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

[inquiringmind]

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."

I like that too.

And that's why I've had a hard time understanding what I read in Mosiah two the other day (but Maidservant's comments helped.)

[Cobalt-70]

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.

I don't think viewing it as "God being deceptive" is the best way to look at it. More accurately, I think what happened is that through the course of inspired evolution in doctrine, Mormonism changed to become more universalistic, and D&C 19:7 is a God-approved "retcon" for that change. Scripture is like a comic book story line. If something happens that doesn't fit into the prior mythology, to save the coherency of the mythology you might have to do a retroactive "fix." That would only be a deception if the effort is not transparent. But D&C is fully open and honest about the fact that a retcon is happening.

[inquiringmind]

If one can have "eternal life" by knowing the Father (even in mortality, even before they die), it seems to me that the word "eternal" (aionian in Greek) might have more to do with quality than duration (as commentators like William Barclay, and translators like Bishop Westcott of England, suggest),and what Joseph reported God to have said in D&C 19 (about "eternal punishment" being roughly equivalent to "Divine retribution", because Eternal is His name) may be literally true.

As to God being deceptive by using language that people might misunderstand, maybe it would be more misleading to say that hell was temporary (if people took that to mean they could get away with something by continuing in sin.)

Edited April 20, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Uncertain]

I don't think viewing it as "God being deceptive" is the best way to look at it. More accurately, I think what happened is that through the course of inspired evolution in doctrine, Mormonism changed to become more universalistic, and D&C 19:7 is a God-approved "retcon" for that change. Scripture is like a comic book story line. If something happens that doesn't fit into the prior mythology, to save the coherency of the mythology you might have to do a retroactive "fix." That would only be a deception if the effort is not transparent. But D&C is fully open and honest about the fact that a retcon is happening.

Hi Cobalt-70,

Well I am not saying D&C 19 is deceptive. Telling someone damnation is eternal when damnation really isn't eternal is somewhat deceptive. As mentioned according to D&C 19 the entire point of why God used misleading language and called it eternal damnation in the first place is to "work on the hearts of man". God deliberately let them misunderstand the nature of hell by calling it "eternal" when hell is not really eternal for most people.

In addition keep in mind God did not clarify what he meant until D&C 19. Think of a Nephite in King Benjamin’s audience who hears Mosiah 2 what is he going to believe regarding the afterlife? Remember he does not have the benefit of D&C 19. Telling someone apostates have their final doom upon them and will endure never ending torment would certainly give them the wrong impression that apostates when they die are bound for never ending torment in hell. Especially when this view is reinforced with the multiple other scriptures that use the same type of language. If God is the one responsible for these words than God has certainly used deceptive easily misunderstood language to give people the wrong idea of what the afterlife consists of. According to D&C 19 he does this because people apparently behave better when they believe hell is eternal and never ending. While God as you point out may have retroactivly "fixed" the false view of hell being eternal. This does not explain those who had the incorrect view for hundreds of years because of the misleading language used to describe hell in the first place. Including presumably the Nephites in King Benjamins audience. Think of all those traditional Christians who still think hell is eternal based on how it is described in the Bible who don't have the benefit of D&C 19.

While I sympathize with your ideas concerning evolution of doctrine I think the only way you can avoid God being deceptive, is by arguing that God was not responsible for the initial misleading language that gave people the false idea that hell is eternal. This is going to be hard to do given God appears to take ownership of such language in D&C 19.

Best,

Uncertain

[Uncertain]

If one can have "eternal life" by knowing the Father (even in mortality, even before they die), it seems to me that the word "eternal" (aionian in Greek) might have more to do with quality than duration (as commentators like William Barclay, and translators like Bishop Westcott of England, suggest),and what Joseph reported God to have said in D&C 19 (about "eternal punishment" being roughly equivalent to "Divine retribution", because Eternal is His name) may be literally true.

As to God being deceptive by using language that people might misunderstand, maybe it would be more misleading to say that hell was temporary (if people took that to mean they could get away with something by continuing in sin.)

Personally I think the best way to avoid misunderstanding is by spelling it out explicilty as God does in the D&C. And avoid the whole issue all together.

Best,

Uncertain

[changed]

I don't expect apostates to return but I don't count less actives among that group

I agree. Someone who joins the church and then leaves is not necessarily doomed to outer darkness, as they probably did not receive a full testimony of the church while in it. My understanding is that outer darkness is for those who have had spiritual experiences that allow them to know without a doubt the reality of Heavenly Father, of the atonement, etc. etc. and then - with that absolute knowledge - to reject it. Very few have this knowledge...

[Maidservant]

Thanks again Maidservant.

You're welcome. It's good to ask these questions. I should tell you what *I* struggle with. Sigh.

[Maidservant]

hell is eternal based on how it is described in the Bible

This is what I don't get.

The Old Testament is more or less silent upon eternity.

