Rob Osborn
-
Posts
3852 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Rob Osborn
-
-
26 minutes ago, Traveler said:
Help me just a little with you thinking - what do you think is the difference from having fallen from heaven and being damned? Isn't Satan considered to have "fallen" from heaven?
The Traveler
To be "fallen" is usually in context to our spiritual nature or being and denotes a turn towrads wickedness. Being "damned" means to be sentenced to hell.
-
56 minutes ago, Anddenex said:
I'm not the one eternally judging.
This is your statement, "Judas is lost, forever lost." This is an eternal judgement, so yes, indeed you are making an eternal judgement on your brother.
God already did that
We don't know what God already did, and how God has judged Judas. We know words and phrases that were used, and we have modern apostles providing interpretation regarding these thoughts. We also have modern apostles, as shared, that would agree with you.
Many here are actually saying, we don't know, and the information provided -- in light of Church manuals and quotes -- that what you are attributing may not be the case. So, once again, you do not know what God's judgement is.
What others are saying on here is that they don't know and we will leave it up to God the Father when that time comes. They aren't acknowledging what apparently is not clear, with the simple fact there isn't "unity" with the phrase used toward Judas. If there were unity with the brethren, then you have a stronger and more valid point. Otherwise, we shouldn't extend ourselves with an eternal judgement that even apostles and prophets have not made, nor agree upon.
It's not judging when we make a statement of what the scriptures have already stated. According to scripture the judgment by God is that he is a son of perdition. Now, perhaps one can believe the scriptures are in error, that's fine, but restating what the Lord has already said is not judging, it's "acknowledgement".
-
3 minutes ago, Anddenex said:
We agree scriptures carry weight, but as with "heaven and hell" it isn't the scriptures that are in debate. It is the interpretation you are providing. At least this time you have more than one witness from James E. Talmage as given by JohnsonJones, but nonetheless still your opinion with an eternal judgement which is well above your authority to make.
I'm not the one eternally judging. God already did that, I'm just acknowledging that judgment. And what is the judgment? That Judas is a son of perdition. Whom am I to say this isn't so? Many in here seem to not acknowledge God's judgment here he has already made.
-
2 minutes ago, Vort said:
Not to put too fine a point on it, but this strikes me as absurd. I don't think you can find a single parallel throughout ancient history of this unfounded idea that people are pushed around for not hundreds but thousands of miles in this manner. It's unheard of, and I think completely unrealistic. Had that been the case, the Nephites would never simply have marched to their sure death. They would have simply left. No one would have chased them for, say, five hundred miles, which by this reckoning would not have been all that big a deal for them. Just a quick week's journey.
I am curious to know where you get the idea that "Cumorah was a shipping and ore rich stronghold of the Nephites." Assuming (as you do) that the drumlin in western New York is the same as the hill called "Cumorah" in the Book of Mormon, the hill Cumorah is near only some creeks and a tiny river. It is a good 30 miles inland from Lake Ontario—not a good shipping location by any means. As for being "ore-rich", drumlins are mostly clay, having been formed by glacial action many thousands of years ago. I don't believe you find mines in drumlins.
The great lakes area is a rich ore geology. It is now becoming better understood that the ancient miners in this vast area mined and traded the ore for thousands of miles using the main rivers and waterways as a means of distribution. In fact, the ancient Mining was so vast that it still baffles scientists to this day.
Not too long ago we forced the American Indians to relocate. Now known as the famous "Trail of Tears" they were forced some 1,200 miles. And, we aren't speaking of the entire nation of them in their possible extermination, but rather just a relocation to move them out of the way.
We have too hard of a time with distances in the Book of Mormon because we discount the vastness of their population and scope of their empires.
-
2 minutes ago, Anddenex said:
When we make assumptions, it is understandable why we can't fathom certain things. Some people can't fathom a God that called back all firstborn in Egypt, so they make up some reason. Some people can't fathom the life of Job, so they make up a reason.
