Log Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Well.. you have seen bad things.. but I was not talking about children.It really doesn't matter, does it? You cannot repent - that is, return to a state of submission to the will of God - if you have never departed from it in the first place, now, can you?I'm not. I used the scriptural definition. This is getting off track.There are, as I noted, other threads. If you wish to finally illustrate a concrete case where someone who has not sinned yet was able to repent of their non-existent sins, please, feel free to so do.
Log Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) Now you are accusing me falsely. I find that offensive.What, pray tell, am I falsely accusing you of? Using some other definition of "repentance" than "ceasing from sin and turning one's heart towards God," and so forth?Really? When did the scriptures become a dictionary? What does the word mean in Exodus 32:14 -- which, by the way, is a scripture.Which version? This one? "And the Lord said unto Moses, If they will repent of the evil which they have done, I will spare them, and turn away my fierce wrath; but, behold, thou shalt execute judgment upon all that will not repent of this evil this day. Therefore, see thou do this thing that I have commanded thee, or I will execute all that which I had thought to do unto my people."This is getting way way off trackThen let us stick to the subject matter at hand: Mormon says that those who are not under condemnation cannot repent. You say they can. Either you or Mormon is correct. As your position and Mormon's statement are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, exactly one of you is correct. Which is it? Edited June 10, 2012 by Log
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 It really doesn't matter, does it? You cannot repent - that is, return to a state of submission to the will of God - if you have never departed from it in the first place, now, can you?Look who is not using scriptures now. If you want to create a definition for the word Repent, then do so, but at that point we are not talking about the scriptures but rather your --- unsupported -- interpretation of a word in the scriptures.There are, as I noted, other threads.What? I should just leave? If you wish to finally illustrate a concrete case where someone who has not sinned yet was able to repent of their non-existent sins, please, feel free to so do.Sure. But we are now so far off track I think the path is lost. Are we going to get back to discussing the problem?Here is a real world example: A tribe of people in a far distant land have not been much touched by the outside world. They have various customs and rituals and family relations that are very different from ours. They are generally a happy people. But every once in a while, some person will do something offensive to another member of the tribe. Sometimes they feel bad about this. When they do, they will leave the tribe for up to 3 days and return with a gift of apology. The interview I saw had the person saying that they would not treat the other person that way again.To me.. and to a dictionary -- that is repentance. Why are we off arguing dictionary words? Didn't you want to talk about the scripture?
SamIam Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) Joseph Fielding Smith can speculate all he wants, doesn't make it the truth though.? Edited June 10, 2012 by SamIam
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) Boring and deleted Edited June 10, 2012 by CASteinman
Log Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Why are we off arguing dictionary words? Didn't you want to talk about the scripture?"Then let us stick to the subject matter at hand: Mormon says that those who are not under condemnation cannot repent. You say they can. Either you or Mormon is correct. As your position and Mormon's statement are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, exactly one of you is correct. Which is it? "
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) Boring and deleted Edited June 10, 2012 by CASteinman
Log Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 You falsely accused me of not wanting to talk about the scriptures when I have told you 1) I am following YOUR lead and 2) I keep saying "Lets get back on track and talk about the scriptures"."Then let us stick to the subject matter at hand: Mormon says that those who are not under condemnation cannot repent. You say they can. Either you or Mormon is correct. As your position and Mormon's statement are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, exactly one of you is correct. Which is it? "
Log Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 The authorized version used by the LDS Church.Which is where I got the one I quoted. The Prophet Joseph Smith apparently felt that verse was in error in its useage of the word "repent." Was he incorrect?
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 "Then let us stick to the subject matter at hand: Mormon says that those who are not under condemnation cannot repent. You say they can. Either you or Mormon is correct. As your position and Mormon's statement are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, exactly one of you is correct. Which is it? "My position is that Mormon is speaking very narrowly.. and you are not recognizing that at all. Thus you misquote the scripture. But proceed.
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) "Then let us stick to the subject matter at hand: Mormon says that those who are not under condemnation cannot repent. You say they can. Either you or Mormon is correct. As your position and Mormon's statement are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive, exactly one of you is correct. Which is it? "They are both correct. You are going to have to try a different track. I am not going to disagree with Mormon, because I agree with him. But I am not going to agree with you.. because you do NOT agree with him. Edited June 10, 2012 by CASteinman
Log Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) They are both correct.The law of noncontradiction is not optional. A statement and its logical negation cannot be simultaneously true. But a contradiction in your thinking would go far to explain why you object to my argument.Since I am simply quoting him, your attempt to draw a distinction between what I say he says and what he says is interesting, to say the least. Edited June 10, 2012 by Log
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) Boring and deleted Edited June 10, 2012 by CASteinman
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) Boring and deleted. Edited June 10, 2012 by CASteinman
Log Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 The JST is not the authorized version approved by the Church. You should know this.The Church published the version I cite, and it is to be found in the online version of the scriptures, by clicking on the word "and" in Exodus 32:14 and clicking again on the link therein. Was Joseph wrong?
Log Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 But the law of noncontradiction does not apply here. Scriptures are not formal logical structures.The law of noncontradiction always applies. Propositional knowledge follows propositional rules.
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) boring and deleted Edited June 10, 2012 by CASteinman
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 (edited) boring and deleted Edited June 10, 2012 by CASteinman
Log Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 I am not going to disagree with Mormon, because I agree with him.Excellent. You are hereby agreeing that people who are not under condemnation cannot repent. Are people who cannot repent under commandment to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins?
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Are people who cannot repent under commandment to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins?Nope.
Log Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Nope.Excellent again.Do you agree that persons who are accountable before God are under commandment to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins?
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Excellent again.Do you agree that persons who are accountable before God are under commandment to repent and be baptized for the remission of sins?Yep. Even if they have no sin and are not under any condemnation.
Log Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 Yep. Even if they have no sin and are not under any condemnation.You have agreed that those who are not under condemnation cannot repent. Can one who has no sin be under condemnation?
CASteinman Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 You have agreed that those who are not under condemnation cannot repent. Can one who has no sin be under condemnation?No, I never agreed to that.
Log Posted June 10, 2012 Posted June 10, 2012 No, I never agreed to that.Mormon said "[H]e that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent..."You said "I am not going to disagree with Mormon, because I agree with him."I said "You are hereby agreeing that people who are not under condemnation cannot repent."You raised no objection at the time. What is your objection at this time?
Recommended Posts