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

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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

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.

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."

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?

The "torment" will be when they know the truth for a fact and know they rejected it. If we end up in heaven or hell is not God's plan but our own.

[inquiringmind]

The "torment" will be when they know the truth for a fact and know they rejected it.

Then they didn't know the truth for a fact when they rejected it?

They didn't have the heavens opened to them, and deny the sun was shining while they saw it?

They only rejected what they knew they were taught, and if they don't repent before they die their final doom is never ending torment (and this is the fate of ex Mormons who die without returning to the Church)?

That does seem to be what king Benjamin is saying in Mosiah 2:32-39 (where he excludes only little children), and it does seem to conflict with Doctrine and Covenants (and what I've been taught.)

You are really asking why King Benjamin did not discuss those esoteric matters on this occasion.

No, I'm asking why he only excluded little children?

And how we should understand "final doom" (in light of latter revelation.)

Edited April 20, 2012 by inquiringmind

[TAO]

inquiring, I haven't looked at the verse (so I don't know it's context), but final doom sounds a bit like final judgement... perhaps it's that? Or perhaps not that at all =p.

[Robert F. Smith]

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)!

Or Charlie Chaplin.

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

Ariarates,

Sounds to me like you didn't bother to read many posts on this thread, since the jist of them is that LDS theology (far from being scarry) is rather universalistic. Through the very clever plan of happiness of the Lord (via a strong dose of proxy rites), very few end up in Outer Darkness. Much to Satan's chagrin.

Reminds me of the unconditional love of a mother for her errant young.

[inquiringmind]

Ariarates,

Sounds to me like you didn't bother to read many posts on this thread, since the jist of them is that LDS theology (far from being scarry) is rather universalistic. Through the very clever plan of happiness of the Lord (via a strong dose of proxy rites), very few end up in Outer Darkness. Much to Satan's chagrin.

Reminds me of the unconditional love of a mother for her errant young.

Robert,

I think you missed this post.

The "torment" will be when they know the truth for a fact and know they rejected it.

Then they didn't know the truth for a fact when they rejected it?

They didn't have the heavens opened to them, and deny the sun was shining while they saw it?

They only rejected what they knew they were taught, and if they don't repent before they die their final doom is never ending torment (and this is the fate of ex Mormons who die without returning to the Church)?

That does seem to be what king Benjamin is saying in Mosiah 2:32-39 (where he excludes only little children), and it does seem to conflict with Doctrine and Covenants (and what I've been taught.)

You are really asking why King Benjamin did not discuss those esoteric matters on this occasion.

No, I'm asking why he only excluded little children?

And how we should understand "final doom" (in light of latter revelation.)

Edited April 20, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Robert F. Smith]

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.

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

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

Inquirer,

You might try reading it in context, as I advised. Prooftexting, which you have frankly said that you prefer, is regarded by scholars as "text abuse." At present you are fixated on surface impressions gained from particular texts, rather than considering them holistically, and this applies as much to the Bible and other literature as it does to the Book of Mormon. Once you begin reading in wider context, you'll understand that authors don't tell us everything all in one place, and that our neglect of hyperbole, metaphor, and the like, can cause us to misinterpret things.

My impression from your many questions on this Board in the past has been that you are usually very patient and willing to learn. Now you seem uncharacteristically anxious and impatient. Learning takes time and your humility serves you well.

[thesometimesaint]

Ariarates:

God is just. He says we can have all that he has, and be wilth him. We choose how much of those blessings we want.. Those that hear, accept, and do the Gospel in this life, will be blessed; those that hear, accept part of the Gospel, and do part of the Gospel, will be blessed to that extent; those that don't hear the Gospel in this life, do the best they can, accept it in the next life will be blessed; Those that hear, accept, and then reject the Gospel, will get just exactly what they wanted. Nothing could be fairer, or more just.

[inquiringmind]

Deleted.

Edited April 20, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Duncan]

Or Charlie Chaplin.

he IS the greatest non-speaking comedian of all time! I could have gone into pantomime though! haha! Mind you I wouldn't mind being related to the Chaplin family, I am fairly certain they don't have to worry where their next meal is coming from!