These are the requirements to be identified/judged as a son of perdition:
1) Having denied the Holy Spirit
2) Having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father
3) Having crucified the Only Begotten Son of the Father
4) Having put the Only Begotten Son of the Father to open shame
5) Who deny the Son after the Father has revealed him.
6) They are they who are the sons of perdition, of whom I say that it had been better for them never to have been born;
7) *I have heard it proclaimed that a person must have their calling and election made sure in order for them to become a son of perdition. I have heard some variations to this and some that discount this.
What I see from your thoughts is that you are attributing a lot of "unknowns" to Judas. What you are providing are assumptions with regards to what Judas learned, obtained, and received while he walked with Jesus.
"Judas is lost, forever lost." This statement is well outside of your realm to make an eternal judgement. The final judgement is yet to come, and we should be very cautious to make any such claim, that has not been made specifically clear. If this was clear pertaining to Judas, we wouldn't have modern apostles letting us know that we do not know what Judas's fate is in the eternal realms, except what has been said in scripture, and we can see a person who became the Lord's prophet - his servant - carried a different thought pertaining to Judas then you provide.
In my minds eyes, President Joseph Fielding Smith's comment carries more weight, and is more likely accurate.
The scriptures carry the weight, not an opinion, be it me or a prophet, it's the same. The scriptures testify of two things- 1. The requirements to become a son of perdition. 2. That Judas is a son of perdition.
Thus we can safely judge that Judas very much indeed meet the requirements to become what he in fact is.
-
Just now, Just_A_Guy said:
And travel over great distances in 1847 . . . wasn’t?
As I suggest above, it’s easy to trivialize the labor involved in a task when we ourselves have never had to do it.
What is the strategic reason for traveling (and compelling a million other people to travel) four thousand miles to fight a battle you know in advance you’re going to lose?
If we put it into the context of a hemispheric model it makes plausible sense. Over the course of some 30-40 years the Nephites had been pushed several thousand miles already- from the southern parts of the land southward into and through the narrow neck and from there northward into the land northward. Cumorah was a shipping and ore rich stronghold of the Nephites. What's a few thousand more Miles when they have already been forced a greater distance already?
-
12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:
Interesting thoughts. What other civilization in human history, before the invention of the internal combustion engine, have considered “a day’s journey” to equal anything like seventy miles? What race of humans was able to continually trot at even 3 miles per hour, 24 hours a day, for days on end? I mean, Pheidippides did seventy miles per day for two days in a row—but the last twenty-odd miles on the third day literally killed him; and to this day we consider it such an extraordinary feat that we (well, not me personally, mind you!) run marathons in his memory. It’s easy for us twenty-first-century dwellers to blithely posit theories about how much ground men, women, children and animals should have been able to cover on foot in a given period of time. It’s unfortunate that Brigham Young isn’t around to tell us just what we can do with our theories.
The trouble I see with your goosed “desperate flight” numbers is that the same author (Mormon) used “day’s journey” to chronicle not only the last battle, but more leisurely journeys spanning back through Nephites history. Moreover, it wouldn’t be *that* desperate of a flight since the Lamanite king had granted Moroni’s request for a cease-fire.
Moreover—if you had your pick of any place in North America at which to make a last stand for yourself and about a million compatriots, and you had reasonably good geographical knowledge: of all places on the continent, what natural features would make you choose Ontario County, New York? What would make IT worth the time, effort, and logistical nightmare of getting there—not to mention wholesale abandonment of every other stronghold and strategic position you still held?
Whatever “a day’s journey” meant:
— we know it was twenty days’ journey from Nephi to Zarahemla by way of the land of Helam (Mosiah 23-24); and that may not have been the most direct route.
—we know that Limhi’s expedition, while searching for Zarahemla, stumbled into Ramah/Cumorah; apparently without ever realizing that they had overshot their goal (Mosiah 8 ).
