Questions Asked By Evangelicals

[Ahab]

This also seems very problematic because, if what you say here is correct, that means Alma's own words are uttered in vain to those who actually did ever think that they'll repent later; if someone ever thought they'll sin now and repent later (and those seem to be Alma is directing his words towards) then, by what you said, they'll never repent. So, Alma telling someone to stop doing it is in vain.

 

It was possible for them to change their mind and disposition, though, going from thinking they'll repent later to thinking they'll repent now, which would be then instead of later.    We can repent in a heartbeat, without wiating until later.  His words were an effort to get them to realize they needed to repent now (or what would have been then to them) instread of putting it off until later.

 

You do agree thinking "I'll sin and repent later" AND actually sinning is not an unpardonable offense, right?

Yes, if I understand what you mean.  We're not saved in our sins, though.  We're saved from our sins and then only if we have repented from them.  We're not forgiven for our sins if we're still actually sinning.

 

All I was saying in what you quoted is that we can sin and think we'll repent later, and actually repenting later, and actually be forgiven for that sin and for thinking we'll repent later.

Okay.  I think I understand what you meant now.  My point is that we need to have a "now" moment for when we repent from our sins, because just thinking we'll repent later is not enough to actually do it.

[Alvino]

It was possible for them to change their mind and disposition, though, going from thinking they'll repent later to thinking they'll repent now, which would be then instead of later.    We can repent in a heartbeat, without wiating until later.  His words were an effort to get them to realize they needed to repent now (or what would have been then to them) instread of putting it off until later.

 

 

I agree but I wasn't addressing what Alma said (and you commented on here), I was addressing what you said which was that, "He's saying you won't repent later if you don't repent now because later you'll just continue to think you can repent later.  You'll still be thinking the same way you think now by thinking then that you'll repent later.  You may still think you could, later, but later you still actually wouldn't be repenting then, just as you are not repenting right now while you just think that you can just repent later."

 

We seem to agree that saying you repent now right after you sin or never is incorrect. You can actually sin and think you'll repent later and, if you actually do repent later, you'll be forgiven for both the sin and thinking you were going to repent later. That was what I was saying in what you responded to.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Which begs the question: Can someone who died 'filthy' repent and accept the ordinances performed on their behalf after they die?

It would seem only if they didn't know any better and would have accpeted the gospel had they had a chance in this life.

Edited August 23, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Ahab]

I agree but I wasn't addressing what Alma said (and you commented on here), I was addressing what you said which was that, "He's saying you won't repent later if you don't repent now because later you'll just continue to think you can repent later.  You'll still be thinking the same way you think now by thinking then that you'll repent later.  You may still think you could, later, but later you still actually wouldn't be repenting then, just as you are not repenting right now while you just think that you can just repent later."

 

We seem to agree that saying you repent now right after you sin or never is incorrect. You can actually sin and think you'll repent later and, if you actually do repent later, you'll be forgiven for both the sin and thinking you were going to repent later. That was what I was saying in what you responded to.

Try thinking about it this way, to see what I mean:  We don't ever repent later, because when we do it that is a "now" moment.

 

Do you know what I mean?  I think I know what you mean, now.

[LordUther]

That doesn't make much sense to me. If they are non-believers, how come they can be thinking "I'll do whatever I want and then I'll repent later when I die"?

 

Really? I met lots of people on my mission who said something along the lines of "I don't believe what you believe, I'll find out the truth once I'm dead...God is supposed to be all loving he'll understand" or a variation thereof.

 

 

 

 

Plus, verse 33 points to a crisis, when you are dead, and 34 follows it saying that at that point you can't say you will repent. 

 

Yes that crises is the "night of darkness wherein there can be no labour be performed" ie dead and unable work out your repentance because as vs 35 says

 

 

35 For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become ^asubjected to the spirit of the devil, and he doth ^bseal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked.

 

 

 

 

Both verses point to the time of that crisis and saying you'll repent there, not when you are here on Earth and such crisis hasn't come. It's rather clear that today you can indeed sin and think you'll repent later and, if you actually do repent later, be cleansed of that sin (bar specific 'mortal' sins).

 

 

No actually vs 34 clearly says "Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful ^acrisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this;" You can't get much clearer than that. 

