Hell

[Stargazer]

7 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

You mention Perdition.  What happens to those who apostatize despite full light and knowledge?

Those are the ones who are sent to Outer Darkness and are called the Sons of Perdition. The ones who deny Christ after the Holy Ghost has revealed him, thus denying not just Christ, but also the Holy Ghost. Which is the unforgivable sin.

[Islander]

On 2/27/2021 at 2:09 AM, Robert F. Smith said:

That's just the point at which some people chafe -- that logically posits a God who disallows free will, and who simultaneously creates both evil and good.  A beastly god is going to be beloved by very few, and we see the fruits of such illogic in rampant secularism.  It is Hellenistic Judeo-Christian tradition which has brought us to this pretty pass, not the Bible.  The choice is, and should be, stark.

You simply can not support that view from the scriptures; to the contrary. Your view of God is skewed and quite small. The God, Lord of Heaven is a Sovereign God that owes no explanation to sinful, fallen humans; incapable of grasping the infinite depths of His mind. However, He has left in the scripture clear evidence of His will and intent. Our agency exists INSIDE the will of God. The work of salvation is HIS WORK. We are drawn to Him by the Spirit and there is no other way that fallen men, enemies to God from the beginning, can come on to Him EXCEPT His Spirit draws them to Him. The Savior said: "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."  You may not agree with Jesus but you can't claim that statement was a later Hellenistic addition to the Bible.

All the way from the OT it is clear that God in His Sovereign prerogative choses to act and to do for His own purposes, according to the Holy Counsel of His Will.

"For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth. The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye were the fewest of all people: But because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt." Deut 7:6-8

This was God's Sovereign choice of Israel. Just like He chose Abram, a pagan in the land of the Chaldeans to be the patriarc of the nation. There was nothing special about him. 

In Ezekiel 16 the Lord rebukes Israel for the multitude of horedoms and idolatry she has committed. It reminds the nation that He chose  IsraelBut He had chosen Israel and will never forget His covenant and rescue His "bride" after He had afflict her for a season.

In Amos 3:2 the Lord says: "You only have I known of all the families of the earth: therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities." The Lord chose Israel  and had a covenant relationship with the nation Israel

In the NT the concept of the Lord choosing the elect is also clear:

"Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you." John 15:16

"And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." Acts 13:48

"According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will," Ephe 1:4-5

"Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory." 2Tim 2:10

One last one: "And the office of their ministry is to call men unto repentance, and to fulfil and to do the work of the covenants of the Father, which he hath made unto the children of men, to prepare the way among the children of men, by declaring the word of Christ unto the chosen vessels of the Lord, that they may bear testimony of him." Mor 7:31

I could share a dozen more scriptures where the concept of God "choosing" in His own due time and for is own purposes is explicit. It does make a number on our pride, however. We think that we have something to do with our coming to the Gospel. If you were born in the Church you may be totally unfamiliar with the process of conversion and thus hold to the view that it was "your choice". Those of us that were drawn by the Spirit have no illusions about the fact that our salvation was the work of the Holy Ghost and, therefore, the direct work of God. It was His choice, according to scripture, that we may believe and come onto Him.

[Robert F. Smith]

56 minutes ago, Islander said:

You simply can not support that view from the scriptures; to the contrary. Your view of God is skewed and quite small. The God, Lord of Heaven is a Sovereign God that owes no explanation to sinful, fallen humans; . You may not agree with Jesus but you can't claim that statement was a later Hellenistic addition to the Bible.

All the way from the OT it is clear that God in His Sovereign prerogative choses to act and to do for His own purposes, according to the Holy Counsel of His Will.

.........................

I could share a dozen more scriptures where the concept of God "choosing" in His own due time and for is own purposes is explicit. It does make a number on our pride, however. We think that we have something to do with our coming to the Gospel. If you were born in the Church you may be totally unfamiliar with the process of conversion and thus hold to the view that it was "your choice". Those of us that were drawn by the Spirit have no illusions about the fact that our salvation was the work of the Holy Ghost and, therefore, the direct work of God. It was His choice, according to scripture, that we may believe and come onto Him.

As I said before, you are describing a god alien to the Bible and to logic.  It is a perfectly imaginary god, who cannot exist because he would be a contradiction in terms.  Such a god, just like the Norse gods before him, must necessarily disappear -- just like Puff the Magic Dragon.  Devotion to him is merely temporary, and people just naturally abandon him.  LDS theology has nothing to do with such a false god.  He can bring only emptiness.  There is no salvation with such a god.