[inquiringmind]

Prooftexting, which you have frankly said that you prefer, is regarded by scholars as "text abuse." At present you are fixated on surface impressions gained from particular texts, rather than considering them holistically

I'm not sure what that means.

If I quote a passage from the Doctrine and Covenants to prove that you have to be baptized by someone having priesthood authority to receive the gift of The Holy Spirit, isn't that proof texting?

If I quote a passage from The Book of Mormon to prove that God is still a God of miracles, isn't that proof texting?

Wasn't Joseph prooftexting when he took James 1:5 literally, and went out in the woods to pray?

Can you show me how proftexting is "text abuse"?

Also, if and when one receives a testimony that The Book of Mormon is true, doesn't it mean that every word is one hundred percent true (and can be underlined, and highlighted to answer the questions they have in their own mind)?

Do you believe everyone in king Benjamin's kingdom, over the age of eight, personally saw God?

I've been told (by those in authority) that that's what it takes to become an sop, but king Benjamin seems be saying that having known and been taught the words of the prophets and the commandments of God is enough to qualify.

I don't understand this.

[Robert F. Smith]

If I quote a passage from the Doctrine and Covenants to prove that you have to be baptized by someone having priesthood authority to receive the gift of The Holy Spirit, isn't that proof texting?

I'd have to see your quotation to see what you are claiming. However, even here you are incorrect: Baptism in water does not provide the gift of the Holy Spirit. That is a separate rite. An example of prooftexting, in this case, might be a claim that the Holy Ghost is not the same as the Holy Spirit. Since they are identical, that would be a false claim built on an assumption that the English text from a particular era is normative. It isn't. One might also provide a false prooftext by claiming that the baptism of Jesus by John is normative for receipt of the Holy Ghost, and that it has to be in the form of a dove.

If I quote a passage from The Book of Mormon to prove that God is still a God of miracles, isn't that proof texting?

I'd have to see the actual quote and the claim you make based upon it.

Wasn't Joseph prooftexting when he took James 1:5 literally, and went out in the woods to pray?

Joseph wasn't making a theological argument, he was engaging in an innocent application of the experimental method (much as one might do by applying and following Alma 32, or Moroni 10:5).

Can you show me how proftexting is "text abuse"?

Sure (in addition to the examples already given), and without citing the specific scriptures from the NT (which I'm sure you recognize here) I could make a mockery of the text by taking various statements by Jesus out of context, as follows:

If peacemakers are the blessed children of God, if God hates all workers of iniquity, if he that hates is in darkness and dissembles with his lips, is a murderer, and a liar, etc., if one is to have peace with his fellow man – not only his neighbor, but his enemies as well, doing good to them that hate him – if Jesus brought and left peace with men, gave his peace unto them (not the world’s version of peace), and if a host of other such texts are to be believed, why then does Jesus say that he comes not to send peace, but a sword? Why does he find fault with one who does not hate his father and his mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, etc.?

Some excellent sources on text abuse are Adrian Thatcher, The Savage Text: The Use and Abuse of the Bible (Wiley-Blackwell, 2008), and James L. Kugel and Rowan A. Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation, Library of Early Christianity (Phila.: Westminster Press, 1986), passim, but esp. pp. 128-133. An excellent example of how to properly interpret the Bible is William R. Stegner, Narrative Theology in Early Jewish Christianity (1989).

Also, if and when one receives a testimony that The Book of Mormon is true, doesn't it mean that every word is one hundred percent true (and can be underlined, and highlighted to answer the questions they have in their own mind)?

Of course not. That is utterly ridiculous. The human who put those words down in print did the best he could under the circumstances, but perfection is always out of reach in this world, yet there will always be an additional human factor of separate understandings of the very same words (something which is rampant in denominational christianity). And that can only be overcome via the Spirit.

Do you believe everyone in king Benjamin's kingdom, over the age of eight, personally saw God?

Don't know. Could be hyperbole.

