Rob Osborn
-
Posts
3852 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Rob Osborn
-
-
1 minute ago, Scott said:
That main reason that that (entire) section was changed was that the position that there was no death before the fall was modified. If you are interested, FAIR has a good article on this:
https://www.fairmormon.org/answers/Mormonism_and_science/Death_before_the_Fall
That could be a whole different topic though, so I'll just leave this post with the article.
Well, that theory is debatebale. Leaving out the part about blood in the "Resurrection" to me is kind of proof that the church is trying to get away from some of the theories of the past of which have no scriptural foundation.
-
Also of note, the old Bible dictionary entry on "Resurrection" states in part-
"Others had been brought back from death, but were restored to mortality (Mark 5: 22-43; Luke 7: 11-17; John 11: 1-45), whereas a resurrection means to become immortal, without blood, yet with a body of flesh and bone.”
The new entry-
“Others had been brought back from death but were restored to mortality (Mark 5:22–43; Luke 7:11–17; John 11:1–45), whereas a resurrection means to become immortal, with a body of flesh and bone.”
Again, why the omitted part about "without blood"? Could it be it is merely opinion? Just saying...
-
11 hours ago, wenglund said:
You are partially correct--i.e. about the flesh.
However, the logic is simple. Blood makes death possible. Resurrected beings are eternal and cannot die. Ergo....
Think of it this way, if you can: Through the shedding of blood, death occurs. Through the shedding (i.e. removal) of blood, eternal life is made possible. The sacramental emblem of the water ought to clue you in.
As for the sacramental bread, it is in remembrance of the body of the Son, though the observant among us will note that there is no mention of shedding as there is with the blood (see HERE), and this is likely because ultimately Christ's body wasn't shed, but rather it was reunited with the spirit in a glorified and resurrected. and eternal state
Brigham Young gets this. Joseph Fielding Smith gets it. Bruce R. McKonkie gets it. Most of the comprehending members of the church get it. So, why don't you get it?
Could it have anything to do with a colossal ego of some random internet guy who MISthinks he knows better than the Special Witnesses of the resurrected Christ?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
I find it interesting that the old Bible dictionary entry on "fall of Adam and Eve" included the words "Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood...With the eating of the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bodies, and death became a part of life".
In the new edition this part is ommitted and no mention of blood is made. Revisions to the Bible dictionary was to remove various opinions that may not be correct doctrine. Just saying...
-
5 hours ago, wenglund said:
It may help to read my post above because it explains how Rob is correct up to a point, but also how he is self-blinded to higher layers of character development and motivation like what you mentioned--not that it will make a difference to the typically counterproductive nature of discussions with him. But, at least there is the possibility that you may gain something from what I suggest..
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
I'm correct the whole way through. The two scriptures I posted shows exactly how I understand. Do you enjoy trolling me?
-
51 minutes ago, mikbone said:
You and I are unlikely to ever be on the same page (in this life).
You are spouting Hedonism. Do some basic philosophy research.
I know what hedonism is. I think you are missing the point. I will try one more time.
A quick question- why aren't you going to go and turn the stove on and wait till it gets red hot and then place your hand directly on it for 3 seconds?
-
Or perhaps you reject this-
23 But learn that he who doeth the works of righteousness shall receive his reward, even peace in this world, and eternal life in the world to come. (D&C 59:23)
-
11 minutes ago, mikbone said:
Yes you have already made your point.
Your philosophy is hedonism.
I deny your philosophy.
Hum...maybe we still aren't on the same page understanding each other. Do you thus deny this philosophy-
25 Adam fell that men might be; and men are, that they might have joy. (2 Nephi 2:25)
-
45 minutes ago, mikbone said:
I think I understand you thoroughly. And I whole heartedly disagree with you.
Every action we consciously make we are already looking at the possible outcomes, dangers, rewards, etc. For example, say we we're to go hiking on a cliff edge that had drop offs of thousands of feet. We stay away from the deges as much as possible, we are extra cautious. But why? Because we are motivated by the increased chance of incurring serious injury or death. Perhaps it's just the fear, but the fact remains, we are motivated to take the safest precautions for fear of injury, pain, etc. But, in the same token, we are also rewarded with going through with it because it's exhilarating, it's exciting, it's accomplishing something hard, etc. That motivates us. That reward. Take another example- for me I trying to lose weight and get in better shape. I've lost 40 pounds. Why did I do it though? Was there a reward I was looking forward to? You bet. I want more energy, I want to live longer, I want to have better sleep, do away with heartburn, etc. I'm am reaping some of the rewards now.