[Islander]

16 minutes ago, Robert F. Smith said:

As I said before, you are describing a god alien to the Bible and to logic.  It is a perfectly imaginary god, who cannot exist because he would be a contradiction in terms.  Such a god, just like the Norse gods before him, must necessarily disappear -- just like Puff the Magic Dragon.  Devotion to him is merely temporary, and people just naturally abandon him.  LDS theology has nothing to do with such a false god.  He can bring only emptiness.  There is no salvation with such a god.

There is nothing in LDS theology that denies the scriptures that I set before you. Other than your opinion (above), you present nothing that can help support and scripturally articulate your position. 

[Robert F. Smith]

11 hours ago, Islander said:

There is nothing in LDS theology that denies the scriptures that I set before you. Other than your opinion (above), you present nothing that can help support and scripturally articulate your position. 

The god you claim is the standard Judeo-Christian god familiar to most Christians and Jews.  The mainstream churches and synagogues all live by that theology, and they cite Scripture and then wonder why few people come to their churches any more.  The god you describe is unworthy of awe and respect, which is why the mainstream congregations are dissolving.  Joseph Smith listened to Methodist preachers cite those Scriptures, but he didn't realize how wrong they were until he prayed about it and got new, accurate information.  That was called the First Vision.  Those mainstream churches are just not the same as the LDS Church, and there is a reason.  Ever wonder why we can all read the same Bible and yet come up with a very different theology?  It is no accident.  Ever wonder why the mainstream churches are so upset with the LDS Church?  There are some very good reasons, not least of which are the false creeds those other churches accept.  For example, the Nicene Creed, or the Westminster Confession of Faith.  LDS theology does not accept those beliefs.  In fact, LDS theology is so different from those mainstream theologies that it is considered by them to be heretical.

One key provision of LDS theology which you might want to consider is the demand that all Scripture must be interpreted by the same Spirit which gave it.  That is anathema to both Protestant and Catholic interpretation of Scripture.  Do you know why?

Edited March 2, 2021 by Robert F. Smith

[mfbukowski]

On 2/25/2021 at 10:07 AM, AtlanticMike said:

Joseph Campbell said "All the gods, all the heavens, all the hells are within you."

Everything you know is within your brain, if you think about it, where else would it be? 

 

[AtlanticMike]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Everything you know is within your brain, if you think about it, where else would it be? 

 

This doesn't seem like something you would say, but I'll play along😁.  Many things we know are stored in our heart and in our soul. A lot of people who read the BOM dont understand its meaning at first, sometimes for a lifetime, but they know it's TRUE in their heart. If we mere mortals only listened to what was in our brains, we would of died out along time ago.

Edited March 2, 2021 by AtlanticMike

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

This doesn't seem like something you would say, but I'll play along😁.  Many things we know are stored in our heart and in our soul. A lot of people who read the BOM dont understand its meaning at first, sometimes for a lifetime, but they know it's TRUE in their heart. If we mere mortals only listened to what was in our brains, we would of died out along time ago.

Totally agree. I just said "brain" instead of "mind, heart and spirit" because there are atheists here who only understand the physiology of the brain, and don't believe in hearts, minds and spirits. 😉😃

[mfbukowski]

7 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

This doesn't seem like something you would say, but I'll play along😁.  Many things we know are stored in our heart and in our soul. A lot of people who read the BOM dont understand its meaning at first, sometimes for a lifetime, but they know it's TRUE in their heart. If we mere mortals only listened to what was in our brains, we would of died out along time ago.

You know, this is ALL of it- personal revelation is EVERYTHING! ALWAYS keep that in mind when you see / hear things that seem to trick you by the false logic of men, and stick with that testimony!

THAT is the only real TRUTH we have.

 I feel that that is my mission in life to teach that.

 I need to do it better.

[AtlanticMike]

31 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You know, this is ALL of it- personal revelation is EVERYTHING! ALWAYS keep that in mind when you see / hear things that seem to trick you by the false logic of men, and stick with that testimony!

THAT is the only real TRUTH we have.

 I feel that that is my mission in life to teach that.

 I need to do it better.

Well, I'm sure you're doing fine, that's a wonderful mission to have.

[Teancum]

On 2/25/2021 at 5:17 PM, JLHPROF said:

No it doesn't.  That's not any definition of freedom.  Especially when you have the freedom not to follow.

Yes it does.