I've been told (by those in authority) that that's what it takes to become an sop, but king Benjamin seems be saying that having known and been taught the words of the prophets and the commandments of God is enough to qualify.

I don't understand this.

I don't either.

I gave some excellent quotations in post # 68, above, and recommend that you attempt to understand that it is not easy to become a son of perdition. Some apostles and other high authorities of the LDS Church have apostatized, and yet have been readmitted to the Church later.

Edited April 20, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[inquiringmind]

I'd have to see your quotation to see what you are claiming. However, even here you are incorrect: Baptism in water does not provide the gift of the Holy Spirit. That is a separate rite. An example of prooftexting, in this case, might be a claim that the Holy Ghost is not the same as the Holy Spirit. Since they are identical, that would be a false claim built on an assumption that the English text from a particular era is normative. It isn't. One might also provide a false prooftext by claiming that the baptism of Jesus by John is normative for receipt of the Holy Ghost, and that it has to be in the form of a dove.

I'd have to see the actual quote and the claim you make based upon it.

Joseph wasn't making a theological argument, he was engaging in an innocent application of the experimental method (much as one might do by applying and following Alma 32, or Moroni 10:5).

Sure (in addition to the examples already given), and without citing the specific scriptures from the NT (which I'm sure you recognize here) I could make a mockery of the text by taking various statements by Jesus out of context, as follows:

If peacemakers are the blessed children of God, if God hates all workers of iniquity, if he that hates is in darkness and dissembles with his lips, is a murderer, and a liar, etc., if one is to have peace with his fellow man – not only his neighbor, but his enemies as well, doing good to them that hate him – if Jesus brought and left peace with men, gave his peace unto them (not the world’s version of peace), and if a host of other such texts are to be believed, why then does Jesus say that he comes not to send peace, but a sword? Why does he find fault with one who does not hate his father and his mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, etc.?

Some excellent sources on text abuse are Adrian Thatcher, The Savage Text: The Use and Abuse of the Bible (Wiley-Blackwell, 2008), and James L. Kugel and Rowan A. Greer, Early Biblical Interpretation, Library of Early Christianity (Phila.: Westminster Press, 1986), passim, but esp. pp. 128-133. An excellent example of how to properly interpret the Bible is William R. Stegner, Narrative Theology in Early Jewish Christianity (1989).

Of course not. That is utterly ridiculous. The human who put those words down in print did the best he could under the circumstances, but perfection is always out of reach in this world, yet there will always be an additional human factor of separate understandings of the very same words (something which is rampant in denominational christianity). And that can only be overcome via the Spirit.

Thank you.

I gave some excellent quotations in post # 68, above, and recommend that you attempt to understand that it is not easy to become a son of perdition. Some apostles and other high authorities of the LDS Church have apostatized, and yet have been readmitted to the Church later.

If "final doom" means no more opportunities to repent, and "never ending torment" means torment that has no end, and "except your little children" means everyone over the age of eight, it looks pretty easy from what king Benjamin says in Mosiah 2:32-39.

I've been told (by those in authority) that that's what it takes to become an sop, but king Benjamin seems be saying that having known and been taught the words of the prophets and the commandments of God is enough to qualify.

I don't understand this.

I don't either.

If nether of us understands it, I'd like more thoughts and comments on what these words might mean.

Edited April 20, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Maidservant]

become a son of perdition

Even if everything you are mentioning in this passage and regarding "final doom" is correct, to make a jump to "perdition" is something else. My suggestion is not to equate the suffering the wicked will go through to "perdition". LDS don't do this.

As well, there are some who find some suggestion that the fate of sons of perdition isn't necessarily permanent either, in a long eternity.

So there is a lot of room for personal learning on these subjects. The Church nor the Book of Mormon doesn't have a cookie cutter stamp to a lot of the details of these things.

And by the way, these passages do not encompass necessarily whoever is in or out of the Church, per se. It is talking about following evil.

Further revelation can only add to (not contradict) previous revelation

Of course it can. Of course, in many cases it can be seen as "development" or "better understanding" or any number of similar phrases and frames. But, sure, it could contradict also.