And so it is with following Christ. The reward for choosing the right is peace in this life and peace in the life to come. I'm not sure about you but I also experienced to some degree the anguish that Alma and the Son's of Mosiah went through of being cast off forever. Suffered many terrifying nights overcoming it/suffering through it. I don't really think people understand what hell is like, the horrifying anguish of it. But, having experienced it I have a very great appreciation for peace now- that companionship of the Spirit. I love that feeling of the sweet spirit of the Lord. I want others to experience and feel it to. That's a great reward. Whether we want to keep it in view or not, our motivation in choosing the right is finding peace in Christ for ourselves and others. We don't do things in name only without feeling. We always try to see the possible outcomes that may result from an action. And it is that outcome or process that motivates us. It's just our nature.
We love others because the reward is giving peace to another and through that we gain extra peace ourselves.
-
4 minutes ago, mikbone said:
I think I understand you thoroughly. And I whole heartedly disagree with you.
I don't think you understand. Give me a bit to post because I think you will agree with me
-
16 minutes ago, mikbone said:
You misunderstand my point or you are too obstinate to recognize your error.
I don’t act so that I will receive love from them. I act because I love them.
Perhaps you are emmotionally immature and cannot perceive the possibility of acting without the promise of a reward.
You could read Steven Covey’s The Devine Center... But from reading your prior responses I recognize that you are not here to learn, you only wish to spout your personal doctrine.
Your beliefs have no space for true love, charity, or sacrifice.
Your belief system is called hedonism, it is nothing new.
I don't think we understand each other. I think we are mostly saying the same thing, just from different angles.
-
1 minute ago, MormonGator said:
I think you lack the self awareness to see that many of us feel the same way about you.
I don't speak down to others. I'm frankly sick of Wade's shenanigans.
-
47 minutes ago, wenglund said:
You are partially correct--i.e. about the flesh.
However, the logic is simple. Blood makes death possible. Resurrected beings are eternal and cannot die. Ergo....
Think of it this way, if you can: Through the shedding of blood, death occurs. Through the shedding (i.e. removal) of blood, eternal life is made possible. The sacramental emblem of the water ought to clue you in.
As for the sacramental bread, it is in remembrance of the body of the Son, though the observant among us will note that there is no mention of shedding as there is with the blood (see HERE), and this is likely because ultimately Christ's body wasn't shed, but rather it was reunited with the spirit in a glorified and resurrected. and eternal state
Brigham Young gets this. Joseph Fielding Smith gets it. Bruce R. McKonkie gets it. Most of the comprehending members of the church get it. So, why don't you get it?
Could it have anything to do with a colossal ego of some random internet guy who MISthinks he knows better than the Special Witnesses of the resurrected Christ?
Thanks, -Wade Englund-
You know what? Discussions with you are fruitless. You are a condescending immature individual.
- wenglund and Starwatcher
-
2
-
1 hour ago, mikbone said:
You can look at the world this way.
Another perspective is to recognize that we do things because of love.
I don’t provide for and protect my wife and children because I expect a reward from them, or for fear of a punishment.
I care for them because I love them.
But "love" is the reward, that's my point. We're all motivated by something
-
8 minutes ago, CV75 said:
This motivation is what D&C 19 is about. The called need to be motivated (verse 7, "work upon the hearts of the children of men") by such terminology; the chosen (verse 8 and 9, "it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles... you that are chosen") obtain greater understanding of such terminology. The called need to become chosen, and motivated to do so, and so they are taught and receive the testimony of eternal life, eternal punishment, eternal glory, eternal damnation, etc.
Now there is also an absolute context for this terminology, reserved for sons of perdition (D&C 76:44).
So, I've often wondered, is there an end of suffering for the sons of perdition? It may appear the door is open for that possibility.
-
17 minutes ago, CV75 said:
I think God can exercise a higher law within a lesser kingdom and thereby intervenes to reward or punish His children in mortality both individually and collectively, largely to teach and to testify of His ways. I also think that just as in this life, God assigns “the bounds of their habitation” in eternity “because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge” (Acts 17: 24-31). Otherwise, consequences follow the laws that are established and in operation for their respective realms (hence the physical rains and sunshine fall on both the spiritually evil and the good in mortality; lesser immortal kingdoms are dependent upon the ministrations of higher kingdoms).
D&C 19 defines eternal punishment (and by extrapolation, reward). Yes, the torment may diminish or wear off over time just as with a physical amputation, but the effects (i.e. being “cut off and destroyed forever” – 2 Nephi 1:17) linger. The punished may remain miserable (suffering unhappiness), but not tormented (suffering the utmost unhappiness), forever (2 Nephi 2:5) in that they cannot progress. Agency, which allows us to progress, does not wear off or diminish but expands unto godliness, which remains with the exalted.