[Teancum]

On 2/25/2021 at 8:44 PM, Kenngo1969 said:

So, if I follow someone else's advice, that, ipso facto and res ipsa loquitur, means that I'm not free?  If I follow my doctor's medical advice or my attorney's legal advice, that, therefore, means I'm not free?  Simply because my doctor tells me that my continuing to smoke will endanger my health or because my lawyer tells me that failing to follow his or her advice will result in some harmful legal consequence, that means I'm not free?  I'm not free to disregard the advice, or to get a second, a third, or a fourth medical or legal opinion?

My doctor does not tell me what I have to do and who I have to obey, give my $$to, my time to, what I can take into my body, what I do with my sexual life and on and on in order to get the highest reward God has.  If you can't see the difference I can't help you. Stay enslaved.

[Teancum]

On 2/26/2021 at 9:54 PM, let’s roll said:

The essence of the Church is that we are invited to join our Father in bringing to pass the eternal life of His children, including ourselves.  The essence of eternal life is to know God and the Christ. As we come to know them we emulate them as we come to understand their ways lead to perfection, i.e. being complete, whole, wanting for nothing.

Their will becomes ours.  Submitting your will connotes doing something you don’t want to do of your own will.  Joining God involves doing His will because it has become our will as well...we don’t do anything we don’t wholeheartedly want to do.

Unless God tells you in person you are submitting your will to a human who says God is telling them what you should do.

[Islander]

17 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

The god you claim is the standard Judeo-Christian god familiar to most Christians and Jews.  The mainstream churches and synagogues all live by that theology, and they cite Scripture and then wonder why few people come to their churches any more.  The god you describe is unworthy of awe and respect, which is why the mainstream congregations are dissolving.  Joseph Smith listened to Methodist preachers cite those Scriptures, but he didn't realize how wrong they were until he prayed about it and got new, accurate information.  That was called the First Vision.  Those mainstream churches are just not the same as the LDS Church, and there is a reason.  Ever wonder why we can all read the same Bible and yet come up with a very different theology?  It is no accident.  Ever wonder why the mainstream churches are so upset with the LDS Church?  There are some very good reasons, not least of which are the false creeds those other churches accept.  For example, the Nicene Creed, or the Westminster Confession of Faith.  LDS theology does not accept those beliefs.  In fact, LDS theology is so different from those mainstream theologies that it is considered by them to be heretical.

One key provision of LDS theology which you might want to consider is the demand that all Scripture must be interpreted by the same Spirit which gave it.  That is anathema to both Protestant and Catholic interpretation of Scripture.  Do you know why?

You are still to prove that the scriptures I presented, including the words of the Savior, are wrong and offer a scripture (ancient or modern) in support of your argument. 

[Kenngo1969]

3 hours ago, Teancum said:

My doctor does not tell me what I have to do and who I have to obey, give my $$to, my time to, what I can take into my body, what I do with my sexual life and on and on in order to get the highest reward God has.  If you can't see the difference I can't help you. Stay enslaved.

Nice to see you, too, Teancum.  Warm Regards and Best Wishes.

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

You are still to prove that the scriptures I presented, including the words of the Savior, are wrong and offer a scripture (ancient or modern) in support of your argument. 

People have been quoting Scripture at each other for hundreds of years, and yet all their Bible-bashing has brought no progress at all.  Do you have an inkling of why that is so?  One factor you might want to consider is that the Protestants have a key belief called sola scriptura, by which they determine everything based on their skewed interpretation of Scripture.  They never consider the Holy Spirit and the Scriptural admonition that no Scripture is of any private interpretation, but must be interpreted by the same Spirit which gave it.

It does no good to cite Scripture if the Holy Spirit does not supply the interpretation.  For you and the Protestants, only Scripture exists.  For the LDS, the Spirit comes first.  For you, Protestant and LDS theology are the same.  How is that even possible?  It isn't.

[Islander]

1 hour ago, Robert F. Smith said:

People have been quoting Scripture at each other for hundreds of years, and yet all their Bible-bashing has brought no progress at all.  Do you have an inkling of why that is so?  One factor you might want to consider is that the Protestants have a key belief called sola scriptura, by which they determine everything based on their skewed interpretation of Scripture.  They never consider the Holy Spirit and the Scriptural admonition that no Scripture is of any private interpretation, but must be interpreted by the same Spirit which gave it.

It does no good to cite Scripture if the Holy Spirit does not supply the interpretation.  For you and the Protestants, only Scripture exists.  For the LDS, the Spirit comes first.  For you, Protestant and LDS theology are the same.  How is that even possible?  It isn't.

