Sunslight Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 4 hours ago, bluebell said: These verses are concerning the second coming of Christ, before the millennium and the final judgement. They describe the events when the righteous who have followed Christ will be separated from the wicked who did not at His return. The righteous will stay on the earth for the millenium and the wicked will suffer the consquences of their wickedness. Then, after the wicked have suffered in hell, will come the final judgement. Maybe I should quote the verses before those because this is definitely after the millennium. 21 And the great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall be cast down by devouring fire, according as it is spoken by the mouth of Ezekiel the prophet, who spoke of these things, which have not come to pass but surely must, as I live, for abominations shall not reign. 22 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you that when the thousand years are ended, and men again begin to deny their God, then will I spare the earth but for a little season; 23 And the end shall come, and the heaven and the earth shall be consumed and pass away, and there shall be a new heaven and a new earth. 24 For all old things shall pass away, and all things shall become new, even the heaven and the earth, and all the fulness thereof, both men and beasts, the fowls of the air, and the fishes of the sea; 25 And not one hair, neither mote, shall be lost, for it is the workmanship of mine hand. 26 But, behold, verily I say unto you, before the earth shall pass away, Michael, mine archangel, shall sound his trump, and then shall all the dead awake, for their graves shall be opened, and they shall come forth—yea, even all.
Sunslight Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 7 hours ago, CV75 said: I think he did mean "judgement to hell" in different ways; his (and our) understanding has changed over time as far as I can tell. Did Joseph write scripture or did the Holy Ghost? Does scripture as written take on deeper meaning as the Holy Ghost inspires the reader/prophet? Does the Holy Ghost come up with new scripture? I think it is possible to prove without doubt (for me, anyway) "that damnation means to be stopped in one's progress" and a number of other things, including "judgement to hell." I cite the content of this thread as evidence of that. but is being limited or stopped in some aspect just one of the effects of damnation? If we get the definition wrong it's like we could be switching tracks and going down an entirely different route that doesn't lead to the correct destination. Suppose for a minute that damnation does indeed just mean to be condemned to hell. How would this change our view of the great plan of redemption? For an example look at this verse through this lens 33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God. 34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned. 3 Nephi 11 How would our view change if we understood Christ's doctrine through this lens? Baptism is not only the gateway to salvation, it is the one and only possible way to escape the condemnation of an eternal hell.
Sunslight Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 8 hours ago, Ahab said: I interpret the use of the word "unto" to mean they may someday receive eternal life, rather than thinking that all of those on the right hand will immediately receive it. Which means that even though there will be 3 categories of those who are saved, placed in 1st and 2nd and 3rd place positions, all of those may someday receive eternal life as they progress throughout eternity. We're told that the Celestial will minister to the Terrestrial and the Terrestrial will minister to the Telestial, so there must be some good purpose for all of that ministering. There are other scriptures in the same section with this "unto" that clarifies 43 And thus did I, the Lord God, appoint unto man the days of his probation—that by his natural death he might be raised in immortality unto eternal life, even as many as would believe; 44 And they that believe not unto eternal damnation; for they cannot be redeemed from their spiritual fall, because they repent not; They are either raised in the resurrection unto eternal life or unto eternal damnation. Eternal life is another topic altogether that we don't understand properly. Many of our LDS teach that you substitute "eternal" for the word "God" so that it basically means the type of life God lives or "God's life". Yes, God does live in eternal life but it's not usefull to work it this way. So under that same logic "eternal damnation" would mean the kind of damnation God lives, or rather, the kind of death God dies with. Eternal life deals specifically with our spiritual nature of being alive in the spirit eternally. Verse 44 tells us this because to be redeemed from our spiritual fall (spiritual death) means raised unto "life" and because it will be in an eternal realm and of eternal duration it is thus "eternal life". The opposite of eternal life is obviously "eternal death" according to verse 44 because the eternally damned aren't redeemed from their spiritual death and thus it too is eternal both in its realm and in duration.
Sunslight Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 7 hours ago, pogi said: There are different "degrees". It's not all black and white. Really? Does Christ only partially cleanse those he saves. Or said another way, are there different degrees of filthiness men are saved into from Satan?