I would put forth the condition of the path again here as I don't believe it's possible once one has entered the path towards eternal life to have a different outcome other than eternal life itself. There won't be miserably saved souls. Why, because eventually they all shall be gods and shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of our Father.
18 But the path of the just is as the shining light, that shineth more and more unto the perfect day. (Proverbs 4:18)
43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear. (Matthew 13:43)
-
1 hour ago, Traveler said:
I wanted to respond with a new thread to a discussion I was having with @Rob Osborn. It is sort of about where we end up in eternity but I do not want it to be that heavy. Rather I would explore how G-d rewards and punishes. In short, I do not believe G-d “rewards” or “punishes”. At least not in the way most seem to think, believe and expect.
Perhaps it is my background but I do not believe in rewards or punishments. If my kids did not like what was for dinner – they were welcome to go to the store, buy with their own money what they wanted and fix it themselves (this was not an option for me growing up). I must admit that with my children – I would use rewards and punishments as a teaching method. It is just that I do not believe rewards or punishments are true motivations of behaviors nor do they instill values, morals or better understanding of life (including eternal life).
Weather does not change for someone that is good nor bad. It is the same for everybody. Scripture tells us that G-d is no respecter of persons – what he will do for one he will do for all. There are scriptures that speak of rewards and punishments – but as I study such scripture what is spoken of as a reward or punishment seem to be no different than “natural” consequences rather than a gift or effort force preferred behavior. In fact – some scripture seem to me to indicate that one’s attitude are even more important than actual action. So that if a person is not willing then there is no reward regardless of doing it. One thing I have learned about rewards – If someone does not love doing what is necessary for the reward (regardless of the reward) they will eventually quit doing whatever and forgo the reward.
As for punishments – I must admit I cannot understand or comprehend any eternal punishment. If we were to list the top 100 most evil things a person can do – I cannot imagine an eternal punishment for any of them or even all of them together. Adultery and murder are both really bad things. But after 21 billion years why should anyone having done both; profit anything or anyone by remaining damned and still being punished in hell? Does anyone love watching someone being punished? If you do – I am completely convinced that you are more suited for hell than the person you are enjoying seeing suffer their punishment. Do I need to explain in greater detail my reasons for thinking this?
The Traveler
Whether we like to admit it or not we must be motivated by outcomes in order to act. For instance- I go to work everyday and I'm motivated by several rewards. They are- finishing the project at hand, recognition by the customer and others for a job well done, money, being busy and staying productive, learning, serving others, health, etc, etc. There's also the flip side that motivates me if I don't do the work, they may be- not finishing the project, unhappy boss and customers, not getting paid or possibly fired, becoming lazy, bad health, not serving others, etc, etc.
In my job we are always looking for ways to be motivated and productive. Rewards and punishments always come into play. It's not that we don't like to work it's just that we must use tools of rewards or punishment to keep things in order. We can't just say- "ahh, I'll get to that job one of these days, no big hurry, let's go fishing instead". No, there has to be goals and goals need to be looked at in the light of accomplishing a result. For God, his goal or reward is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. That's what motivates him, it is a reward to help others and bring about happiness. On the other hand, with Satan and others who follow him it's about being motivated by becoming more powerful and feared, being able to have more power over the hearts of others. The difference is however, there is no real reward for them, just greater depths of misery. But that's how evil is when it gets at that low level- they somehow glory in misery and making others miserable. It gets to a point where they truly can't see how to find joy anymore, everything they do just worsens things. But yet, they won't stop either because they love that dark power.
-
4 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:
. Regarding some of the discussion about what “Satan’s plan” was—the scriptures tell us Satan sought to destroy agency, not choice. The two concepts are closely related, but not identical
I agree that they are different. Agency is "the power of operation", it is "the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power".
When viewed like this it helps with understanding. What is Satan trying to do? He seeks to destroy our God given ability to be in a state where we are acting and exerting power and authority. He succeeds in this when he tempts us and leads us into sin. Sin captivates the soul, chains it down. This is what is meant by Satan leading men into spiritual captivity and the "chains of hell". Satan's snare is the very chains of hell. It's only then that Satan has "power" over us and we lose our ability to act and exert our own power and authority.
13 O that ye would awake; awake from a deep sleep, yea, even from the sleep of hell, and shake off the awful chains by which ye are bound, which are the chains which bind the children of men, that they are carried away captive down to the eternal gulf of misery and woe. (2 Nephi 1:13)
11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser portion of the word until they know nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the chains of hell. (Alma 12:11)
-
4 minutes ago, unixknight said:
Nobody has made that assertion.