 

But yes you can always sin now & repent later, as long as it's before you die, which is ok as long as you know when deaths axe will strike... Maybe then we should heed vs 33 when it says "I beseech of you that ye do not^bprocrastinate the day of your ^crepentance until the end"

[Lightbearer]

Actually both Alma and President's Smith's scriptures can be harmonized when understood in light of the following revelation:

 

"Thus came the voice of the Lord unto me, saying: All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God; Also all that shall die henceforth without a knowledge of it, who would have received it with all their hearts, shall be heirs of that kingdom; For I, the Lord, will judge all men according to their works, according to the desire of their hearts." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 137:7-9)

 

So there is no "blanket salvation" for someone by virtue of the Temple ordinances being performed for them alone. They are only valid or of use if faith and repentance are present just as in the ordinances for the living. The result of "second chance salvation" is quite clear here:

 "Behold, these are they who died without law; And also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh; Who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it. These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men. These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness. These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father. Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun. These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 76:72-79)

 

So there is no shortcut to the Celestial Kingdom, no free ride to exaltation. That is the reason there are various degrees of glory.

[Alvino]

Really? I met lots of people on my mission who said something along the lines of "I don't believe what you believe, I'll find out the truth once I'm dead...God is supposed to be all loving he'll understand" or a variation thereof.

 

 

But the point is they don't believe that they'll repent later when they say they'll repent later. Thus, nonbelievers. If someone truly believed they will repent later then they are not nonbelievers.

 

 

No actually vs 34 clearly says "Ye cannot say, when ye are brought to that awful ^acrisis, that I will repent, that I will return to my God. Nay, ye cannot say this;" You can't get much clearer than that. 

 

 

I was talking about later in life, not after death.

 

But yes you can always sin now & repent later, as long as it's before you die, which is ok as long as you know when deaths axe will strike... Maybe then we should heed vs 33 when it says "I beseech of you that ye do not^bprocrastinate the day of your ^crepentance until the end"

 

As I mentioned before, this seems to me (and to the person mentioned in the OP) in tension with the doctrine that people get to accept the Gospel after life. If someone baptizes for me after I'm dead, I still have to repent of the sins I committed when alive. Otherwise people in the afterlife automatically become Mormons after doing the ordinances for them without having ever passed through repentance of any kind, which is a really weird thing to believe as a Mormon.

Edited August 24, 2013 by Alvino

[LordUther]

But the point is they don't believe that they'll repent later when they say they'll repent later. Thus, nonbelievers. If someone truly believed they will repent later then they are not nonbelievers.

 

 

They don't believe the gospel that is being taught by Alma & Amulek, they are non believers.

 

 

I was talking about later in life, not after death.   

 

 

What you said was "Both verses point to the time of that crisis and saying you'll repent there, not when you are here on Earth and such crisis hasn't come." which I was responding to which clearly makes it sound like you're saying that you're talking about repentance after death. 

 

 

As I mentioned before, this seems to me (and to the person mentioned in the OP) in tension with the doctrine that people get to accept the Gospel after life. If someone baptizes for me after I'm dead, I still have to repent of the sins I committed when alive. Otherwise people in the afterlife automatically become Mormons after doing the ordinances for them without having ever passed through repentance of any kind, which is a really weird thing to believe as a Mormon. 

 

 

Yes and has been clearly stated several times Alma is referring to people who have heard the gospel in this life and rejected it because they would rather continue in their life of sin. These people will not be able to repent post mortality because that part of their nature which procrastinates their repentance now will also procrastinate their repentance post-mortality. Temple work is performed to give those people who had NO OPPORTUNITY to hear the gospel in this life and would've accepted it if they had. Two different groups of people with completely different circumstances, the later will have the opportunity to repent the former had it and wasted it.

Edited August 24, 2013 by LordUther

[kassie]

Wow! Interesting takes on Alma! One thing I think is important for non-LDS to understand is that we do not believe that just because temple ordinances are performed for the dead that that automatically ensures their salvation/exaltation. They STILL have to repent and accept the Gospel beyond the veil. They must accept the temple ordinances as just that, a vicarious way for them to receive their exaltation, but they must participate and accept it. No one is going to force them to accept what is being done on their behalf on Earth. At least so I have been led to believe...... 