That is simply gnosticism.  The belief that ONLY YOU know the true meaning of scripture by virtue of secret knowledge and insights that somehow escapes the uninitiated. The allusion to the Spirit is rather convenient.

What you have done is simply denied the validity and relevance of the bible in favor of private revelation. 

I have never attended any other Church. In fact, I never attended Church until I converted to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints in the US. But I have study the bible consistently for 30 years now. I have access to the same Spirit from whom you claim this knowledge the leads you disavow the bible the way that you do. Greater light and truth is NOT license to denied the validity of the word of God. 

I believe we have reach a point of diminishing returns in the exchange. I wish you the best. 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

1 hour ago, Islander said:

That is simply gnosticism.  The belief that ONLY YOU know the true meaning of scripture by virtue of secret knowledge and insights that somehow escapes the uninitiated. The allusion to the Spirit is rather convenient.

That is exactly the argument made by the Protestant mainstream.  They are deeply threatened by the Holy Spirit, and are harshly critical of the LDS Church and of the Pentecostal churches.

1 hour ago, Islander said:

What you have done is simply denied the validity and relevance of the bible in favor of private revelation. 

You could say that equally as well of Joseph Smith's First Vision, and of all his subsequent revelations.  Or indeed of the Prophets, Seers, and Revelators who lead our Church.  It has been over two centuries now since Joseph's First Vision, and conversion to the LDS faith today is still based primarily on personal revelation.  That testimony is personal and non-transferrable.  It comes from the Holy Spirit, and speaks with one voice within the household of faith and in the Body of Christ.  For, if we are not one, we are not His.

1 hour ago, Islander said:

I have never attended any other Church. In fact, I never attended Church until I converted to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints in the US. But I have study the bible consistently for 30 years now. I have access to the same Spirit from whom you claim this knowledge the leads you disavow the bible the way that you do. Greater light and truth is NOT license to denied the validity of the word of God. ..............

I do not disavow the Bible, nor the validity of any other Scripture, but I obviously differ from you in my interpretation of it.  I am very surprised that you have not noticed that we have disagreements on that sort of thing on this board all the time.

I bought my first Bible about 65 years ago at age 15.  It was a KJV with the words of Jesus in red letters.  I read it with great interest, especially the words of Jesus.  I have always believed the Word of God, and have studied it in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, and Coptic, taking extensive university coursework in all those languages -- in addition to studying biblical archeology in the Middle East.  For me it is an all-consuming interest.

[InCognitus]

On 3/1/2021 at 9:00 PM, Islander said:

You simply can not support that view from the scriptures; to the contrary. Your view of God is skewed and quite small. The God, Lord of Heaven is a Sovereign God that owes no explanation to sinful, fallen humans; incapable of grasping the infinite depths of His mind. However, He has left in the scripture clear evidence of His will and intent. Our agency exists INSIDE the will of God. The work of salvation is HIS WORK. We are drawn to Him by the Spirit and there is no other way that fallen men, enemies to God from the beginning, can come on to Him EXCEPT His Spirit draws them to Him. The Savior said: "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him: and I will raise him up at the last day."  You may not agree with Jesus but you can't claim that statement was a later Hellenistic addition to the Bible.

Just because someone has a different interpretation than one you hold doesn't mean they may "not agree with Jesus".  It just means they don't agree with your interpretation of the verse.  As Robert mentioned, the meaning of these verses have been debated by Protestants for centuries (just google Calvinism vs. Arminianism).  If you want to see one example for this particular verse (John 6:44), see here.  Calvinism has some serious flaws, and the doctrine is often caricatured by atheists as the reason they couldn't believe in God. And frankly, if God really worked and behaved the way that some Calvinists say he does, then I'd be an atheist too.  I thank God daily for the restoration to set all of these things straight.

Edited March 3, 2021 by InCognitus

[Islander]

On 3/3/2021 at 1:12 PM, InCognitus said:

Just because someone has a different interpretation than one you hold doesn't mean they may "not agree with Jesus".  It just means they don't agree with your interpretation of the verse.  As Robert mentioned, the meaning of these verses have been debated by Protestants for centuries (just google Calvinism vs. Arminianism).  If you want to see one example for this particular verse (John 6:44), see here.  Calvinism has some serious flaws, and the doctrine is often caricatured by atheists as the reason they couldn't believe in God. And frankly, if God really worked and behaved the way that some Calvinists say he does, then I'd be an atheist too.  I thank God daily for the restoration to set all of these things straight.