In the passage we are discussing, I don't see a contradiction. Just a fleshing out of greater details, in the scripture record as a whole.

King Benjamin 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

Well, he didn't say anything about perdition. I wouldn't add that in. You may feel led to, but I don't think most people think of it that way, in any case.

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.

As has already been mentioned--King Benjamin (a real person, not doctrine on a page) could be speaking from his level of understanding. Joseph Smith spoke from his. Hopefully in this, the dispensation of the fullness of times, all of our level of understanding is rising or opening.

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

There is sometimes a problem of taking the definition, the English of words, and having that definition directly become doctrine.

Let's talk about doom. To say "doom" is a rather poetic word and in my opinion cannot directly dispense doctrine, only provide a mediated image of reality. Nevertheless, my dictionary says of doom: "Inevitable destruction or ruin. Fate, especially a tragic or ruinous one. A decision or judgment, especially an official condemnation to a severe penalty. Judgment Day. A statute or ordinance. To condemn to ruination or death.To destine to an unhappy end."

I think this part of the definition and trying to match it with doctrine we can all more or less agree upon, namely, that there are consequences to sin. We all know this by experience, hopefully. There are consequences to our soul.

Let's talk about the word final. Here is where the problem is lying in our misunderstandings, I think.

Dictionary for final: "Forming or occurring at the end; last: the final scene of a film. Of or constituting the end result of a succession or process; ultimate: an act with both an immediate and a final purpose. Not to be changed or reconsidered; unalterable: Something that comes at or forms the end. The last or one of the last of a series of contests: the finals of a state spelling bee. The last examination of an academic course."

Here you can see that, even without discussing doctrine and sticking with definition, there is only one out of several definitions of 'final' that speaks to a chronologically endless condition. The others only speak to something that finally happens. Words used do not usually mean ALL their possible definitions, they usually mean one of their definitions. You are trying to make doctrine out of ONE of the definitions of final. But the other DEFINITIONS of final fit nicely with the other scriptural discussions of DOCTRINE. For example, when we hear someone say, "This is the final round of the basketball tournament!!!" No one hearing this thinks that the final round is going to last for infinity. It's usually about an hour or two. But it is still final. So "DEFINITIONALLY" final doesn't necessarily or even usually mean "forever", it usually means "at the end". So don't spin a DOCTRINE of "forever" out of a DEFINITION of "at the end". And as we know, people who feel they have success in this life by doing wickedness will find out differently, finally, at the end, at the conclusion of these mortal exercise we are all participating in. It doesn't speak to what happens AFTER the final judgment. Even the "final judgment" is only "at the end" of what we are doing here on this planet. It doesn't say what could happen for billions of years after.

By the way, another thing I think I notice is that you are still invested in the sectarian frame of "going to heaven" and "going to hell" and trying to fit LDS doctrine in that frame, and it's not that great of a fit. LDS simply don't think like that for the most part.

"never ending torment" means torment that has no end.

And, for the record--been there, done that.

Another thing I thought of as I read through all of these things. I really like this story in the Book of Mormon. Start with verse 18:

http://www.lds.org/s....23?lang=eng#22

I have often wondered why, after reading about fates such as Sherem, Korihor, Amalickiah and so many others, that in THIS story, those depraved sinners were INVITED TO AND WERE ABLE TO HAVE the same experience as the prophets Nephi and Lehi (brothers in this story). Of course, their hearts did need to change, but they were invited to glory instead of doom. Also this is the story of Alma the Younger.

So sometimes I think we get options in the scriptures, and who we are or are ready to be, is what is going to happen. And the scriptures show all of the levels of progression.

Last thought: We don't know what is going to happen in the details of after we die, at least not from the scriptures. All we can do is have our best understanding of it. As far as wickedness--it can't be happiness. As far as righteousness--we will have peace even if we have bad trials. In eternity? Only God can teach the individual his or her own destiny. We can know that we will suffer for our wickedness--this is going to happen in time and/or later. But can we say what fruit you are going to have for lunch 1.37 million years from now or what your condo is going to look like in Hades or off of the main street of the cobble streets of gold? We are going to be ourselves!! We are going to willing or unwilling. Stubborn or humble. Arriving at truth or still imprisoned by darkness. We will know our families, no matter "where" they are.