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The BoM shows the loving Christ, shown in the four Gospels in greater color and depth, 2 Nephi 9 & 10 paint a picture of Christ and his atonement than any other source under heaven.

[kassie]

I have another question. (Of course). What do you believe happens to those people who DO have the opportunity to accept the Gospel in this life but for whatever reason they choose not to do so. Is there a "second chance" for them?

[David T]

I have another question. (Of course). What do you believe happens to those people who DO have the opportunity to accept the Gospel in this life but for whatever reason they choose not to do so. Is there a "second chance" for them?

I believe the doors will always be open for a prodigal child, and we are not to be the judges, especially of what constitutes an authentic opportunity for someone. Especially since the FP have at times authorized the vicarious re-baptism of individuals excommunicated during their lives.

[CV75]

I have another question. (Of course). What do you believe happens to those people who DO have the opportunity to accept the Gospel in this life but for whatever reason they choose not to do so. Is there a "second chance" for them?

I believe so, right up to the resurrection. I understand this is colloquially called a "second chance" but I see it as part of God's open arms throughout the ups and downs of a very generous probation.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I have another question. (Of course). What do you believe happens to those people who DO have the opportunity to accept the Gospel in this life but for whatever reason they choose not to do so. Is there a "second chance" for them?

D&C. 137, I believe, very short and sweet. Everyone will have "a" chance. We will be living in the presence of the Father or not with people of all faiths upon the earth. Edited August 25, 2013 by Bill “Papa” Lee

[Calm]

If God's hand is ever reached out to us and never withdrawn, then there is no "second chance", it is always the same chance.

[Alvino]

@LordUther

Look at these two statements you made:

 

 

They don't believe the gospel that is being taught by Alma & Amulek, they are non believers.

 and

 

Yes and has been clearly stated several times Alma is referring to people who have heard the gospel in this life and rejected it because they would rather continue in their life of sin.

 

 

 

Putting them both together, is it more clear to see how those two are in conflict? If you are a nonbeliever of what Alma and Amulek are teaching, then you aren't rejecting the Gospel because you believe you'll repent later. That's why your proposal seems wrong-headed to me. If I'm a nonbeliever and a Christian tells me I need to accept his God of love, and I actually believe I'll accept Him when I die, then I'm not a nonbeliever with respect to Christianity in this case.

 

What you said was "Both verses point to the time of that crisis and saying you'll repent there, not when you are here on Earth and such crisis hasn't come." which I was responding to which clearly makes it sound like you're saying that you're talking about repentance after death.

 

 

Right, and I also said in that part you responded to that, "It's rather clear that today you can indeed sin and think you'll repent later and, if you actually do repent later, be cleansed of that sin (bar specific 'mortal' sins)." ("today" meaning while you are alive) Anyways, the point of disagreement is in whether you can repent after death and whether your interpretation is right.

 

These people will not be able to repent post mortality because that part of their nature which procrastinates their repentance now will also procrastinate their repentance post-mortality. Temple work is performed to give those people who had NO OPPORTUNITY to hear the gospel in this life and would've accepted it if they had. Two different groups of people with completely different circumstances, the later will have the opportunity to repent the former had it and wasted it.

 

 

 

You seem to agree, then, that you can indeed repent in the next life if you hadn't heard of the Gospel in this life, correct? 

 

Also, what you are saying here has some serious implications I think would make it too tough a bullet to bite. For example, all the people in the world today who have heard of Mormonism would be condemned to never be forgiven because they heard the Gospel but didn't accept it. Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, maybe Gandhi and all the great people you or I have met yet didn't find Mormonism convincing. Maybe you should think of a better way to reformulate the idea of not forgiving people in the afterlife even if they heard the Gospel to something that allows so many people a chance of salvation (in the Mormon sense).

[Alvino]

If God's hand is ever reached out to us and never withdrawn, then there is no "second chance", it is always the same chance.

 

Nice.

 

+1

[LordUther]

@LordUther

Look at these two statements you made:

 

 

 and

 

 

 

Putting them both together, is it more clear to see how those two are in conflict? If you are a nonbeliever of what Alma and Amulek are teaching, then you aren't rejecting the Gospel because you believe you'll repent later. That's why your proposal seems wrong-headed to me. If I'm a nonbeliever and a Christian tells me I need to accept his God of love, and I actually believe I'll accept Him when I die, then I'm not a nonbeliever with respect to Christianity in this case.