I have never paid any attention to the arguments you mention above. In fact, I have never read any theological writings from anybody. The position you suggests places us (the Latterday Saints) in the same nebulous field as the other "American" sects of the 19th century with their "prophets" and "inspired seers". Who claimed "special revelation" and produced writings and new doctrine to which they hold on today. They have adherents to such doctrines in the millions the world over. They equally claim that the bible does not mean what it says or that the meaning can not be ascertained unless one is part of the inner circle of the initiated. And, they have concocted additional revelation to which they ascribe greater value than the bible.

I have read the BoM 27 times in 30 years. And absolutely nothing I have read denies or clashes doctrinally with what is in the bible. Our knowledge of Hebrew and Greek in the last 100 years has advanced a thousand fold since the KJV of the bible was printed. We know today with a significant degree of linguistic certainty what the text says. No "inspiration" or personal revelation comprised exclusively of a "personal experience" can override the clearly stated word of God in the scriptures. A phenomenon that may or may not be spiritual, godly or diabolic (who is to tell) can not supersede what we know to be the truth as spoken by the Savior and left to us by the testimony of the Apostles in the bible. Without it, the BoM could not be ANOTHER testimony of Jesus Christ. In fact, it probably would have never come to pass as we know it.

[InCognitus]

7 hours ago, Islander said:

I have never paid any attention to the arguments you mention above. In fact, I have never read any theological writings from anybody

I came into this conversation late, but I was basing my response on your latest posts in this thread and your statement from this post:

On 2/27/2021 at 12:48 AM, Islander said:

Why? Can sinful. fallen and evil by nature creatures like us cast judgement on a a holy, omniscient, sovereign and righteous God, based on what our corrupt minds perceive about His actions?

Calvin may have laid out in detail what the bible teach, but from the very pages of scripture it is clear that predestination is part of God's plan. Since when human "wisdom" and intellect surpasses the devine, holy counsel and will of God?

In this statement you make it sound like you are at least familiar with Calvinist theology.  Have you read any of his theological writings?  Or how do you know what you said in the quote above?

7 hours ago, Islander said:

The position you suggests places us (the Latterday Saints) in the same nebulous field as the other "American" sects of the 19th century with their "prophets" and "inspired seers". Who claimed "special revelation" and produced writings and new doctrine to which they hold on today.

On the contrary.  The sects of the early 19th century were basically biblicists, and used scripture to try to support their various views. And you know that story, "the teachers of religion of the different sects understood the same passages of scripture so differently as to destroy all confidence in settling the question by an appeal to the Bible." (JSH 1:12)  

The position I am backing is that of the restored church, wherein Jesus restored his doctrines and teachings and his organization led by apostles and prophets, and he directs his church through revelation, and has given us additional scripture, along with the Holy Bible, and it is from that foundation that we get our interpretations of scripture.  

8 hours ago, Islander said:

They equally claim that the bible does not mean what it says or that the meaning can not be ascertained unless one is part of the inner circle of the initiated. And, they have concocted additional revelation to which they ascribe greater value than the bible.

This is usually the default fall back position they take when someone else disagrees with their private interpretation of scripture, but rarely do they say their views come by revelation.  Typically they say their views come by reading the Bible alone but an unbeliever can't comprehend the teachings of the Bible because they don't have the Holy Spirit.  So in other words, if you don't interpret scripture the same way that they do then obviously you don't have the Holy Spirit (from their way of thinking).

8 hours ago, Islander said:

I have read the BoM 27 times in 30 years. And absolutely nothing I have read denies or clashes doctrinally with what is in the bible. Our knowledge of Hebrew and Greek in the last 100 years has advanced a thousand fold since the KJV of the bible was printed. We know today with a significant degree of linguistic certainty what the text says.

I agree with you that the Bible and Book of Mormon are in complete harmony with each other.

8 hours ago, Islander said:

No "inspiration" or personal revelation comprised exclusively of a "personal experience" can override the clearly stated word of God in the scriptures. A phenomenon that may or may not be spiritual, godly or diabolic (who is to tell) can not supersede what we know to be the truth as spoken by the Savior and left to us by the testimony of the Apostles in the bible. Without it, the BoM could not be ANOTHER testimony of Jesus Christ. In fact, it probably would have never come to pass as we know it.

I said nothing about personal experience or personal inspiration in my prior post.  When I said I thank God daily for the restoration to set all of these things straight, I was referring to the teachings that God restored by revelation to the prophet Joseph Smith and to the prophets and apostles since that time.   And in part I was reacting to your statement where you said "from the very pages of scripture it is clear that predestination is part of God's plan", because The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints doesn't teach "predestination" in the way that I understood you to be insisting that we believe.  