Whether the heartland or mesoamerican model turns out to be the better paradigm; the continental or bicontinental model of Book of Mormon geography seems to depend on either a not-very-close reading of some key texts, the Nephites being effectually a race of demigods, and/or good deal of wishful thinking.
I do find it of high interest that many of the ancient mounds and ancient fortifications found in New York were primarily for a defensive purpose.
I don't see great distances as a hard thing. In South America they had ancient roads that spread for thousands of miles and they were all controlled by the same empire. Travel for them in ancient times over great distances was a normal thing.
That said, I find it highly plausible that the BoM events could have taken place on both the North and South American continents.
-
If we could just realize in the context of this "third heaven" that we are in the first heaven now it would make more sense.
-
This is the part I cant fathom- how can someone believe an apostle to walk day to day in Christs presence for a very long time, knowing the love they have for them, and then deny it and altogether turn from that be forgiven? We arent speaking of just being a special witness like our modern prophets but rather more- to be in his continual presence and in company of angels and then deny it. Judas is lost, forever lost. Its a lesson to us to not deny Christ and altogether turn from it once his love has made itself manifest in our hearts. The ramifications are dire.
-
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:
For comparison, it took Brigham Young about two years to get most of Nauvoo to the Salt Lake Valley.
If Young knew that on arrival in Salt Lake the Church would there have to fight a last-ditch battle of extermination (and lose), would he have bothered moving the Church some tweve hundred miles? If not, why would Mormon have moved a group of Nephites literally a hundred times bigger, over a distance nearly four times as great?
By comparison, the Israelites under Moses and Joshua covered just shy of five hundred miles.
And yet Lehi took his family to the other side of the globe...
-
And I'm glad the seed I soweth is in good ground...
-
-
1 hour ago, Traveler said:
I believe I interpret this scripture to indicate that we are fallen but that through faith in Christ and repentance we will be "raised" from our fallen state. That since we are fallen - if we are not raised in Christ we remain damned and in our fallen SPIRITUAL state of our probation.
The Traveler
I agree as long as we see that until we fall in mortality we aren't damned.
-
28 minutes ago, unixknight said:
Maybe. He did do all of those things, but that fits the other theory equally well.
Again, working purely from the references provided.
Not really.
-
9 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:
Yes, I did. And Vort is right, they don't elaborate on his motivations.
There isn't any dispute over what he did. Only over why he did it.
You also say "He knew who Christ was, what his mission was," but that isn't at all clear, as even the rest of the disciples were questioning how the crucifixion and disappearance of the body could be. The disciples don't seem to have fully grasped the nature of Christ's work until after the Resurrection and closer to the Ascension. Why would we think Judas was any more intuitive about it?
We can theorize every possible thing under the stars. The reality is that Judas betrayed the Christ and for that became a son of perdition.
-
4 minutes ago, unixknight said:
Having looked at the verses you referenced, I don't see how they testify that Judas was motivated by greed alone. (Mind you, I'm not saying he was or wasn't, only that it isn't stated.) In fact, looking at the reference in Matthew 27, check out verses 3 and 4. Judas throws back the money and feels remorse only after Jesus was condemned.
Now, if Judas were motivated only by evil and by greed, why would he care? More importantly, wouldn't he already have expected that outcome? The fact that Jesus was condemned doesn't appear to be what he was expecting to happen. That fits much better with the conclusion I referenced than the simplistic "he was just evil and wanted the silver."
Not saying you can't possibly be right, only that your conclusion isn't supported in the verses provided.
Judas went to the chief priests and captains how he might betray the Savior into their hands. The deal was made with the promise of money. Thus, the act of betrayal was motivated by money. Of course later on his conscious kicked in but it was too late. That is one result of choosing the bad over the good, having a dread feeling. It's one reason why Satan is miserable. But, being miserable doesn't mean one is truly remorseful or repentant, it's just one of the effects.
