybody else, living or dead, is not.

Regards,

Pahoran

But if one has an inquiring mind?

[Cobalt-70]

But if the book of Mormon was translated "by the gift and power of God," weren't the words inspired?

And as for the suggestion that "eternal" means "of God" (because "Eternal is one of God's names"), serious linguists (like William Barclay) have made the suggestion that that is one of the meanings of the Greek and Hebrew terms translated "eternal."

William Barclay was a universalist, and so he had a vested interest. He went to Divinity school, but I don't think he ever had a degree in linguistics or language.

What about the word "endless"? I don't think there is any great need to manufacture some obscure Greek or Hebrew etymology to explain this for the Mormon perspective, because D&C 19 is pretty explicit about what's happening: earlier scriptures used such totalizing words "that it might work upon the hearts of the children of men, altogether for my name's glory" (v. 7). In other words, the previous scriptures used an exaggeration, in order to motivate people to avoid hellfire; nevertheless, neither "eternal" nor "endless" should be taken literally.

[Cobalt-70]

I have no problem understanding "eternal" and "everlasting" the way D&C 19 indicates, but I have a problem understanding "final doom," and "never ending."

Is there a contradiction between king Benjamin and Joseph?

No, because by 1830, Smith had apparently worked out how universalism could coexist with the hellfire and damnation of the Book of Mormon, as evidenced by D&C 19.

[Cobalt-70]

"Plus, he said that if you die in the faith, then you don't have to worry because you won't have to suffer, and will enter a celestial state immediately".

did he say that in the provided quotation?

Not in that quotation. That was a little further down in his sermon. Smith was basically comforting the family and friends of King Follett, telling them that they could be certain he had gone to Celestial glory.

[inquiringmind]

I dunno. When you finish reading the paper - because it is clear you have not finished it - you tell me if your summary was right or not.

You mean this?

The Book of Mormon does not contain every detail we now understand about salvation and destruction.

Further revelation can only add to (not contradict) previous revelation, so that just begs the question I asked in the OP.

What do "known and been taught," "final doom," and "never ending torment" mean?

If king Benjamin is saying what he seems to be saying, anyone who has "known and been taught" gospel principles, and transgresses and goes contrary to them, and who dies unrepentant is a sop (and except for those who die "without law," the day of probation does seem to be limited to this life.)

Edited April 20, 2012 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

No, because by 1830, Smith had apparently worked out how universalism could coexist with the hellfire and damnation of the Book of Mormon, as evidenced by D&C 19.

And getting back to Mosiah 2:32-39, anyone who's been taught and known gospel principles, and then goes against them and dies without repentance is an sop (whose final doom is never ending torment)?

Edited April 20, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Cobalt-70]

I don't see anything in there about multiple mortal probations, and I don't see how that's possible (even as speculation) given what king Benjamin said about final doom and never ending torment.

Contrary to D&C 19 and 76, I don't see how his words (in the second chapter of Mosiah) really leave room for any sinner who had the light of Christ to tell him right from wrong, and who died without repenting, to be saved after death (and I came here looking for some help.)

I think there is plenty of room. When Smith revised his doctrines over the course of his life, he was very good at retroactively interpreting what he had said previously in the new context. When D&C 19 and 76 came out, Mormons had to reinterpret what Benjamin said in that light, but Smith provided an ingenious way for that reinterpretation to happen. I think all three of the scriptures, as well as KFD, can be read consistently, but in order for the consistency to appear, you have to go the the latest statement by Smith, and work backwards to incorporate what was said earlier into the framework of what was said later. Doing it in the reverse direction doesn't work, because the language and expression used by Smith in the earlier statements did not have the benefit of Smith's later perspective.

[Cobalt-70]

King Benjamin is contradicting Doctrine and Covenants, what I've been told is all wrong, and anyone who has the commandments of God and wastes the days of their probation here is a son of perdition (even if they've never been baptized.)

Is that right?

King Benjamin is not contradicting the D&C, because the D&C had not been written when Smith translated the words of Benjamin. And the D&C is not contradicting Benjamin, because D&C 19 provides a clever wordplay mechanism to explain why the Book of Mormon and Bible seem on the surface to leave little place for universalism.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[inquiringmind]

I think there is plenty of room. When Smith revised his doctrines over the course of his life, he was very good at retroactively interpreting what he had said previously in the new context. When D&C 19 and 76 came out, Mormons had to reinterpret what Benjamin said in that light, but Smith provided an ingenious way for that reinterpretation to happen. I think all three of the scriptures, as well as KFD, can be read consistently, but in order for the consistency to appear, you have to go the the latest statement by Smith, and work backwards to incorporate what was said earlier into the framework of what was said later. Doing it in the reverse direction doesn't work, because the language and expression used by Smith in the earlier statements did not have the benefit of Smith's later perspective.

But isn't your analysis based on the assumption that Joseph Smith was just making it all up as he went along (perhaps with the inspiration of a poet, but not the kind of inspiration most of your fellow Mormons believe belongs to a prophet)?