The New Testament talks quite a bit about being damned, but that is what I don't get. What does "damned" have to do with either hell or a chronological eternity? I think that is a major theological add-in that the text doesn't say. But not an expert . . . just an observation.

[Cobalt-70]

While I sympathize with your ideas concerning evolution of doctrine I think the only way you can avoid God being deceptive, is by arguing that God was not responsible for the initial misleading language that gave people the false idea that hell is eternal. This is going to be hard to do given God appears to take ownership of such language in D&C 19.

Well, there is a way, and that is to argue that God is not directly responsible for either the original "forever doomed" language or for D&C 19. God himself never took up a pen and wrote anything, including the bible or D&C 19, nor did he dictate anything to anybody word-for-word.

Unlike Islam, we believe that prophets are not spoon-fed, but inspired. Their words are their own words, to which God gives his stamp of approval. You might imagine that God gives his stamp of approval to the best offer available at the time. So you could say that God was reasonably okay with the "forever doomed" terminology of the Book of Mormon and bible, and he allowed it to stand, despite its hyperbolic nature, because it motivated people to do good. Then he was also reasonably okay with Joseph Smith's explanation in D&C 19, although that explanation was itself maybe an exaggeration.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[inquiringmind]

Well, there is a way, and that is to argue that God is not directly responsible for either the original "forever doomed" language or for D&C 19. God himself never took up a pen and wrote anything, including the bible or D&C 19, nor did he dictate anything to anybody word-for-word.

Unlike Islam, we believe that prophets are not spoon-fed, but inspired. Their words are their own words, to which God gives his stamp of approval. You might imagine that God gives his stamp of approval to the best offer available at the time. So you could say that God was reasonably okay with the "forever doomed" terminology of the Book of Mormon and bible, and he allowed it to stand, despite its hyperbolic nature, because it motivated people to do good. Then he was also reasonably okay with Joseph Smith's explanation in D&C 19, although that explanation was itself maybe an exaggeration.

So a testimony that the Book of Mormon is true means what, exactly?

[inquiringmind]

I thought that the only time that prophets weren't infallible was when they weren't speaking (or writing) as prophets.

I have a hard time understanding what it would mean to have inspired scripture that isn't inerrant (or infallible), and that's why I asked the above question.

What does a testimony that the Book of Mormon "is true" mean?

Edited April 21, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Log]

What does a testimony that the Book of Mormon "is true" mean?

It depends on how the Lord chooses to express that testimony to you, and the meaning the Lord's words to you would be up to you to determine. My answer to this question is most definitely not Cobalt-70's answer, for example.

[inquiringmind]

It depends on how the Lord chooses to express that testimony to you, and the meaning the Lord's words to you would be up to you to determine.

Wouldn't it be unusual for the testimony to come in the form of audible words?

Edited April 21, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Log]

Wouldn't it be unusual for the testimony to come in the form of audible words?

Not necessarily. Naturally, I don't have the statistics regarding the cumulative totals of each of the ways the Lord has, in the past, chosen to communicate with his sons and daughters, so I can't really say if it's unusual in the sense of "rare."

[Libs]

I agree. Someone who joins the church and then leaves is not necessarily doomed to outer darkness, as they probably did not receive a full testimony of the church while in it. My understanding is that outer darkness is for those who have had spiritual experiences that allow them to know without a doubt the reality of Heavenly Father, of the atonement, etc. etc. and then - with that absolute knowledge - to reject it. Very few have this knowledge...

I have heard this before, but I always wondered why, someone who knew without a doubt, that the church was true, would apostatize?

[LDSToronto]

I have heard this before, but I always wondered why, someone who knew without a doubt, that the church was true, would apostatize?

What does it really mean when one claims to know the church is true without a doubt?

H.

[wenglund]

And perhaps I've been lied to?

That would be the presumption of a narrow, unreasonable feigned inquiring mind.

I've been told by people who said they were inspired that it's impossible to become a son of perdition unless you've been baptized and confirmed by someone with priesthood authority, and even then, I've been told "you almost have to see God."

King Benjamin seems to say that a whole generation (all except the youngest children) were accountable enough (because of what they had "been taught, and known") to earn themselves a final doom of never ending torment if they go against what they've been taught, and die without repenting (without a word about baptism, confirmation, or seeing God.)

This seems to me to directly contradict everything I've been personally taught, and what I've read in D&C, and at the moment I don't see how your Church can be true.

I think you are viewing all of this through a fundamentalist lens, and selectively interpreting it in an overly absolutist sense, whereas a humble examination of these thing in the context of the whole gospel would sugget a more flexible interpretation.

You are also , as Pahoran pointed out, misusing the passage in question as a means of usurping Christ's role a mediator and judge of others, whereas it was intended to be used for our own personal benefit.

I think what is realy going on here, and I hope I am wrong, is you think you have found a "gotcha" that may help justify your wavering or loss of faith. If so, and if it is vital to you to ignoring all the reasonable explanations to the contrary and hold tenatiously to your current position, then that is okay for you. Let's just not pretent that you raised the issue because you genuinely wanted to learn and humbly inquire.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Libs]

What does it really mean when one claims to know the church is true without a doubt?