Sunslight Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 8 hours ago, Navidad said: Thanks, but I am talking about right here - here and now, those of us who have received baptism by a proper authority in our own church - a place where no LDS priesthood holder may baptize. Not at some point in the future spirit world, a place of untold mysteries about which we cannot be sure. In your view have I never repented? If that is the case, how can I be considered a Christian - today in the here and now? To be validated in eternity repentance means nothing without baptism by proper authority. God is just though and through his mercy allows all to understand and partake of this baptism by proper authority either here or in the spirit world before final judgment.
Sunslight Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 5 hours ago, CV75 said: Please lay out the plan of salvation as you see it, or provide a link to a website or blog that fairly represents your take on how Joseph Smith originally understood it (or how he and/or other prophets misunderstood it along the way). That way, your individual points can be considered within a fuller context. The great plan of redemption is very easily understood. Through Christ we can follow him and be obedient to his every command. If we do this we will be saved from hell eternally. Failure to follow Christ will result in the obvious, we will be damned to hell.
CV75 Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 (edited) 10 hours ago, Sunslight said: If we get the definition wrong it's like we could be switching tracks and going down an entirely different route that doesn't lead to the correct destination. There is not one absolute definition. One definition has a limited, more traditional application, and the BD applies to the fulness of the Gospel as we have it today. 7 hours ago, Sunslight said: The great plan of redemption is very easily understood. Through Christ we can follow him and be obedient to his every command. If we do this we will be saved from hell eternally. Failure to follow Christ will result in the obvious, we will be damned to hell. Thank you. Edited January 18, 2020 by CV75
Navidad Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 (edited) On 1/17/2020 at 5:30 PM, Ahab said: Other Christian churches are basically like social clubs for Christians. You have your own rites and ceremonies and they pertain only to your own churches, just as other churches do their own things, with none of that having anything to do with the true church of Jesus Christ. I've explained this to you already so I don't want to beat it to death but you should understand this by now if you have been paying attention while you have been associating with us. You posted earlier that you don't sin much anymore, at least not intentionally. I thought that was quite an amazing and arrogant statement. I then read the above statement by you. Your former statement was simply arrogance. This one indeed seems sinful to me. It is exactly the kind of statement that I believe in my heart of hearts that makes God cry. Ever since I read this last evening I have been trying to fight the sense that you are representative of the broad LDS community. Then this morning I read a post on another thread where someone deemed you a Lord of the Sith. I had no idea what that meant so I looked it up. I read this: "Over their long history, the Sith have established great empires, come close to realizing their ambitions of galactic conquest, and nearly eradicated the Jedi. Ultimately, however, they are self-defeating, their grand plans undone time and again by internal strife, rebellion inspired by their vicious tactics, and the psychologically noxious effects of their dark arts and philosophy." That doesn't sound like an affirmation. I certainly wouldn't want to be called that. "Psychologically noxious effects" are what I have been experiencing after I read the above post by you. I woke hoping that someone, one at least among the hundreds or thousands of faithful LDS folks on this forum would speak against what you said in the above quote. Utter silence usually means affirmation, especially on this forum where members of the Church seem to thrive on debating with each other on the finest tiniest points of doctrine. I thought about it this morning. I form at least 40% of my perspective on Mormonism and Mormons from this forum. You are bishops, former bishops, stake presidents, professors of the Church, etc. That isn't a majority of my perspective, but it is close. The rest comes from my associations at the ward, MHA, and contacts with other LDS folks like in the Church History Department, other wards and conferences, etc. You are Mormonism to me. I draw little of my beliefs about Mormonism from your Scriptures, because I draw little about my beliefs of non-LDS Christians from the Bible. I come to my conclusions by the lived lives of those who claim the name of Christ, be they Catholic, Baptist, or LDS. Please, don't ever think I haven't been paying attention to what you have said. Like me, you are nothing more than a sinner saved by grace. Edited January 19, 2020 by Navidad I deleted the broad generalizations and the interjection of my wife into this.
Sunslight Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 51 minutes ago, CV75 said: There is not one absolute definition. One definition has a limited, more traditional application, and the BD applies to the fulness of the Gospel as we have it today. Thank you. The BD is the wrong tracks for that definition. We have gone down a different track. The scriptures that are listed do not conform to the definition given.