Look up "predestination" in the Topical Guide.  And what does it say?   "See Foreordination".  God foreordains individuals to specific roles and callings, but he never predestinates anyone (if that word is understood to mean that the individual has no choice in the matter). 

Take a look at this December 1990 Ensign article in the "I Have a Question" section.  The question asked:   "Romans 8:29–30 seems to indicate that Paul believed in predestination. Did he?"

Quote

To Latter-day Saints, the idea of predestination [as taught in Calvinism] is unscriptural. Not only does it deny what Paul and other prophets taught about agency, but it also limits God’s love to only a select few. Elder Joseph Fielding Smith stated emphatically that “no person is ever predestined to salvation or damnation. Every person has free agency.”  Similarly, the Book of Mormon prophet Jacob taught that “one being is as precious in [God’s] sight as the other.” (Jacob 2:21.)

The problem with the idea of predestination, as C. H. Dodd put it, is that it “sets the ground of a man’s hope of salvation entirely outside himself.”   Elder James E. Talmage also denounced the concept of predestination, saying that it makes us merely “automatons,” acting out a predetermined destiny decreed by God.

The problem is one of definition and interpretation. Many Christian churches regard the words predestine and foreordain as synonymous.  However, our modern-day Church leaders have distinguished between them. Predestination is not a part of Latter-day Saint doctrine; foreordination is.

The Prophet Joseph Smith clearly taught that individuals were foreordained in premortality to certain missions in mortality. “Every man who has a calling to minister to the inhabitants of the world was ordained to that very purpose in the Grand Council in Heaven before this world was,” he wrote.

Several scriptures refer to foreordination; they tell us that Abraham was “chosen” before he was born (Abr. 3:23) and that Jeremiah was “ordained … a prophet unto the nations” before his birth. (Jer. 1:5.) The Book of Mormon says that others were also “called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works.” (Alma 13:3.)

Elder Bruce R. McConkie wrote that “the Lord foreordained chosen spirit children in pre-existence and assigned them to come to earth at particular times and places so that they might aid in furthering his divine will. These pre-existence appointments, made ‘according to the foreknowledge of God the Father’ (1 Pet. 1:2), simply designated certain individuals to perform missions which the Lord in his wisdom knew they had the talent and capacities to do.”

Foreordination is thus different from predestination. There is no divine compulsion to ensure that a person who is foreordained to a particular calling will fulfill his or her tasks.

Some of what the author says here may be confusing.  He says, for example, that "Many Christian churches regard the words predestine and foreordain as synonymous."   Well, to be clear, the Latter-day Saints regard the words foreordain and predestine as synonymous.  The difference is the order of the words, with the first word providing the meaning of the second.  

The concept of foreordination is entirely consistent with the rest of scripture in the Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and Pearl of Great Price, while the Calvinist definition of "predestination" is not.  I may have misunderstood your meaning, and if I have then please let me know.

[AtlanticMike]

On 2/25/2021 at 1:14 PM, Ahab said:

Well, that's not right.  Was he a brother of the Alexander who was a rival of Joseph Smith, who founded a church called the Church of Christ, among others?  Not everything people say is true, ya know.

 I thought this was interesting.  What do you think?

 

[Ahab]

9 hours ago, AtlanticMike said:

 I thought this was interesting.  What do you think?

 

I think many people limit the kingdom of God to only the church of Jesus Christ, or only the celestial realm of glory, but try perhaps to think about what the kingdom of God is by thinking about what it is not, or by what is outside of God's domain.

And we are God, by being the offspring of God, so how could God possibly not be within us?

[mrmarklin]

On 3/2/2021 at 2:32 PM, Teancum said:

My doctor does not tell me what I have to do and who I have to obey, give my $$to, my time to, what I can take into my body, what I do with my sexual life and on and on in order to get the highest reward God has.  If you can't see the difference I can't help you. Stay enslaved.

I don’t think any doctor does this. 🤪
 

But if you ignore medical advice, it can have serious consequences.   Unless of course, you consider his advice enslaving.  Then, do what you want. 

Edited March 9, 2021 by mrmarklin

[AtlanticMike]

5 hours ago, Ahab said:

I think many people limit the kingdom of God to only the church of Jesus Christ, or only the celestial realm of glory, but try perhaps to think about what the kingdom of God is by thinking about what it is not, or by what is outside of God's domain.

And we are God, by being the offspring of God, so how could God possibly not be within us?

I like that!