H.

I'm thinking of someone like Joseph Smith, who had a vision (many visions, actually)...something to that degree that would absolutely seal your testimony. Why would someone with that kind of witness ever apostatize? If that is the requirement for outer darkness, seems like there wouldn't be many or anyone there.

OTOH, it is said that one third of heaven defected against Heavenly Father's plan, and they were standing in his presence. Difficult to conceive, actually. (I think I am a bit of a skeptic, in certain areas).

[inquiringmind]

I think you are viewing all of this through a fundamentalist lens

I've never been a fundamentalist, and I don't think fundamentalists would have any problem believing in the kind of hell king Benjamin seems to be discribing in Mosiah 2:32-39.

...and selectively interpreting it in an overly absolutist sense, whereas a humble examination of these thing in the context of the whole gospel would sugget a more flexible interpretation.

If you thought I was selectively interpreting terms in an overly absolutist sense, and you saw a more flexible way of interpreting them, why not elaborate (the way Maidservant did in post # 89)?

The truth is that I found Pahoran's post evasive, and your reply totally unhelpful.

I think what is realy going on here, and I hope I am wrong, is you think you have found a "gotcha" that may help justify your wavering or loss of faith. If so, and if it is vital to you to ignoring all the reasonable explanations to the contrary and hold tenatiously to your current position, then that is okay for you.

My "current position"?

You mean after I thanked Maidservant for her post (in which she at least tried to be helpful)?

If you missed it, here it is.

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!

Unlike you and Pahoran, she actually discussed different ways of looking at the terms I was having trouble understanding, for which I thanked her twice.

Thanks again Maidservant.

You're welcome. It's good to ask these questions. I should tell you what *I* struggle with. Sigh.

Did you miss that too, when you decided to drop in and attack me for being so "unreasonable," and "tenaciously" holding to my "current position"?

then that is okay for you

Don't you really mean it's okay with you if I go to hell??

You are also , as Pahoran pointed out, misusing the passage in question as a means of usurping Christ's role a mediator and judge of others, whereas it was intended to be used for our own personal benefit.

Then why did you find it necessary to judge me (and my motives) here?

And do you really hope you're wrong?

Edited April 21, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Duncan]

I'm thinking of someone like Joseph Smith, who had a vision (many visions, actually)...something to that degree that would absolutely seal your testimony. Why would someone with that kind of witness ever apostatize? If that is the requirement for outer darkness, seems like there wouldn't be many or anyone there.

OTOH, it is said that one third of heaven defected against Heavenly Father's plan, and they were standing in his presence. Difficult to conceive, actually. (I think I am a bit of a skeptic, in certain areas).

I can concieve of how someone who sees open visions could leave. When you have that type of experience and then sometime afterwards you sin or think you do something bad you could magnify your guilt to the point that you think you are cast off forever and there is no return. Just with the Three witnesses two came back so I am guessing over time the guilt or pain or those feelings dissipate and you feel good again. With people like Joseh and say John Murdock and others who also have seen visions you just ask for forgiveness and ask for the atonement to be applied to in your life and you move on. In saying this I don't know if that is what happened to these individuals

Edited April 21, 2012 by Duncan

[Libs]

I can concieve of how someone who sees open visions could leave. When you have that type of experience and then sometime afterwards you sin or think you do something bad you could magnify your guilt to the point that you think you are cast off forever and there is no return. Just with the Three witnesses two came back so I am guessing over time the guilt or pain or those feelings dissipate and you feel good again. With people like Joseh and say John Murdock and others who also have seen visions you just ask for forgiveness and ask for the atonement to be applied to in your life and you move on. In saying this I don't know if that is what happened to these individuals

You might believe you are cast off, but that wouldn't be a reason to deny something, of which you have absolute proof. Do you see what I mean? Being a son of perdition means denying something, knowing you are denying the truth. At least, that has been my understanding. Seems there is a difference between thinking that God has cast you out...and walking away on your own, denying something you know is true.

I donno, maybe, I'm just not understanding. That's always a possibility!

[Log]

Being a son of perdition means denying something, knowing you are denying the truth.

It is knowingly choosing spiritual death - choosing to cast out the Holy Spirit after having received it. When someone makes that choice, temporal suicide may not be long after.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Log

[Libs]

It is knowingly choosing spiritual death - choosing to cast out the Holy Spirit after having received it. When someone makes that choice, temporal suicide may not be long after.

So, if you leave the church and then kill yourself over it, you are probably a son of perdition? If not, you just never received a real testimony?

[Log]

You cannot become a son of Perdition without first having been baptized by fire and the Holy Ghost. That's the minimal requirement.

As for the first part of your question, everyone's different.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Log

[inquiringmind]

Didn't Joseph say that sop's are bloodthirsty, and want to destroy the Church?

Why would they just kill themselves?