Rain Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 34 minutes ago, Navidad said: You posted earlier that you don't sin much anymore, at least not intentionally. I thought that was quite an amazing and arrogant statement. I then read the above statement by you. Your former statement was simply arrogance. This one indeed seems sinful to me. It is exactly the kind of statement that I believe in my heart of hearts that makes God cry. Ever since I read this last evening I have been trying to fight the sense that you are representative of the broad LDS community. If so, then I want nothing to do with our ward, this forum, or the world of mormonism, except perhaps for the first time in my adult life, to condemn it. Then this morning I read a post on another thread where someone deemed you a Lord of the Sith. I had no idea what that meant so I looked it up. I read this: "Over their long history, the Sith have established great empires, come close to realizing their ambitions of galactic conquest, and nearly eradicated the Jedi. Ultimately, however, they are self-defeating, their grand plans undone time and again by internal strife, rebellion inspired by their vicious tactics, and the psychologically noxious effects of their dark arts and philosophy." That doesn't sound like an affirmation. I certainly wouldn't want to be called that. "Psychologically noxious effects" are what I have been experiencing after I read the above post by you. I don't want to go to the funeral this morning, have no desire to sing in the choir, regret that I spent a whole evening cleaning last night. I woke hoping that someone, one at least among the hundreds or thousands of faithful LDS folks on this forum would speak against what you said in the above quote. Utter silence usually means affirmation, especially on this forum where members of the Church seem to thrive on debating with each other on the finest tiniest points of doctrine. I thought about it this morning. I form at least 40% of my perspective on Mormonism and Mormons from this forum. You are bishops, former bishops, stake presidents, professors of the Church, etc. That isn't a majority of my perspective, but it is close. The rest comes from my associations at the ward, MHA, and contacts with other LDS folks like in the Church History Department, other wards and conferences, etc. You are Mormonism to me. I draw little of my beliefs about Mormonism from your Scriptures, because I draw little about my beliefs of non-LDS Christians from the Bible. I come to my conclusions by the lived lives of those who claim the name of Christ, be they Catholic, Baptist, or LDS. My wife just came in and asked me what is wrong? How can I explain a Sith Lord to her? I simply read your quote to her. My dear sweet wife looked at me and said, "Get off that forum. I would be infuriated if I read something like that!." This from someone who got up at 5:30 this morning to make a giant salad for the Mormon family of a deceased Mormon friend. Please, don't ever think I haven't been paying attention to what you have said. Like me, you are nothing more than a sinner saved by grace. I am sorry that I was slow in reading. I just finished, but have been planning on responding since I first read his reply about 20 minutes ago. If we read the scriptures we know that finishing the race is not just about knowledge. We know that if we lack charity we have nothing. We also know we should not judge unrighteously. I found what ahab said arrogant. There is really no way to know which of you is ahead in the race. That is up to God. But then I've never understood it to be a race against each other, but maybe more of a race between our natural selves and our striving with God's help selves. There must be a term for the second, but memory is blanking now. Don't react to what ahab said. It matters nothing. The only thing that matters is trying to go where God tells you to go. Don't let the actions of others change how you follow the Lord - His will is all that matters. 2
bluebell Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 12 hours ago, Sunslight said: Maybe I should quote the verses before those because this is definitely after the millennium. 21 And the great and abominable church, which is the whore of all the earth, shall be cast down by devouring fire, according as it is spoken by the mouth of Ezekiel the prophet, who spoke of these things, which have not come to pass but surely must, as I live, for abominations shall not reign. 22 And again, verily, verily, I say unto you that when the thousand years are ended, and men again begin to deny their God, then will I spare the earth but for a little season; 23 And the end shall come, and the heaven and the earth shall be consumed and pass away, and there shall be a new heaven and a new earth. 