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

[Duncan]

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!

I see what you mean but I don't see the three witnesses denying their testimony

[inquiringmind]

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

Where does it say that?

[Log]

http://www.lds.org/s...-ne/31?lang=eng (see verse 14; compare D&C 76)

Also pertinent: http://www.lds.org/s...39.6?lang=eng#5

Edited April 21, 2012 by Log

[inquiringmind]

http://www.lds.org/s...-ne/31?lang=eng

Also pertinent: http://www.lds.org/s...39.6?lang=eng#5

Thank you.

What does "place in you" mean?

[Log]

Thank you.

What does "place in you" mean?

It means having had the fullness of the Spirit dwell in you.

2 Ne 31:12 And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do.

And, how is that?

JST John 3:34 … for God giveth [Christ] not the Spirit by measure, for he dwelleth in him, even the fulness.

2 Ne 31:13 Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptism—yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Log

[inquiringmind]

It means having had the fullness of the Spirit dwell in you.

And would you know if you had that?

[Log]

And would you know if you had that?

It is possible to not know what happened to you, but I don't think it is possible to not know something has happened to you.

3 Nephi 9:20 [W]hoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not.

The group of Lamanites referenced here is apparently that described in Helaman 5.

In any event, you cannot unintentionally commit the unpardonable sin.

Edited April 21, 2012 by Log

[inquiringmind]

It is possible to not know what happened to you, but I don't think it is possible to not know something has happened to you.

3 Nephi 9:20 [W]hoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not.

The group of Lamanites referenced here is apparently that described in Helaman 5.

In any event, you cannot unintentionally commit the unpardonable sin.

Wouldn't you have to be baptized in water and confirmed ("by the laying on of hands of him who is ordained and sealed to this power," D&C 76:52) before you were baptized by fire and The Holy Ghost?

Edited April 21, 2012 by inquiringmind

[inquiringmind]

If you learned everything there is to learn about the Church, and die as an investigator (without ever having received a real testimony), will you still have a chance to reach the celestial kingdom (or have you already had your shot)?

Edited April 21, 2012 by inquiringmind

[epiginosko]

If you learned everything there is to learn about the Church, and die as an investigator (without ever having received a real testimony), will you still have a chance to reach the celestial kingdom (or have you already had your shot)?

I would think that this would follow the revelation given to Joseph Smith about his brother Alvin about those who would have otherwise received it. I suppose it would depend on the heart of the investigator at the time of their passing.

[Calm]

If you learned everything there is to learn about the Church, and die as an investigator (without ever having received a real testimony), will you still have a chance to reach the celestial kingdom (or have you already had your shot)?

I don't know, but at the very least it would depend on why you hadn't received a real testimony yet.

For example, I believe there are those due to circumstances beyond their control (their upbringing, physical/emotional disabilities, etc.) that are unable to feel the Spirit clearly. I think the Lord will wait upon them until their spirits are able to receive a witness sufficiently enough to convince them if they are willing and humble.

Edited April 22, 2012 by calmoriah

[Minos]

wengland and inguiringmind will be removed from the thread if the squabbling continues.

[blackstrap]

ever lasting ... ever-lasting.... everlasting = lasting forever ?

never ending ...never-ending ... neverending = lasting forever ?

Sounds a lot like the same thing and if one is refering to the type of God's punishment ,probably the other is also.

"doomed" and "damned" also seem a lot alike.

If I am damned for eternity,am I then damned from eternity and hence cometh my doom?

A man lives to the ripe old age of 90.He experiences trials,war,ill health, depression,betrayal,etc. If he would have died at age 5 he would have been guaranteed celestial staus. If he died at 19 ,he might have been telestial, At 35,terrestrial.At 65,celestial.At 85 terrestrial again. At 90 ,what? Where you go when you die must have much more to do with where you've been than where you are at that instant.

I think,therefore I am..... confused.

[Log]

Wouldn't you have to be baptized in water and confirmed ("by the laying on of hands of him who is ordained and sealed to this power," D&C 76:52) before you were baptized by fire and The Holy Ghost?

Apparently, God can do things in whatever order He wants.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

In suggesting God's "sketchy actions" I think you may be onto something, and there are plenty of other examples, including his misleading Abraham into the blood sacrifice of his son -- waiting until the last moment to stop the obedient patriarch -- or was he testing Abe?? and neglecting to tell him the whole story? I raised this same issue with the inquirer, but he didn't get it.

One fundamental mistake we can make in reading Scripture is to foolishly assume that the giants of Scripture (Mosiah for example) are not actually human and capable of some degree of ignorance (like the rest of us). Another is to assume that each separate sermon is a legal contract drawn up by a lawyer with nothing left out. That is absurd. Even the most exacting contracts don't state more than they must for the purpose at hand, and Mosiah was not a lawyer. Nor was Jesus. Consequently, their sermons leave a great deal out of the discussion. And that is not a communist plot to deceive. Just reality. Scriptural reality must be taken as a whole, not by each small phrase endlessly analyzed in the absence of overall context.

I tried suggesting the dangers of text abuse through prooftexting, above. However, the truth is that even evangelical and Mormon missionaries can encounter each other and engage in a prooftexting Bible bash, which is pointless. I've seen it happen, and thought it was fun, but I was young and stupid in those days, not realizing the full implications.

God may have a very highly developed sense of humor (indeed, I have been a victim of it), but He is not trying to mislead. Sometimes we need milk before meat. Sometimes we need to be brought up short and to be humbled. Often it is a test. These are, after all, the days of our probation.

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

The LDS Church has no doctrine of infallibility. That is a concept applied to the Pope (when speaking ex cathedra on morals and doctrine) within Roman Catholicism, as a result of Vatican I under Pope Pius IX. It is also a commonly held belief of evangelicals of the nature of the Bible, i.e., that the text is infallible and inerrant. The LDS Church has always rejected both of these doctrines of infallibility.

