The fate of Judas Iscariot

[Anddenex]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

You have a bizarre definition of what it means to judge someone vs. acknowledge their condition. I'm acknowledging that he is a son of perdition and that the atonement doesn't cover him and therefore he is lost. This is exactly what the scriptures state. The judgment has already been passed on him by God. I'm just acknowledging those judgments. That's not the definition of judging.

Case in point. Nothing further to discuss with someone who now wants to equate judging with eternal judging. <facepalm>

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

I’m beginning to think that the reason why you are so often in error is because you likely never had a good grounding in, and testimony of, the gospel basics before you stated entertaining ideas and concepts that are contrary to the foundational doctrines of the Church.

With regard to the above statement, I don’t think you thought it through. I say this because anyone who is consigned to outer darkness after the resurrection is, by very definition, a son of perdition, even one who rebels against God and utterly rejects His salvation while basking  in the full light of spiritual noonday.

Perhaps you haven’t considered the fact that the spirits in the darkness of the spirit prison will be often ministered to by glorious ministering spirits sent from the paradise of God, and that these heavenly messengers will repeatedly testify with great power that God loves them eternally and nothing would make Him happier than to be able to forgive and bless them with salvation.

What this means is that by the time of the final judgement there won’t be a single spirit in the spirit prison who won’t have a perfect awareness of the existence, love and salvation of God. Therefore every spirit who refuses to accept Christ and repent at the final judgement will be doing so with their eyes wide open. If you don’t believe me, just look at the overwhelmingly hellish experience of Alma the younger who came to a perfect realization that he desperately needed to accept Christ and repent if he was ever going to be able to escape the sore and exquisitely painful judgements of God upon the sinner.

31 Thus saith the Lord concerning all those who know my power, and have been made partakers thereof, and suffered themselves through the power of the devil to be overcome, and to deny the truth and defy my power—

32 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;

33 For they are vessels of wrath, doomed to suffer the wrath of God, with the devil and his angels in eternity;

34 Concerning whom I have said there is no forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come—

35 Having denied the Holy Spirit after having received it, and having denied the Only Begotten Son of the Father, having crucified him unto themselves and put him to an open shame.

36 These are they who shall go away into the lake of fire and brimstone, with the devil and his angels—

37 And the only ones on whom the second death shall have any power; (D&C 76)

It's interesting that everything you just posted is what I been championing. Somehow there's a disconnect...

[Anddenex]

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I don't think Rob is alone with these assessments, and there are many inside the LDS church and outside that share the same view. 

Not being alone isn't the same as being correct.

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I see Rob merely stating what the Lord himself stated, and as such, there is NO harm in what he says.  It is a valid viewpoint in my opinion.  Even Joseph F. Smith called Judas a Son of Perdition IF certain circumstances were met. 

This is what Rob is specifying, "Judas is lost. Forever lost." I don't know of any statement in scripture or by the Lord himself who made this statement. I do know we have modern prophets and apostles who are not willing, even in light of scripture, to make this eternal judgement.

I agree, Judas, MAY have met, but from what we have it isn't clear. So as Elder Holland said, leave the judgement, eternal judgement, to the Lord and His Father. No harm in mentioning what scriptures specify. There is harm in adding to what was said in light of what others have shared.

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I don't think Rob is judging, but rather simply restating what he has read in the Bible.  I think MANY have done this through the ages and MANY have been faithful Saints in this manner as well.  IN MY OPINION they will not be condemned for repeating and literally believing what they have read in the New Testament or other scriptures.

The moment Rob stated, "Judas is lost. Forever lost," he has made an eternal judgement. This is found no where in scripture. He may believe this. He may state it. I prefer following the example of Elder Holland, Joseph F. Smith, and John A. Widstoe who willing puts the scope of eternal judgement where it should be. We can share our thoughts, but indeed let us stick with scripture.

4 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

HOWEVER, we do not know.  In theory, anyone might make a change in their life and only the LORD truly knows what is in one's heart.  Only at the end will we know who truly becomes a Son of Perdition and who is saved by the Grace of Jesus Christ.