24 For all old things shall pass away, and all things shall become new, even the heaven and the earth, and all the fulness thereof, both men and beasts, the fowls of the air, and the fishes of the sea; 25 And not one hair, neither mote, shall be lost, for it is the workmanship of mine hand. 26 But, behold, verily I say unto you, before the earth shall pass away, Michael, mine archangel, shall sound his trump, and then shall all the dead awake, for their graves shall be opened, and they shall come forth—yea, even all. Ok, I see what you are saying now. I was somehow looking at the wrong verses. Sorry about that. I looked up this chapter in some of the lesson manuals from the church, to see how they interpret verses 27-28. They teach that the wicked in these verses are those who would not repent. Under Hell on lds.org, it says this about Hell: Quote Latter-day revelations speak of hell in at least two ways. First, it is another name for spirit prison, a temporary place in the postmortal world for those who died without a knowledge of the truth or those who were disobedient in mortality. Second, it is the permanent location of Satan and his followers and the sons of perdition, who are not redeemed by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Spirit prison is a temporary state in which spirits will be taught the gospel and have the opportunity to repent and accept ordinances of salvation that are performed for them in temples (see Doctrine and Covenants 138:30–35). Those who accept the gospel may dwell in paradise until the Resurrection. After they are resurrected and judged, they will receive the degree of glory of which they are worthy. Those who choose not to repent but who are not sons of perdition will remain in spirit prison until the end of the Millennium, when they will be freed from hell and punishment and be resurrected to a telestial glory (see Doctrine and Covenants 76:81–85). 2
Sunslight Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 7 minutes ago, bluebell said: Ok, I see what you are saying now. I was somehow looking at the wrong verses. Sorry about that. I looked up this chapter in some of the lesson manuals from the church, to see how they interpret verses 27-28. They teach that the wicked in these verses are those who would not repent. Under Hell on lds.org, it says this about Hell: So, how is the lesson manuals teaching reconciled to verses 27-28. I would assume that since they are saved they would be classified as righteous. But, if one doesn't repent how can they be righteous? Methinks the lesson manual may be in error?
Calm Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 16 hours ago, Ahab said: Other Christian churches are basically like social clubs for Christians. You have your own rites and ceremonies and they pertain only to your own churches, just as other churches do their own things, with none of that having anything to do with the true church of Jesus... It is rare that I want the option to downvote a post, wish this one had it. 1
Calm Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 (edited) 54 minutes ago, Rain said: Quoting Navidad: woke hoping that someone, one at least among the hundreds or thousands of faithful LDS folks on this forum would speak against what you said in the above quote. Utter silence usually means affirmation, especially on this forum where members of the Church seem to thrive on debating with each other on the finest tiniest points of doctrine. Actually utter silence might also mean having a person on ignore where one can’t see the posts unless someone else quotes them. I have found so many of Ahab’s posts arrogant to the point of distasteful that I put him on ignore because reading his posts puts me in places I don’t want to be. I will even skip over people’s responses to him quite a bit, but those are generally the ones you might see me respond to though if I am really bored or see a disaster in the making, I might view a post anyway. I also know I am not the only poster to do so. Utter silence should never be taken for affirmation here. Often it is lack of interest, either because it is the same old stuff or it is seen as having little value. Or someone may actually use the board’s ability to block out posts if they find a poster annoying or distasteful (usually disgusting posters also manage to break board rules, but not all the time). Ignoring a poster is probably more of a rejection of their attitude, ideas for many than writing up a response. Edited January 18, 2020 by Calm 3