Whom in the scriptures, by name, do you think is a son of perdition?
-
9 minutes ago, Starwatcher said:
Well, how many do you think there are, and aside from Judas, can you name any?
Well, we know Cain is, so too is Judas. That's two
-
Just now, Starwatcher said:
So, two prophets of God, presumably better instructed than you, understand a verse from scripture differently from you, and so you characterize their understanding as a MISunderstanding? Meaning that your understanding is superior to theirs, I suppose.
It really boils down to simple logic. It's obvious that Christ's resurrected body is one of flesh and bone. So, obviously the 1st Corinthians verse isn't meant to convey that literal "flesh" won't be found on resurrected bodies but rather he is speaking of the worldly nature of the natural fallen man in his corruptible sins. The life of immortality is in Christ's flesh and blood.
-
2 minutes ago, Starwatcher said:
Joseph Fielding Smith and Brigham Young. In one of JFS's "Answers to Gospel Questions" chapters, which was used back in 1973 as the priesthood study manual, he indicated that immortal beings didn't have blood, but when the immortal Adam fell and became mortal, blood came into his veins for the first time. I was on my mission in Germany at the time, and when this came up, it caused a recent convert 's eyes to bulge and jaw to drop. It was the last we saw of him. At least for a while. It really thrrew him for a loop.
You haven't noticed that whenever Heavenly Father is spoken of, it is never as having a body of "flesh and blood" but one of "flesh and bone"?
And then we have this, from chapter 37 of Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Brigham Young, speaking of Christ:
The blood he spilled upon Mount Calvary he did not receive again into his veins. That was poured out, and when he was resurrected, another element took the place of the blood. It will be so with every person who receives a resurrection; the blood will not be resurrected with the body, being designed only to sustain the life of the present organization. When that is dissolved, and we again obtain our bodies by the power of the resurrection, that which we now call the life of the body, and which is formed from the food we eat and the water we drink will be supplanted by another element; for flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God [see 1 Corinthians 15:50] (DBY, 374).
I Cor 15:50: "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption."
I'm chalking it up on faulty reasoning, simple misunderstandings. 1st Corinthians 15:50 isn't meant to convey the physical properties of flesh or blood but rather the worldly nature's of the flesh and the blood spilt over those carnal sins. Thus, the "worldly" man full of sin cannot enter heaven.
-
10 minutes ago, Starwatcher said:
Will we have appendixes? Without blood, what function will our spleens have?
Who's to say we won't have blood?
-
I find it interesting that we know there are son's of perdition and yet to hear conversations in here it appears, in some people's eyes, it's impossible for anyone to become such! I think these same people are of the belief that there isn't a single identifiable son of perdition!
-
20 minutes ago, unixknight said:
So how do you account for others, including at least one Apostle, seeing it differently? Are they less intelligent than you? Less spiritual? Less honest? What is it that makes you so absolutely positive that nobody's perspective other than yours can have any merit? Do you know something they don't, or is it at least possible they see something you're missing?
Not being catty, just genuinely wondering if you have any idea how arrogant it looks when someone won't even acknowledge the possibility of another reasonable view. Not calling you arrogant, just telling you how it looks.
Just to be clear, earlier my argument (which you have yet to address beyond a few inconclusive verses, and I don't expect you to, so no pressure) had nothing to do with whether or not Judas was a Son of Perdition. I was just exploring his inner motive.
There isn't another reasonable view in my opinion. Pretty much the whole Christian (including LDS) world views chapter 17 of John to be Jesus praying in behalf of his disciples. And when you read the whole chapter there really isn't another alternative, it's really quite sound that is what is taking place. As such, Jesus lost none of the other disciples, just the one- Judas Iscariot. There isn't really any other possible meaning here. If one interprets it wrong here they do so without understanding the whole chapter in how Jesus is praying for his disciples that after he is gone they can be strong and united and that through them those who hear their words will believe. To not leave any doubt, the Book of Mormon states in this verse-
32 But behold, it sorroweth me because of the fourth generation from this generation, for they are led away captive by him even as was the son of perdition; for they will sell me for silver and for gold, and for that which moth doth corrupt and which thieves can break through and steal. And in that day will I visit them, even in turning their works upon their own heads. (3 Nephi 27:32)
There is no doubt that this is in direct reference to Judas Iscariot. I don't really see how it's possible that people get this wrong or a different understanding.
- JohnsonJones and unixknight
-
1
-
1
Rewards and Punishments.
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
They should rejoice because of life eternal and peace. Is that not a reward?