THIS verse neither shatters what we do know, nor explains what we don't know. It's just saying: Repent! Now!

Edited April 20, 2012 by Maidservant

[Uncertain]

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

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.

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."

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?

Hi Inquiringmind,

To be upfront I was raised LDS believe it is a great organization that by and large produces outstanding people but I have my doubts concerning its universal truth claims so with that context in mind.... I always as a believer interpreted D&C 19 as God deliberatly using misleading language for the greater good. For example:

D&C 19:7

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’s glory.

I interpreted this as God calling damnation eternal knowing full well people would naturally interpret "eternal damnation" as damnation that never ended for the wicked. He did this because he knew this interpretation would have the greatest impact on people’s behavior. If a person thought sin leads to never ending torture in hell they would of course be much more reluctant to sin than if they thought the consequence of sin were perhaps temporary. In other words God deliberately used misleading language to describe the afterlife in order to best promote proper behavior. With that interpretation in mind Mosiah 2:36-39 makes perfect sense this is simply one example of God using misleading language to give people the impression hell was eternal when it actually isn't. As a believer I was completely comfortable with the idea king Benjamin 100% believed hell was eternal because God gave him that impression when in fact hell was not eternal and God just let him believe it was in order to have a greater impact on people’s behavior as D&C 19:7 seems to suggest.

Now this interpretation will not be comfortable to many people because it suggests God deliberately on occasion misleads people to believe something is true when in fact it is not true. In my opinion this is no worse than God commanding Nephi to kill Laban. Or God wiping the earth clean of men women and children in a global flood, or God being okay with Abraham lying concerning the status of his wife. In other words there is a long history in scripture of God commanding or performing what would usually be viewed as sketchy actions, but God knowing what is best for all justifies his actions.

To sum up my point, as a believer I thought Mosiah 2:26-39 was simply an example of what God is talking about in D&C 19, God used misleading language in Mosiah 2:26-29 leading people to believe punishment was eternal when actually it isn't. He used this language because such belief had a greater impact on people’s behavior (i.e. D&C 19:7) then telling people the true picture which is that punishment is not eternal.

Frankly I think you have a good point which is that the straightforward interpretation of Mosiah 2 strongly suggests hell is never ending suffering for believers who have apostatized. And this does seem to contradict later teachings. But this is by design God did this on purpose at least this is how I saw it as a believer.

Best,

Uncertain

[inquiringmind]

Even if everything you are mentioning in this passage and regarding "final doom" is correct, to make a jump to "perdition" is something else. My suggestion is not to equate the suffering the wicked will go through to "perdition". LDS don't do this.

As well, there are some who find some suggestion that the fate of sons of perdition isn't necessarily permanent either, in a long eternity.

So there is a lot of room for personal learning on these subjects. The Church nor the Book of Mormon doesn't have a cookie cutter stamp to a lot of the details of these things.

And by the way, these passages do not encompass necessarily whoever is in or out of the Church, per se. It is talking about following evil.

Of course it can. Of course, in many cases it can be seen as "development" or "better understanding" or any number of similar phrases and frames. But, sure, it could contradict also.

In the passage we are discussing, I don't see a contradiction. Just a fleshing out of greater details, in the scripture record as a whole.

Well, he didn't say anything about perdition. I wouldn't add that in. You may feel led to, but I don't think most people think of it that way, in any case.

As has already been mentioned--King Benjamin (a real person, not doctrine on a page) could be speaking from his level of understanding. Joseph Smith spoke from his. Hopefully in this, the dispensation of the fullness of times, all of our level of understanding is rising or opening.

There is sometimes a problem of taking the definition, the English of words, and having that definition directly become doctrine.

Let's talk about doom. To say "doom" is a rather poetic word and in my opinion cannot directly dispense doctrine, only provide a mediated image of reality. Nevertheless, my dictionary says of doom: "Inevitable destruction or ruin. Fate, especially a tragic or ruinous one. A decision or judgment, especially an official condemnation to a severe penalty. Judgment Day. A statute or ordinance. To condemn to ruination or death.To destine to an unhappy end."