This last statement is the point. As none of us know, despite Rob's statement previously shared it is only the God the Father, when we stand before him who decides if someone is forever lost. Not Rob. Not I. Not anyone else.

If there was unity by the Lord's prophets and apostles regarding the eternal fate of Judas, then the judgement is probably from God. BUT seeing prophets and apostles are not willing, as Rob is so free to make an eternal judgement -- not just a judgement -- an eternal judgement, I follow suit with the truth we don't make eternal judgements on anyone.

And I didn't take your comment as if directed at me.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

That’s your assumption. Christ was very likely be speaking of every individual who will become a son of perdition. And that would be doctrinally true because, according to D&C 76, the only ones who will be lost are the sons of perdition. Otherwise, only way one would be able to know for sure is if Christ said ‘the only one who is lost is Judas Iscariot.’

A question: do you think that the Savior was teaching there is only one man (Judas) who will ever become as son of perdition?

Sure there is reference to he will save all except son's of perdition. However, in Matthew 17 it is generally understood that Jesus is praying for and in hehalf of his disciples.

There are many son's of perdition.

[Rob Osborn]

36 minutes ago, Anddenex said:

Case in point. Nothing further to discuss with someone who now wants to equate judging with eternal judging. <facepalm>

You are without sound understanding. The scriptures state Judas is a son of perdition. The scriptures teach that son's of perdition are unredeemable in eternity. Jesus said Judas is lost. It's connecting the simple dots and acknowledgement of the facts. That's not judging.

[Anddenex]

40 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You are without sound understanding.

Looks like I am enjoying a good piece of "irony" pie. Thank you Rob for this humor, and bring a smile to my heart and mind.

 

[unixknight]

4 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Look, we shouldn't have to interpret scripture through the lens of the apostles various opinions. Their opinions are no different than you or I, it carries the same weight.

If your opinion and mine (or anyone else's) carries the same weight as one another, then why are you coming across so utterly adamant that your interpretation is the only possible correct one?  Maybe you don't mean to, but that's how it looks.

And I don't know about you, but I'd trust the opinion of an Apostle over my own any day.  That's why they're apostles, bro.  But that's a separate issue.  Let's argue about one thing at a time

 

Edited February 2, 2019 by unixknight

[Rob Osborn]

9 minutes ago, unixknight said:

If your opinion and mine (or anyone else's) carries the same weight as one another, then why are you coming across so utterly adamant that your interpretation is the only possible correct one?  Maybe you don't mean to, but that's how it looks.

And I don't know about you, but I'd trust the opinion of an Apostle over my own any day.  That's why they're apostles, bro.  But that's a separate issue.  Let's argue about one thing at a time

 

My bias is with the scriptures. I trust the testimony and witness of the Holy Ghost. I think one thing that hurts us as a general body of the church is that we have to go to a separate source for clarification in regards to the scriptures. Are we not capable of searching it out on our own?

[Guest MormonGator]

6 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Somehow there's a disconnect...

Oh the irony is just delicious. 

[unixknight]

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

My bias is with the scriptures. I trust the testimony and witness of the Holy Ghost. I think one thing that hurts us as a general body of the church is that we have to go to a separate source for clarification in regards to the scriptures. Are we not capable of searching it out on our own?

Of course we are, but Church Leadership is there for a  reason. We can certainly gain insights from the Holy Spirit when reading scripture, but when people go off on their own, thinking their own interpretation of the scriptures are absolutely authoritative, you can get David Koresh.  (An extreme example, I know, but you see what I'm getting at.)

Your interpretation of the scriptures in this matter aren't the issue.  We can all certainly agree to disagree .  The reason people have been challenging you in this thread is because of the absolutism behind your arguments.  "My interpretation is the only reasonable interpretation."   That's a prideful statement, to put it mildly.  It's also mildly insulting to anyone who disagrees with you.