mfbukowski Posted January 18, 2020 Author Posted January 18, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, Navidad said: You posted earlier that you don't sin much anymore, at least not intentionally. I thought that was quite an amazing and arrogant statement. I then read the above statement by you. Your former statement was simply arrogance. This one indeed seems sinful to me. It is exactly the kind of statement that I believe in my heart of hearts that makes God cry. Ever since I read this last evening I have been trying to fight the sense that you are representative of the broad LDS community. If so, then I want nothing to do with our ward, this forum, or the world of mormonism, except perhaps for the first time in my adult life, to condemn it. Then this morning I read a post on another thread where someone deemed you a Lord of the Sith. I had no idea what that meant so I looked it up. I read this: "Over their long history, the Sith have established great empires, come close to realizing their ambitions of galactic conquest, and nearly eradicated the Jedi. Ultimately, however, they are self-defeating, their grand plans undone time and again by internal strife, rebellion inspired by their vicious tactics, and the psychologically noxious effects of their dark arts and philosophy." That doesn't sound like an affirmation. I certainly wouldn't want to be called that. "Psychologically noxious effects" are what I have been experiencing after I read the above post by you. I don't want to go to the funeral this morning, have no desire to sing in the choir, regret that I spent a whole evening cleaning last night. I woke hoping that someone, one at least among the hundreds or thousands of faithful LDS folks on this forum would speak against what you said in the above quote. Utter silence usually means affirmation, especially on this forum where members of the Church seem to thrive on debating with each other on the finest tiniest points of doctrine. I thought about it this morning. I form at least 40% of my perspective on Mormonism and Mormons from this forum. You are bishops, former bishops, stake presidents, professors of the Church, etc. That isn't a majority of my perspective, but it is close. The rest comes from my associations at the ward, MHA, and contacts with other LDS folks like in the Church History Department, other wards and conferences, etc. You are Mormonism to me. I draw little of my beliefs about Mormonism from your Scriptures, because I draw little about my beliefs of non-LDS Christians from the Bible. I come to my conclusions by the lived lives of those who claim the name of Christ, be they Catholic, Baptist, or LDS. My wife just came in and asked me what is wrong? How can I explain a Sith Lord to her? I simply read your quote to her. My dear sweet wife looked at me and said, "Get off that forum. I would be infuriated if I read something like that!." This from someone who got up at 5:30 this morning to make a giant salad for the Mormon family of a deceased Mormon friend. Please, don't ever think I haven't been paying attention to what you have said. Like me, you are nothing more than a sinner saved by grace. I agree he was way out of line in that comment, but that is the tone of most if his posts, so it should be expected If you are going to be on these forums you have to be more thick-skinned. Everywhere we go Mormons find people telling us that we will burn in hell forever. If you actually join the church it will just get worse. So look at it as a positive experience and something else you learned about being a Mormon. We get it all the time. Incidentally Lords of Sith come from the Star Wars series of films, which are important in American culture. They are fictional. Edited January 18, 2020 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted January 18, 2020 Author Posted January 18, 2020 35 minutes ago, Calm said: Actually utter silence might also mean having a person on ignore where one can’t see the posts unless someone else quotes them. I have found so many of Ahab’s posts arrogant to the point of distasteful that I put him on ignore because reading his posts puts me in places I don’t want to be. I will even skip over people’s responses to him quite a bit, but those are generally the ones you might see me respond to though if I am really bored or see a disaster in the making, I might view a post anyway. I also know I am not the only poster to do so. Utter silence should never be taken for affirmation here. Often it is lack of interest, either because it is the same old stuff or it is seen as having little value. Or someone may actually use the board’s ability to block out posts if they find a poster annoying or distasteful (usually disgusting posters also manage to break board rules, but not all the time). Ignoring a poster is probably more of a rejection of their attitude, ideas for many than writing up a response. Often also it takes days for people to respond to something. Expecting something overnight is unrealistic. 1
mfbukowski Posted January 18, 2020 Author Posted January 18, 2020 On the other hand I don't block posters because their responses don't bother me and I want to know what they are saying about me. I kind of seek out people who are going to give me a hard time to see if they had any response to my post. A little online sword fight does not bother me at all.