 

Not necessarily, as I've explained before. I have met many people who say "I don't believe, if I'm wrong I will find out when I'm dead & deal with it then", as I've said before. I will not deal with this point again just because you don't get it.

 

 

Right, and I also said in that part you responded to that, "It's rather clear that today you can indeed sin and think you'll repent later and, if you actually do repent later, be cleansed of that sin (bar specific 'mortal' sins)." ("today" meaning while you are alive) Anyways, the point of disagreement is in whether you can repent after death and whether your interpretation is right.

 

 

 

You seem to agree, then, that you can indeed repent in the next life if you hadn't heard of the Gospel in this life, correct? 

 

Also, what you are saying here has some serious implications I think would make it too tough a bullet to bite. For example, all the people in the world today who have heard of Mormonism would be condemned to never be forgiven because they heard the Gospel but didn't accept it. Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa, maybe Gandhi and all the great people you or I have met yet didn't find Mormonism convincing. Maybe you should think of a better way to reformulate the idea of not forgiving people in the afterlife even if they heard the Gospel to something that allows so many people a chance of salvation (in the Mormon sense).

 

I don't have to formulate anything, it's not my principle it's Gods. If you don't like it that's your problem not mine. Also you seem to be consistently missing the point where I say they won't be forgiven because they will continue to procrastinate the day of their repentance, nowhere have I said it's because God isn't willing to forgive them. I have said this in several posts now.

Edited August 25, 2013 by LordUther

[Alvino]

Not necessarily, as I've explained before. I have met many people who say "I don't believe, if I'm wrong I will find out when I'm dead & deal with it then", as I've said before. I will not deal with this point again just because you don't get it.

 

 

Easy, brother. My point is that, while a nonbeliever may say he will repent in the afterlife, if they believe they actually will, then they are not nonbelievers. For example, I'm a nonbeliever in Mormonism. I can say "God is just under Mormonism so I don't have to worry about, say, having sex before marriage because I see nothing wrong with it". Does that mean I am a believer in God because I said that? No, it just means I think that even if he exists and is just, I don't have to worry.

 

Once again, if you are a nonbeliever it makes no sense to say that you actually believe you will be able to repent in the afterlife since to believe you will actually repent in the afterlife would make you a believer. You aren't addressing this reason; all you are doing is repeating the point my reason was addressing.

 

 

I don't have to formulate anything, it's not my principle it's Gods. If you don't like it that's your problem not mine.

 

 

I get that you think that is God-given. But there are complications that come if you accept that principle. It isn't about liking it, it is about actually thinking whether such interpretation is consistent with other of God's principles.

 

 

Also you seem to be consistently missing the point where I say they won't be forgiven because they will continue to procrastinate the day of the repentance,

 

 

And I got that, as well, but you are not seeing that once we die we are not as free as we are today to repent if you have procrastinated (taking your interpretation here). The verses you quoted don't say you will just happen to choose to not repent in the afterlife if you procrastinated your repentance here, but that you simply can't repent. If we are not bound in such a more severe way in the afterlife than we are now, then, why wouldn't we be able to repent and stop procrastinating just like we can do now? People procrastinate and repent later so, if we have the same ability to repent in the afterlife as we have now, what's the big problem, then? Read the verses again. They seem to suggest that there is a difference in our ability to repent in this life and the next.

 

nowhere have I said it's not because God isn't willing to forgive them.

 

 

And I never said so, either, so why bring this up? The point is that it if you accept the principle that temple ordinances can only ever be cashed in by people who never heard of Mormonism, then you leave a heck lot of remarkably good folks out who knew about Mormonism yet failed to be convinced by it. Do you want to bite that bullet?

 

 

 

 

 

Digressive note which you may forgo addressing if you so want: Saying people who procrastinate the day of their repentance in this life will procrastinate their day in the next doesn't necessarily mean they will continue to procrastinate forever. Indeed, the spirit that supposedly took hold of them in this life wasn't the spirit of "never procrastinating" but of procrastinating "after we die". That means, if it is the same spirit, they will repent in the next life. If the spirit that takes hold of them is the spirit of "never procrastinating" then that's not the same spirit they had here on Earth of "after we die", isn't it?