I think this part of the definition and trying to match it with doctrine we can all more or less agree upon, namely, that there are consequences to sin. We all know this by experience, hopefully. There are consequences to our soul.

Let's talk about the word final. Here is where the problem is lying in our misunderstandings, I think.

Dictionary for final: "Forming or occurring at the end; last: the final scene of a film. Of or constituting the end result of a succession or process; ultimate: an act with both an immediate and a final purpose. Not to be changed or reconsidered; unalterable: Something that comes at or forms the end. The last or one of the last of a series of contests: the finals of a state spelling bee. The last examination of an academic course."

Here you can see that, even without discussing doctrine and sticking with definition, there is only one out of several definitions of 'final' that speaks to a chronologically endless condition. The others only speak to something that finally happens. Words used do not usually mean ALL their possible definitions, they usually mean one of their definitions. You are trying to make doctrine out of ONE of the definitions of final. But the other DEFINITIONS of final fit nicely with the other scriptural discussions of DOCTRINE. For example, when we hear someone say, "This is the final round of the basketball tournament!!!" No one hearing this thinks that the final round is going to last for infinity. It's usually about an hour or two. But it is still final. So "DEFINITIONALLY" final doesn't necessarily or even usually mean "forever", it usually means "at the end". So don't spin a DOCTRINE of "forever" out of a DEFINITION of "at the end". And as we know, people who feel they have success in this life by doing wickedness will find out differently, finally, at the end, at the conclusion of these mortal exercise we are all participating in. It doesn't speak to what happens AFTER the final judgment. Even the "final judgment" is only "at the end" of what we are doing here on this planet. It doesn't say what could happen for billions of years after.

By the way, another thing I think I notice is that you are still invested in the sectarian frame of "going to heaven" and "going to hell" and trying to fit LDS doctrine in that frame, and it's not that great of a fit. LDS simply don't think like that for the most part.

And, for the record--been there, done that.

Another thing I thought of as I read through all of these things. I really like this story in the Book of Mormon. Start with verse 18:

http://www.lds.org/s....23?lang=eng#22

I have often wondered why, after reading about fates such as Sherem, Korihor, Amalickiah and so many others, that in THIS story, those depraved sinners were INVITED TO AND WERE ABLE TO HAVE the same experience as the prophets Nephi and Lehi (brothers in this story). Of course, their hearts did need to change, but they were invited to glory instead of doom. Also this is the story of Alma the Younger.

So sometimes I think we get options in the scriptures, and who we are or are ready to be, is what is going to happen. And the scriptures show all of the levels of progression.

Last thought: We don't know what is going to happen in the details of after we die, at least not from the scriptures. All we can do is have our best understanding of it. As far as wickedness--it can't be happiness. As far as righteousness--we will have peace even if we have bad trials. In eternity? Only God can teach the individual his or her own destiny. We can know that we will suffer for our wickedness--this is going to happen in time and/or later. But can we say what fruit you are going to have for lunch 1.37 million years from now or what your condo is going to look like in Hades or off of the main street of the cobble streets of gold? We are going to be ourselves!! We are going to willing or unwilling. Stubborn or humble. Arriving at truth or still imprisoned by darkness. We will know our families, no matter "where" they are.

THIS verse neither shatters what we do know, nor explains what we don't know. It's just saying: Repent! Now!

Thank you Maidservant.

Edited April 20, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Then they didn't know the truth for a fact when they rejected it?

They didn't have the heavens opened to them, and deny the sun was shining while they saw it?

People choose to reject truth all the time, for the most part it is a large part of our nature. On this I must disagree.

[inquiringmind]

Then they didn't know the truth for a fact when they rejected it?

They didn't have the heavens opened to them, and deny the sun was shining while they saw it?

People choose to reject truth all the time, for the most part it is a large part of our nature. On this I must disagree.

And what is it you disagree with here?