If you think your interpretation is more correct than even an Apostle's... well that's a bold claim.  And extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.  The verses you supplied earlier in the thread when I requested them simply do not adequately support your interpretation.  Multiple people have agreed on that point.  Now, I was away from the thread for a while after that and maybe you provided some more that I haven't seen.  Even so, it still all boils down to interpretation, and the very fact that so many of us have so many different opinions on it suggests that the matter isn't nearly as cut and dried as you've been pushing it to be.

Does that make sense?

[Rob Osborn]

11 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Of course we are, but Church Leadership is there for a  reason. We can certainly gain insights from the Holy Spirit when reading scripture, but when people go off on their own, thinking their own interpretation of the scriptures are absolutely authoritative, you can get David Koresh.  (An extreme example, I know, but you see what I'm getting at.)

Your interpretation of the scriptures in this matter aren't the issue.  We can all certainly agree to disagree .  The reason people have been challenging you in this thread is because of the absolutism behind your arguments.  "My interpretation is the only reasonable interpretation."   That's a prideful statement, to put it mildly.  It's also mildly insulting to anyone who disagrees with you.

If you think your interpretation is more correct than even an Apostle's... well that's a bold claim.  And extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence.  The verses you supplied earlier in the thread when I requested them simply do not adequately support your interpretation.  Multiple people have agreed on that point.  Now, I was away from the thread for a while after that and maybe you provided some more that I haven't seen.  Even so, it still all boils down to interpretation, and the very fact that so many of us have so many different opinions on it suggests that the matter isn't nearly as cut and dried as you've been pushing it to be.

Does that make sense?

Humm...not really. There's nothing to interpret. Jesus states quite factually that Judas is a son of perdition. So, I see it like this- one can dismiss this on the basis that Jesus either lied or the account is wholly incorrect. I'm not quite understanding how people get something like this so far off the rails when it's very simple and straightforward. Honestly, in John 17:12 do people really not interpret that Jesus is speaking about Judas as a son of perdition?

[unixknight]

56 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Humm...not really. There's nothing to interpret. Jesus states quite factually that Judas is a son of perdition. So, I see it like this- one can dismiss this on the basis that Jesus either lied or the account is wholly incorrect. I'm not quite understanding how people get something like this so far off the rails when it's very simple and straightforward. Honestly, in John 17:12 do people really not interpret that Jesus is speaking about Judas as a son of perdition?

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. 

[Rob Osborn]

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.

[unixknight]

34 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

There isn't another reasonable view in my opinion.

Fair enough.

Edited February 2, 2019 by unixknight

[Rob Osborn]

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!

[Starwatcher]

59 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

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!

Well, how many do you think there are, and aside from Judas, can you name any?

[Rob Osborn]

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

[Starwatcher]

39 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, we know Cain is, so too is Judas. That's two

No more?

Just FYI, in connection with what you wrote earlier, I would never had said there weren't any.

Edited February 2, 2019 by Starwatcher

[unixknight]

4 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

in some people's eyes, it's impossible for anyone to become such!

Nobody has made that assertion.

[Starwatcher]

1 minute ago, unixknight said:

Nobody has made that assertion.

I don't think he's said anyone here has said so.  

[Starwatcher]

4 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

... 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!

Who are these people, anyway?

[unixknight]

1 minute ago, Starwatcher said:

I don't think he's said anyone here has said so.  

"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!"

[Rob Osborn]

4 minutes ago, unixknight said:

Nobody has made that assertion.

Whom in the scriptures, by name, do you think is a son of perdition?

Edited February 2, 2019 by Rob Osborn

[unixknight]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

Whom in the scriptures, by name, do you think I should a son of perdition?

As I said, I haven't expressed a view on whether Judas was or wasn't.  Again, when I was involved in this mess earlier it was just to put forth a theory on his motives.

[Starwatcher]

10 minutes ago, unixknight said:

"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!"

Here he gives a deduction from what some have said here, he interprets what they have said to support the notion they don't think anyone can become such.  He's not saying anyone actually has explicitly said so.

Classic mind-reading, I think.

The only people from scripture I am aware of who could be labeled as an SoP is Cain and possibly Judas.  Don't know of anyone else.

 

Edited February 2, 2019 by Starwatcher