Edited April 20, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Log]

But isn't your analysis based on the assumption that Joseph Smith was just making it all up as he went along?

It does appear Cobalt-70's thinking would require that, doesn't it.

[inquiringmind]

It does appear Cobalt-70's thinking would require that, doesn't it.

And your thinking?

What do you think king Benjamin meant by "final doom"?

This is from Webster's 1829 Dictionary.

1. Pertaining to the end or conclusion; last ultimate; as the final issue or event of things; final hope; final salvation. 2. Conclusive; decisive; ultimate; as a final judgment. The battle of Waterloo was final to the power of Buonaparte; it brought the contest to a final issue. 3. Respecting the end or object to be gained; respecting the purpose or ultimate end in view. The efficient cause is that which produces the event or effect; the final cause is that for which any thing is done.

http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,final

So how would you interpret Mosiah 2:39 (especially if there are multiple mortal probations)?

[Log]

And your thinking?

I'm thinking everyone is gaining more knowledge through experience. Sometimes later experiences clarify, enhance, add detail to, or expand our perceptions of previous experiences. Do I think Joseph made it up as he went along? Not at all.

What do you think king Benjamin meant by "final doom"?

So how would you interpret Mosiah 2:39 (especially if there are multiple mortal probations)?

1. MMP belongs in MMP thread, and 2. I answered you when you asked this question in the MMP thread.

[why me]

I never been to a catholic funeral where people thought that the person was going to hell. And I have never been to a lds funeral where the person was thought to be heading to the telestial kingdom.

I always found that interesting.

[Cobalt-70]

But isn't your analysis based on the assumption that Joseph Smith was just making it all up as he went along (perhaps with the inspiration of a poet, but not the kind of inspiration most of your fellow Mormons believe belongs to a prophet)?

No. A poet is not necessarily a prophet. But that a prophet receives inspiration "line upon line, precept upon precept" (2 Nephi 28:30) is not a foreign concept to Mormonism.

[Robert F. Smith]

I'm re-reading the book of Mosiah, and I really don't understand ch.2:36-39.

Quote

withdraw yourselves from the Spirit of the Lord, that it may have no place in you to guide you in wisdom’s paths that ye may be blessed, prospered, and preserved—

rebellion against God; therefore he ^blisteth to obey the evil spirit, and becometh an enemy to all righteousness; therefore, the Lord has no place in him, for he dwelleth not in ^cunholy temples.

repenteth not, and remaineth and dieth an enemy to God, the demands of divine ^bjustice do awaken his immortal soul to a lively sense of his own ^cguilt, which doth cause him to shrink from the ^dpresence of the Lord, and doth fill his breast with guilt, and ^epain, and ^fanguish, which is like an unquenchable^gfire, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever.

mercy hath no claim on that man; therefore his final doom is to endure a never-ending ^btorment.

http://www.lds.org/s...siah/2?lang=eng

The context seems to be those who were raised in the faith, and leave, and verse 39 seems to say that their final doom is never-ending torment.

The rhetorical context of 2:36b-39 is actually much broader than that (including discussion of the overall consequences of obedience and disobedience in 2:31-41), and there is an immediate, formal parallel text to be read at 2:32-33. Furthermore, both those texts must be read as formal parallels to 4:13-30 (especially the curse for not repenting at 4:18,22b-23) in the midst of the massive chiastic arrangement of Mosiah 2 - 5, including a formal covenant renewal by the people (4:30 - 5:6), in addition to a coregency ritual (2:29-30), among other things. This is best seen laid out in J. W. Welch & S. D. Ricks, eds., King Benjamin's Speech (FARMS, 1998), 315-410. See the book online at http://maxwellinstit...ooks/?bookid=31 .

The occasion is the Israelite Fall Festival of Ingathering (New Year - Tabernacles) in which sacrificial offerings are being made (2:3) according to the Law of Moses.

I know D&C 19 says that Eternal and Endless are God's names, but this verse doesn't use those terms.

It says "his final doom is to endure a never-ending ^btorment."

"Endless" and "never-ending" seem semantically identical to me. Rather than straining out gnats and swallowing camels, we ought to at least allow that such words and phrases are not clearly differentiated.

So how can apostates be saved after death, or inherit a telestial kingdom?

I know some of you will say the Nephites didn't know anything about postmortem salvation. or three degrees of glory, but I'm suppose to be praying for a testimony that the book of Mormon is true, and how can it be if it makes statements that we now know aren't true?