A testimony of someone that the Book of Mormon "is true" could be a result of inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it could be that some of the principles taught in the Book were put into practice (Alma 32) and resulted in the development of faith, and it could be that someone has closely examined the text based on intellectual principles of some kind and concluded that it is an authentic text -- or all or part of those principles.

Edited April 22, 2012 by Robert F. Smith

[Robert F. Smith]

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).

When men like Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery apostatized (but later repented and returned to the Church in humility), they did so due to the usual causes: Arrogance, envy, etc. These are presumably the same reasons motivating Satan and his horde to apostatize despite fully knowing the nature of God.

[blackstrap]

Arrogance,yes. Envy,yes. But also I believe ,a genuine concern with doctrine and practises.( speaking of Martin and Oliver,not Satan)

Edited April 22, 2012 by blackstrap

[Libs]

When men like Martin Harris and Oliver Cowdery apostatized (but later repented and returned to the Church in humility), they did so due to the usual causes: Arrogance, envy, etc. These are presumably the same reasons motivating Satan and his horde to apostatize despite fully knowing the nature of God.

Yes, that makes sense.

[Pahoran]

How do you understand the words "final doom," and "never ending torment"?

Final Doom: ultimate destiny.

Never ending torment: answering the same question over and over, throughout all eternity, for someone who is just going to keep on rejecting the answer and repeating the question.

Alternatively, it may simply mean that we get to spend eternity regretting what might have been had we lived up to our privileges.

Some passages of scripture regard anything less than exaltation to be damnation, because exaltation is what we should be striving for. Others treat anything better than outer darkness as salvation, because we are saved from the worst possible fate. This means that the two lesser kingoms are sometimes described in encouraging terms, because they are very good places, and sometimes in miserable terms, because they are less than what we ought to receive.

Regards,

Pahoran

[inquiringmind]

the two lesser kingoms are sometimes described in encouraging terms, because they are very good places

Very good places where people exist in constant mental torment because they're always regretting what might have been had they lived up to their privileges?

Edited April 22, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Pahoran]

Very good places where people exist in constant mental torment because they're always regretting what might have been had they lived up to their privileges?

I think I'll stick with my first definition of "never ending torment."

I have this hopelessly unrealistic notion of discussions that progress.

Regards,

Pahoran

[inquiringmind]

The LDS Church has no doctrine of infallibility. That is a concept applied to the Pope (when speaking ex cathedra on morals and doctrine) within Roman Catholicism, as a result of Vatican I under Pope Pius IX. It is also a commonly held belief of evangelicals of the nature of the Bible, i.e., that the text is infallible and inerrant. The LDS Church has always rejected both of these doctrines of infallibility.

A testimony of someone that the Book of Mormon "is true" could be a result of inspiration of the Holy Spirit, it could be that some of the principles taught in the Book were put into practice (Alma 32) and resulted in the development of faith, and it could be that someone has closely examined the text based on intellectual principles of some kind and concluded that it is an authentic text -- or all or part of those principles.

Thank you.

But I'd still like clarification on two points.

A testimony of someone that the Book of Mormon "is true" could be a result of inspiration of the Holy Spirit,

If I myself receive such a testimony, how should I understand it?

With my background, I think I'd understand the words (if the inspiration came in words) that "the Book of Mormon is true," to mean that the book is infallible.

Is that how I should understand it?

The LDS Church has always rejected both of these doctrines of infallibility.

But in regards to the Bible, don't you reject it's infallibility only because you believe there have been scribal errors and mistranslations.

Wouldn't the latest revelations (in D&C) be infallible and inerrant?

Edited April 23, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Calm]

With my background, I think I'd understand the words "the Book of Mormon is true" to mean that the book is infallible.

Is that how I should understand it?

No. Even the Book itself states that there are mistakes in it. What is significant is that it identifies those mistakes as the mistakes of man, not God.

Think of men and the Spirit as the difference between using older, less accurate equipment (an old TV perhaps) and using the latest technology to transmit video signals. No matter how clear and precise the latest technology makes the signal, it is being received on a much less precise instrument and thus the picture will be fuzzy. Perfection in the reception vehicle (the man) will not come until the resurrection, until then we have to make do with the limited quality we can currently get though we can work on improving that quality by making what we have available to us as pure of a quality as our abilities allow...while recognizing that purity will never match the purity of the signal in mortality.

The Bible contains mistakes that are due to the understanding of men as well as mistranslations. For example, it incorrectly identifies bats with birds as well as says some animal is a cud chewer when it isn't, IIRC. Our scientific understanding of the World has improved since the time the Bible was written. That the change is reflected in past errors of understanding in ancient writings, no matter how much they are inspired to teach the Will of the Lord in other ways, should not be surprising to us, imo.

Edited April 23, 2012 by calmoriah

[Calm]

The D&C suffers the same problem as the Bible and the Book of Mormon, it is written by imperfect men who don't understand the perfection of God yet and so may misunderstand what the Spirit is telling us just as a listener who is not fluent in Spanish may misinterpret a Spanish speaker even if the latter is practically perfect in his enunciation, grammar, vocabulary, etc. The Spirit does aid us in that for a time our understanding may be increased a hundredfold or more, but that enlightened state is not a perpetual one and it is only an internal state. Once we attempt to describe an internal practically perfect experience...whether it is in telling it to another in speech or writing it down on paper, we have to translate to an external imperfect medium with our less than perfect language with its less than perfect way of framing and communicating experience and knowledge.

And thus the external expression of our spiritual experience will never match the accuracy of our internal spiritual experience which at this point cannot match the perfection of God's Spirit because our spirits are not yet perfect.