Edited August 25, 2013 by Alvino

[Storm Rider]

That doesn't work, either.

 

If you die a heathen, you died unrepentant. If someone does the temple work for you, you still have to repent of the sins you committed while being alive and that repentance is something you can do, supposedly. Otherwise people on the other side of mortal life would have no choice but to become holy through Christ just because  someone did temple work on their behalf.

 

These little word exercises can be fun. Alvino, I appreciate your point of view, but it seems to conflict with the Bible. 1 Peter 3:19 states:

 18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

 19 By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;

 20 Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

 

Why would Jesus teach these spirits in prison if they could not repent as you say. As you said, they died heathens.  God teaches them in prison for what end? Maybe Jesus taught them because they could still be saved.  How does a spirit in prison become saved?

[LordUther]

Easy, brother. My point is that, while a nonbeliever may say he will repent in the afterlife, if they believe they actually will, then they are not nonbelievers. For example, I'm a nonbeliever in Mormonism. I can say "God is just under Mormonism so I don't have to worry about, say, having sex before marriage because I see nothing wrong with it". Does that mean I am a believer in God because I said that? No, it just means I think that even if he exists and is just, I don't have to worry.

 

Once again, if you are a nonbeliever it makes no sense to say that you actually believe you will be able to repent in the afterlife since to believe you will actually repent in the afterlife would make you a believer. You aren't addressing this reason; all you are doing is repeating the point my reason was addressing.

 

 

Let me try to break this down so simply that you can understand what I'm saying...

 

"I don't believe," Doesn't necessarily mean they don't believe in any God but could just mean they believe in a different God, or maybe they believe in the same God but don't believe the Gospel as taught by Alma & Amulek

 

"if I'm wrong" This doesn't denote belief, but an acceptance of the possibility that you could be wrong ie "I don't believe in God, but I could be wrong"

 

I will find out when I'm dead & deal with it then", ie "I don't believe there is an afterlife, once your dead your dead. If I'm wrong & I wake up somewhere else I'll deal with it then.

 

 

 

I get that you think that is God-given. But there are complications that come if you accept that principle. It isn't about liking it, it is about actually thinking whether such interpretation is consistent with other of God's principles.

 

 

 

And I got that, as well, but you are not seeing that once we die we are not as free as we are today to repent if you have procrastinated (taking your interpretation here). The verses you quoted don't say you will just happen to choose to not repent in the afterlife if you procrastinated your repentance here, but that you simply can't repent. If we are not bound in such a more severe way in the afterlife than we are now, then, why wouldn't we be able to repent and stop procrastinating just like we can do now? People procrastinate and repent later so, if we have the same ability to repent in the afterlife as we have now, what's the big problem, then? Read the verses again. They seem to suggest that there is a difference in our ability to repent in this life and the next.

 

I dealt with this in post #30 when I quoted vs35 which states "35 For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold, ye have become ^asubjectedto the spirit of the devil, and he doth ^bseal you his; therefore, the Spirit of the Lord hath withdrawn from you, and hath no place in you, and the devil hath all power over you; and this is the final state of the wicked."

 

This time is the time to prepare, if you procrastinate until your death you will stay in that state of procrastination.

 

 

 

And I never said so, either, so why bring this up? The point is that it if you accept the principle that temple ordinances can only ever be cashed in by people who never heard of Mormonism, then you leave a heck lot of remarkably good folks out who knew about Mormonism yet failed to be convinced by it. Do you want to bite that bullet?

 

I make no decisions on who has or hasn't had that opportunity in this life, I will work out my salvation & leave God to worry about theirs.

 

 

Digressive note which you may forgo addressing if you so want: Saying people who procrastinate the day of their repentance in this life will procrastinate their day in the next doesn't necessarily mean they will continue to procrastinate forever. Indeed, the spirit that supposedly took hold of them in this life wasn't the spirit of "never procrastinating" but of procrastinating "after we die". That means, if it is the same spirit, they will repent in the next life. If the spirit that takes hold of them is the spirit of "never procrastinating" then that's not the same spirit they had here on Earth of "after we die", isn't it?

 

I answered that above.

Edited August 25, 2013 by LordUther