You are really asking why King Benjamin did not discuss those esoteric matters on this occasion. The context does not require that he discuss such sacred matters, any more than Jesus was required to discuss everything in a single sermon. One assumes that some matters will be left in abeyance for later by any preacher of the Gospel, just as we must wait until I Peter 3:19 to find out that Jesus preached to the spirits in prison, or until Acts 1:3 to find out that he had a formal 40-day period of special preaching from the time he arose from the dead until Pentecost. Why is this not explained to us in detail? Why is this held back from us? Does this render Acts and I Peter as false doctrine or false books? Of course not. The progressive disclosure of doctrine is appropriate for the same reasons Paul stated in I Corinthians 3:1-3.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

I've been told that you'd have to see God to take apostasy to the extreme you're talking about, and King Benjamin doesn't seem to be talking to those who've seen God themselves, he's talking to those who've "been taught".(verse 36.)

So is he saying that those who've been taught, had a testimony, and die in apostasy are beyond repentance?

That is presumably the province of God in the final judgment. One can suppose from the formulaic wording in the Book of Mormon that some people are indeed beyond the pale and cannot be redeemed, e.g., the people of Ammonihah sinned against greater “light and knowledge” (Alma 9:23), after having received “the gift of the Holy Ghost” (9:21), and various other spiritual gifts – including participation in esoteric rites de passage (implied throughout the text). Moreover, they committed murder (14: 8 ), and were involved with the diabolical Order of Nehor (14:16,18, 16:11).

If that's true, and John D. Lee died an unrepentant liar and murderer, why was his membership and Temple endowment restored?

Since he was the man in charge at Mountain Meadows, Lee was justly tried and executed. Whether he repented is a matter between him and God. Proxy temple work is done for everyone, or will be. Whether God allows it to be applied is another matter.

Hitler may not have known anything about the restored Gospel, but I think he was raised a Christian (Catholic or Lutheran), so he would have been taught some things (i.e. the ten commandments, the golden rule, the atonement), and he certainly rejected all of it, and died unrepentant (ordering his troops to destroy everything the allies could use, even if it meant that his own people would starve.)

If there's no possibility of his repentance, why was a proxy baptism performed for him?

We perform proxy work for all God's chillun. Whether such sacred work is accepted by both God and the recipient on the other side is a matter outside our domain.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

To me inheriting a Telestial Kingdom would be eternal torment. Knowing that I could have inherited a Celestial Kingdom if I would have just listened to the Holy Ghost. I would be seperated from Heavenly Father, Jesus Christ, my wife and my family for all eternity. How terrible!

They can come down and visit. The Telestial Kingdom is a kingdom of glory overseen by the Holy Spirit. It is not a version of Hell. Those who are there will know that they belong there and will find it appropriate. Only Satan and his minions will be unhappy in Outer Darkness.

[Robert F. Smith]

I would disagree, that would make life basically null and void, like who cares what you do everyone will be exalted anyways

Incorrect. Many will obtain eternal life in one of three glories, but only the elect will find themselves in exaltation in the Celestial glory.

[Robert F. Smith]

But if the book of Mormon was translated "by the gift and power of God," weren't the words inspired?

We frequently refer to Scripture as Holy Writ, and we say that it is "inspired." That does not mean that it is infallible or inerrant (free from error). In fact, the Bible (as one example) is filled with thousands of internal contradictions and scribal errors which can threaten the testimony of those who do not realize that Scriptures are human responses to the magnificent works and words of God. God's servants do their best, but must always come up short by their very nature. That is why we are given the Holy Spirit to interpret those texts and to verify their source.

[Robert F. Smith]

Did you never read those papers I sent you links to, wherein this was specifically explained?

Specifically, this one?

Log,

Thanks for that. A fine piece.

[Ariarates]

Sounds like your basic "stay with the programme or go to hell" to me. A scaremongering tactic that seems to be part and parcel of many religions.

I find it difficult to reconcile with the idea of God as a loving Father. I would hope that, no matter how many mistakes my kids will make, and how grave, they will always have a home to come back to if they want to.

[Duncan]

Incorrect. Many will obtain eternal life in one of three glories, but only the elect will find themselves in exaltation in the Celestial glory.

that is what i'm saying but the Joseph Smith quotation doesn't say that and what it does say is what I wrote that you quoted! (i should've been born a hundred years ago and been a comdy write for Abbott and Costello)!

[inquiringmind]

I find it difficult to reconcile with the idea of God as a loving Father. I would hope that, no matter how many mistakes my kids will make, and how grave, they will always have a home to come back to if they want to.

I always hoped God was like that, but king Benjamin seems to be saying that if one has "known and been taught" the words of the prophets and the commandments of God, and gone "contrary" to them, and doesn't repent in this short life, the repent ("awaken to a lively sense of their own guilt") only to suffer a "final doom" of ""never ending" (mental) torment.

Sounds like your basic "stay with the programme or go to hell" to me. A scaremongering tactic that seems to be part and parcel of many religions.

And it doesn't seem to fit with Doctrine and Covenants.

"Endless" and "never-ending" seem semantically identical to me. Rather than straining out gnats and swallowing camels, we ought to at least allow that such words and phrases are not clearly differentiated.

And what would you take "final doom" to mean?

Edited April 20, 2012 by inquiringmind