-
Just now, Vort said:
Not sufficient. Your reference doesn't address motivations. Please provide the scriptural testimony that "his motivations were purely evil", as you claim.
Did you read the scriptures in the link?
-
I think it's a well established fact that the reasoning of going back to get the Brass plates was to not only preserve their language but to preserve their knowledge of God and the creation and the plan of salvation, of the which without, they would have become just like the Mulekites. The scriptures were what binded the people together, generation after generation, it was the critical piece.
-
4 minutes ago, Traveler said:
Okay - enlighten me. I would be interested. However, falling (coming to earth) from the presents of Jehovah is not the same as falling from the presents of Elohim.
The Traveler
For one thing, we don't fall by coming to earth. "Falling" denotes a spiritual loss. Our Individual fall is based upon our own sins not Adam. As such, we don't fall spiritually because of Adam but rather because of our own sins.
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;
45 For they love darkness rather than light, and their deeds are evil, and they receive their wages of whom they list to obey. (D&C 29:43-45)It isn't scripturally accurate to say all of God's spirit children fell when Adam fell. We have no record that states the spirit children of God are kept away from him because Adam fell.
-
4 minutes ago, Traveler said:
Here is a thought for you. We know that agency was a critical and important element of the war in heaven from which Lucifer was cast out and became Satan. Agency implies an choice to align with something. As we chose to become agences of Christ - through that agency; Christ is then tied by covenant to our sins. This gives him responsibility for our sins even though he did not commit them - which means that he can justly atone for our sins and pay the redemption of sins even though he, himself committed no sin.
The Traveler
Another angle- the critical part in the war in heaven was good vs. evil. The good side championed Christ as deliverer from sin thus preserving agency. The bad side was deceptive and tried to scheme how to overthrow God and have wickedness reign instead. The result of that though is loss of agency not the actual overthrow of the kingdom.
- Traveler and JohnsonJones
-
2
-
6 minutes ago, MarginOfError said:
It seems you missed the point.
Maybe so
-
6 minutes ago, unixknight said:
Source, please?
-
5 minutes ago, Traveler said:
Agency requires choices with consequences (consequences can be both beneficial or bring about loss). It seem logical that being involved, even by proxy would justly result in a change (lowering) of status similar to Adam and Eve. The logic of the plan of salvation is that there is one fall that resulted in all the covenant children of the Father to fall from The Father's grace - not billions of falls that would be mandated as a consequence of what that was not enacted or a consequence of when Adam and Eve fell?
Under the plan of salvation, Jesus Christ (Jehovah) would be the one and only deity that would govern the outcast and complete the law through the atonement. Thus the fall and the atonement are the bookends events that justify both law and circumstance that govern our probation from the Fall of Adam and Eve until we all are resurrected.
I have tried to logicly justify something different - But logic indicates only one fall and the logic of Job 1 starting with verse 6 indicates the Jehovah was and is presiding over a kingdom that is more than just the mortal creatures of earth but includes spirits that are righteous "sons of G-d". Since Jehovah is a G-d and the governor of righteous spirits - all angles sent to mortals would come from his presents rather than from the Father. Only Jehovah would or could be in the presents of the Father following the fall. Thus the Father (Elohim) would instruct Jehovah that would govern the fallen spirits (the spirits with mortal bodies, the spirits waiting birth and the spirits waiting the resurrection).
Of course something else is possible - but all other possibilities I have considered lack both logic and scriptural backing.
The Traveler
The
Well, there is scriptural backing for our own individual falls.
-
17 minutes ago, MormonGator said:
Right. We don't know. All we can do is theorize.
I think what it really comes down to is if we really accept the testimonies of scripture or not. If we accept the scriptures then we know Judas is a son of perdition. If we don't accept them then yeah- we can just theorize.
John and Paul on visiting to/from heaven
in LDS Gospel Discussion
Posted
Damned/damnation is always in the context of being condemned to hell. Lesser and greater damnation refers to lesser or greater sentences to hell.