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

[inquiringmind]

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.

Thank you calmoriah.

I was actually thinking of asking you if the Doctrine and Covenants would be infallible, and it's almost like you read my mind here.

Thank you very much.

Edited April 23, 2012 by inquiringmind

[Calm]

No problem, I hope it was clear enough. I know when one has certain assumptions because of one's background it can be very hard sometimes to recognize what those assumptions are so one can remove them if necessary. And everyone has assumptions so we are giving you answers with our own assumptions hidden within them, sometimes hidden too deeply to uncover with ease.

I see your not quite repetition of questions (asking similar, but not identical ones) as an attempt to look at the topic at a slightly different angle which may help in uncovering what assumptions you and LDS have so that hopefully we can prevent talking past each other....eventually at least. I don't see your persistence as a rejection of others' answers, but rather the answers given don't quite fit your puzzle even if they fit in ours and you are simply rotating the puzzle a bit and trying again to see if you can get them to fit in a slightly different slot. There is a significant difference between not understanding and rejection, but sometimes it is hard to see. Hopefully patience on all sides will be rewarded.

[Robert F. Smith]

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

Bear in mind also that Martin and Oliver never denied their testimonies.

[Robert F. Smith]

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?

There is no reason for this mental torment which you imagine. These very good places are kingdoms of glory and joy ruled over by the Holy Spirit. Why would anyone regret existing where he belongs and knows it?

[Robert F. Smith]

Thank you.

But I'd still like clarification on two points.

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?

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?

All words of Scripture are written or communicated by humans based on the inspiration of God or his Holy Spirit. Humans are by nature fallible. Thus all such communication will be imperfect. This does not entail only translation errors or scribal errors, but even the ability of a human to communicate perfectly with other humans. The mere definitions of words call for a wide range of differences of opinion, and the use of reason to interpret those words is so divergent that an ever widening array of denominations is built upon it. That is why sola scriptura is a foundation of sand, and why it may best be interpreted via the Holy Spirit. For only the gods communicate perfectly.

Mosiah says of himself that he is not "more than a mortal man," but that "I am like as yourselves, subject to all manner of infirmities in body and mind" (Mosiah 2:10-11). Indeed, the Book of Mormon title page tells us that "if there are faults, they are the mistakes of men." Doesn't sound like a claim of inerrancy or infallibility.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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.

The gaol is to compfort, not rub salt into the wound. Also it is to give hope and not pass judgement,.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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

H.

Faith and a firm testimony.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

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

I was speaking to both...once again people reject the truth even when they "know" it to be true! Then after a time the lose that firm belief in the truth and are turned over to a reprobate mind... I work in a world with absolute truths, but sometimes I think I know better and that belief can kill me. I work with electricity which can be very unforgiving if I ignore the truths of physics that govern it. I have had friends who have rejected the lessons they learned and who have died. But enough about what I said or what you perceived that I said. But those who truly did not understand the truth, of course they can repent.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Storm Rider]

The gaol is to compfort, not rub salt into the wound. Also it is to give hope and not pass judgement,.

It would be an interesting funeral indeed if we stood up there and opined about how we wished this good man had done a better job of accepting Jesus Christ's invitation to discipleship, but he failed and he will be going to hell. Could someone pass the potato salad please.

I am not sure if I have ever been to a funeral where there was an assurance of a specific reward was taught or discussed. When I finally leave this world I hope everyone is left praying for me to obtain as much mercy from our Father as is possible. I will need it; an infinite degree of mercy. Is that not the real meaning of being washed in the blood of the lamb? To have mercy unending.

[Cobalt-70]

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

Saying the Book of Mormon is "true" is a shorthand way of saying that it is the word of God. It's the same sense that we say that the bible is true--it doesn't mean that every sentence, even under the best possible translation, has a single meaning that is literally true for all times, all circumstances, all perspectives, and for all people. No text could possibly claim that, because text is inherently multivocal. Rather, it just means that it was inspired by God.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Cobalt-70]

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

Whoever says they have no doubt is deceiving themselves. Doubt is a state of mind. Whenever someone says there is no doubt in their mind, they are admitting that they know what doubt would look like if they perceived it. If doubt were not lurking there in their mind, they would not be able to make a comparison with the mental state of certainty. There must be an "opposition in all things." 2 Nephi 2:11. Without doubt, there can be no certainty.

[Log]

Whoever says they have no doubt is deceiving themselves. Doubt is a state of mind. Whenever someone says there is no doubt in their mind, they are admitting that they know what doubt would look like if they perceived it. If doubt were not lurking there in their mind, they would not be able to make a comparison with the mental state of certainty. There must be an "opposition in all things." 2 Nephi 2:11. Without doubt, there can be no certainty.

"If one has ever experienced doubt in the past, one can never have certainty from thenceforth and forever."

That is a fascinating position to take. It seems self-evidently wrong, but perhaps I'm misreading you.

[Cobalt-70]

"If one has ever experienced doubt in the past, one can never have certainty from thenceforth and forever."

That is a fascinating position to take. It seems self-evidently wrong, but perhaps I'm misreading you.

No. It means that if you are capable of experiencing the state of mind we refer to as "certainty," then the state of mind we refer to as "doubt" is a necessary part of forming that state of certainty, if only in the negation. In other words, certainty is the erasure of doubt. But nothing can be erased that wasn't written there in the first place. Plus, short of brain damage, nothing ever gets truly erased in the human mind.

Edited April 23, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[Log]

No. It means that if you are capable of experiencing the state of mind we refer to as "certainty," then the state of mind we refer to as "doubt" is a necessary part of forming that state of certainty, if only in the negation. In other words, certainty is the erasure of doubt. But nothing can be erased that wasn't written there in the first place. Plus, short of brain damage, nothing ever gets truly erased in the human mind.

I'm not seeing how that differs in any significant way from my distillation of your position in the previous post.