The idea that "the final doom of never ending torment" is reserved for sop, or the idea that it's hard to become an sop?

Edited April 20, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

And what is it you disagree with here?

The idea that "the final doom of never ending torment" is reserved for sop, or the idea that it's hard to become an sop?

Your comment that if they rejected the turth is because they did not know it...or did I read your commnet wrong?

[Log]

It is hard to become a son of Perdition. Let's put it this way: if you don't know whether you can become one, you can't.

[inquiringmind]

Your comment that if they rejected the turth is because they did not know it...or did I read your commnet wrong?

I wasn't making a comment, I was asking you to clarify your comments.

You wrote

The "torment" will be when they know the truth for a fact and know they rejected it.

Wouldn't that mean they didn't know the truth for a fact in mortality?

And if their final doom is never ending torment, wouldn't that mean that you don't have to have the heavens opened to you, and deny the sun shining while you see it to become an sop?

I was asking your thoughts on that.

Let's talk about the word final. Here is where the problem is lying in our misunderstandings, I think.

Dictionary for final: "Forming or occurring at the end; last: the final scene of a film. Of or constituting the end result of a succession or process; ultimate: an act with both an immediate and a final purpose. Not to be changed or reconsidered; unalterable: Something that comes at or forms the end. The last or one of the last of a series of contests: the finals of a state spelling bee. The last examination of an academic course."

Here you can see that, even without discussing doctrine and sticking with definition, there is only one out of several definitions of 'final' that speaks to a chronologically endless condition. The others only speak to something that finally happens. Words used do not usually mean ALL their possible definitions, they usually mean one of their definitions. You are trying to make doctrine out of ONE of the definitions of final. But the other DEFINITIONS of final fit nicely with the other scriptural discussions of DOCTRINE. For example, when we hear someone say, "This is the final round of the basketball tournament!!!" No one hearing this thinks that the final round is going to last for infinity. It's usually about an hour or two. But it is still final. So "DEFINITIONALLY" final doesn't necessarily or even usually mean "forever", it usually means "at the end". So don't spin a DOCTRINE of "forever" out of a DEFINITION of "at the end". And as we know, people who feel they have success in this life by doing wickedness will find out differently, finally, at the end, at the conclusion of these mortal exercise we are all participating in. It doesn't speak to what happens AFTER the final judgment. Even the "final judgment" is only "at the end" of what we are doing here on this planet. It doesn't say what could happen for billions of years after.

Thanks again Maidservant.

Edited April 20, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

That wasn't my comment, it was how I read your comment..

You wrote

Don't you remember?

I remember what I said and there are people who reject the truth who know for a fact it is true. It is sad but true...this is how they can become a SOP.

[LDS_RM]

I like this from Elder Holland:

"I do not know who in this vast audience today may need to hear the message of forgiveness inherent in this parable, but however late you think you are, however many chances you think you have missed, however many mistakes you feel you have made or talents you think you don’t have, or however far from home and family and God you feel you have traveled, I testify that you have not traveled beyond the reach of divine love. It is not possible for you to sink lower than the infinite light of Christ’s Atonement shines.

Whether you are not yet of our faith or were with us once and have not remained, there is nothing in either case that you have done that cannot be undone."

[Cobalt-70]

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.

Benjamin's comments, and the Book of Mormon in general, make no distinction between those who never left their carnal fallen state in the first place, and those who entered a state of grace and then backslid back to their carnal state. In both cases, those who died while in their fallen state would be doomed.

The only distinction between the "natural man" and a backslider is that only the latter are potentially liable for the unpardonable sin. But the unpardonable sin concept is only discussed a few times in the Book of Mormon. I don't think that concept even enters into Benjamin's sermon.

[inquiringmind]

I remember what I said and there are people who reject the truth who know for a fact it is true. It is sad but true...this is how they can become a SOP.

But the people king Benjamin was talking about will know they rejected the truth when they suffer their final doom of never ending torment (and they're not sop)?

Again, what you wrote was

The "torment" will be when they know the truth for a fact and know they rejected it.

Edited April 20, 2012 by inquiringmind