pogi Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 (edited) 13 hours ago, Sunslight said: Really? Does Christ only partially cleanse those he saves. Or said another way, are there different degrees of filthiness men are saved into from Satan? You haven’t addressed the scripture I posted. Can you deny that unbaptized people will be saved in telestial glory? Can you deny that their glory will differ as one star differs from another in glory? Can you deny that there are different kingdoms of glory? If you can’t deny these things, then how can you suggest that righteousness/wickedness is black and white? Does Christ either cleanse all of our sins or none of our sins at all? Why do you make it either or? Isn’t it true that he cleanses to the degree that we repent of one sin or another? Does Christ cleanse all sins of those saved in the telestial kingdom? Of course not! Otherwise, they would be in celestial glory had they been cleansed to perfection. It is not all or nothing. There most definitely are degrees of righteousness/wickedness. We all sin in different degrees, repent to different degrees, and do righteousness to different degrees. Otherwise there would only be celestial glory or outer darkness - but that is not how it works. Edited January 18, 2020 by pogi
bluebell Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 54 minutes ago, Sunslight said: So, how is the lesson manuals teaching reconciled to verses 27-28. I would assume that since they are saved they would be classified as righteous. But, if one doesn't repent how can they be righteous? Methinks the lesson manual may be in error? It might have something to do with the different types of people who don't repent. I think we can say that there are those who don't repent who receive the telestial kingdom and those who don't repent who receive no kingdom of glory but end up as sons of perdition. Verses 27-28 seems to be referring solely to the sons of perdition. If that's true, then the dichotomy could be between those who receive some glory and those who receive no glory: the righteous and the wicked. Under different circumstances murders and rapists would not be considered righteous, but compared to the sons of perdition (which include the devils and his angels), perhaps they are. 1
mfbukowski Posted January 18, 2020 Author Posted January 18, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Navidad said: I draw little of my beliefs about Mormonism from your Scriptures, because I draw little about my beliefs of non-LDS Christians from the Bible. I ... because you have already read the Bible more than once, I presume. It would be nice if at least you knew our scriptures as well as the Bible. Furthermore you would understand our Doctrine better. Imagine trying to understand Christianity without reading the Bible. ""A communal meeting to take some bread? What use is that? Why do they put those funny x's on their churches?"" Edited January 18, 2020 by mfbukowski
Calm Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: On the other hand I don't block posters because their responses don't bother me and I want to know what they are saying about me. ... I try to avoid ignore as I am here because I want to read others’ POV, but if a poster does not really engage with me or others; if I don’t see a progression of thought, but just repetition over the years; or if I get the impression they are just using the board as their personal pulpit without really caring about what anyone else has to say except as an excuse to allow them to post more, at that point eventually I get bored with them and probably bored with my own negative responses to them. Don’t see it as a useful investment of my mind...those get blocked...but it takes years to get there as I tend to be optimistic in general. 2
mfbukowski Posted January 18, 2020 Author Posted January 18, 2020 23 minutes ago, Calm said: I try to avoid ignore as I am here because I want to read others’ POV, but if a poster does not really engage with me or others; if I don’t see a progression of thought, but just repetition over the years; or if I get the impression they are just using the board as their personal pulpit without really caring about what anyone else has to say except as an excuse to allow them to post more, at that point eventually I get bored with them and probably bored with my own negative responses to them. Don’t see it as a useful investment of my mind...those get blocked...but it takes years to get there as I tend to be optimistic in general. I just skip those people, but don't change their status.
Sunslight Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 51 minutes ago, pogi said: You haven’t addressed the scripture I posted. Can you deny that unbaptized people will be saved in telestial glory? Can you deny that their glory will differ as one star differs from another in glory? Can you deny that there are different kingdoms of glory? If you can’t deny these things, then how can you suggest that righteousness/wickedness is black and white? Does Christ either cleanse all of our sins or none of our sins at all? Why do you make it either or? Isn’t it true that he cleanses to the degree that we repent of one sin or another? Does Christ cleanse all sins of those saved in the telestial kingdom? Of course not! Otherwise, they would be in celestial glory had they been cleansed to perfection. It is not all or nothing. There most definitely are degrees of righteousness/wickedness. We all sin in different degrees, repent to different degrees, and do righteousness to different degrees. Otherwise there would only be celestial glory or outer darkness - but that is not how it works. I think we are getting somewhere now. What do you think it means in section 76 when it says Christ came into the world to cleanse it from all righteousness that through him all might be saved, and that he does save and cleanse all of them and presents them all spotless before the Father?
Sunslight Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 1 hour ago, bluebell said: It might have something to do with the different types of people who don't repent. I think we can say that there are those who don't repent who receive the telestial kingdom and those who don't repent who receive no kingdom of glory but end up as sons of perdition. Verses 27-28 seems to be referring solely to the sons of perdition. If that's true, then the dichotomy could be between those who receive some glory and those who receive no glory: the righteous and the wicked. Under different circumstances murders and rapists would not be considered righteous, but compared to the sons of perdition (which include the devils and his angels), perhaps they are. But all the righteous receive eternal life and all the wicked are sons of perdition according to those verses.
Calm Posted January 18, 2020 Posted January 18, 2020 17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: I just skip those people, but don't change their status. I find it easier not to miss those I want to read by using ignore plus On my iPad the name is off to the side and I don’t often look at the names before reading, so unless the style is obvious within a few words, I may end up reading more than I want.
Recommended Posts