We Are In The Telestial Kingdom Now, Proof By Contradiction

[CV75]

7 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I like finding truth

Wonderful that this is what you got out of General Conference!

[Rob Osborn]

I think its quite obvious, no argument according to scripture, that the evil doers in 76:103 suffer the second death. Thus it becomes the argument over when that second death occurs and to whom are partakers of it. I think its pretty hard to make the argument that it occurs before redurrection and judgment. So, it really appears then the real argument is if an heir of salvation, someone who is saved, suffers the second death in their saved condition. Im having a hard time drawing that conclusion also.

I dont really see how one gets around this paradox of verse 103. They definitely are the ones who suffer the second death yet the second death is only reserved for the devil and his angels after resurrection and judgment. So, the real question is- why are the devils angels in the telestial kingdom? There are several surrounding verses that create paramount paradoxes also.

Edited April 2, 2018 by Rob Osborn

[Rob Osborn]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

Wonderful that this is what you got out of General Conference!

Was a wonderful conference. I love the new changes. I love our new prophet. The message I got was that this is the Lords true church.

[wenglund]

5 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I read those scriptures but didnt see the meaning you are entailing. I can list them one by one for discussion. Here is the first one-

11 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death. (Rev. 2:11)

The "overcometh" spoken of refers to the time at the end of the millennium where the saved overcome all things and are perfected.

Listing the scriptures one by one wouldn't make much sense since viewing scriptures in isolation led, in part, to your confusion to begin with.

In fact, your interpretation of the scripture above also ignores the overall context of Chapt 2, as well as the passage in which the scripture appeared, which was a revelation given to and was about the various Churches on earth, and the church in Smyma in particular, at the time (circa 90AD)--more than 2000 years before the millennium you suggest.  

Granted, the revelations regarding the churches of 90AD may also be interpreted as a type and shadow of things to come, including the millennium, but to do so would require acknowledging layers of meaning, which is something you have rejected. So, you are impelled upon your own damnable interpretive petard.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Listing the scriptures one by one wouldn't make much sense since viewing scriptures in isolation led, in part, to your confusion to begin with.

In fact, your interpretation of the scripture above also ignores the overall context of Chapt 2, as well as the passage in which the scripture appeared, which was a revelation given to and was about the various Churches on earth, and the church in Smyma in particular, at the time (circa 90AD)--more than 2000 years before the millennium you suggest.  

Granted, the revelations regarding the churches of 90AD may also be interpreted as a type and shadow of things to come, including the millennium, but to do so would require acknowledging layers of meaning, which is something you have rejected. So, you are impelled upon your own damnable interpretive petard.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The passage in Rev. Ch. 2 deals with he who overcometh. This is directly tied to a later chapter here-

7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death

(Rev. 21:7-8) 

Im not listing them in isolation. This passage actually kind of nails it down because it mentions that those in verse 8 are the same group in D&C 76:103. This is in light that in Rev. 20, the preceding events leading to verses 7-8, death and hell are thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone which is the sevond death. So, in verses 7-8 the resurrection and judgment have already happened, the saved overcometh all things, are on the celestial world and without are these evildoers who are in the second death.

[wenglund]

6 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The passage in Rev. Ch. 2 deals with he who overcometh. This is directly tied to a later chapter here-

7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death

(Rev. 21:7-8) 

Im not listing them in isolation. This passage actually kind of nails it down because it mentions that those in verse 8 are the same group in D&C 76:103. This is in light that in Rev. 20, the preceding events leading to verses 7-8, death and hell are thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone which is the sevond death. So, in verses 7-8 the resurrection and judgment have already happened, the saved overcometh all things, are on the celestial world and without are these evildoers who are in the second death.

Ripping a scripture out of its actual context and arbitrarily interjecting it into another context, and this on the flimsy basis that there is a single word in common, is not a valid interpretive strategy, except perhaps in your world view. It is what is commonly known as "wresting the scriptures."

Looking at scriptures one by one, is, by definition, looking at them in isolation.

But, here we are on the third leg of the tangent, and it has only deepened your confusion as predicted. Time to strop digging the hole deeper. Again, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade ENglund-

[Rob Osborn]

4 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Ripping a scripture out of its actual context and arbitrarily interjecting it into another context, and this on the flimsy basis that there is a single word in common, is not a valid interpretive strategy, except perhaps in your world view. It is what is commonly known as "wresting the scriptures."

Looking at scriptures one by one, is, by definition, looking at them in isolation.

But, here we are on the third leg of the tangent, and it has only deepened your confusion as predicted. Time to strop digging the hole deeper. Again, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade ENglund-

How am I ripping it out of its context? It speaks of he who overcometh. All of the passages in Revelations that are qued "him that overconeth" all deal with the state of the saved after the millennium. Regardless of that point there is no denying that the evil doers in verses 7-8 are in the second death and the timing here is definitely after resurrection and judgment. This isnt wresting the scriptures, its called understanding scriptures.

[Rob Osborn]

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.

Like these simple to understand scriptures, it plainly states that only the devil and his angels (sons of perdition) go into the lake of fire and brimstone and the only ones who thus suffer any part in the second death.

I imagine you may say Im ripping that out of context too. So, if that is the case how are they to be interpreted then?

[wenglund]

3 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

How am I ripping it out of its context? 

You are ripping it out of its context in the same way anyone rips a quote out of context Obviously.

This makes the fourth leg of the tangent, and still you are no less confused. The hole continues to get deeper.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

17 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

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.

Like these simple to understand scriptures, it plainly states that only the devil and his angels (sons of perdition) go into the lake of fire and brimstone and the only ones who thus suffer any part in the second death.

I imagine you may say Im ripping that out of context too. So, if that is the case how are they to be interpreted then?

No, I wouldn't say you are quoting out of context in this case. Rather, as previously intimated and substantiated, I would say you are ignoring multiple meanings of the term "second death" throughout the scriptures and you mistake the phrase "any power" to mean "any part."

This makes the fifth round of a fruitless tangent. It is making me dizzy--in not a good way. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 2, 2018 by wenglund

[Rob Osborn]

7 hours ago, wenglund said:

No, I wouldn't say you are quoting out of context in this case. Rather, as previously intimated and substantiated, I would say you are ignoring multiple meanings of the term "second death" throughout the scriptures and you mistake the phrase "any power" to mean "any part."

This makes the fifth round of a fruitless tangent. It is making me dizzy--in not a good way. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Multiple meanings? How many meanings do you think it has? I find it utterly crazy that if you dont like its meaning you just create something else to make it fit whatever you want it to be. How convenient I must say. In your mind you can probably get second death to mean eternal life. In verse 37 the term "any power" means what it plainly states- it literally means that these are the ones on which the second death has any power at all. It means they are the only ones who suffer the second death.

I find it interesting that I can show how those described in verse 103 suffer in the second death, how the second death only comes on the sons of perdition, that the second death comes only after resurrection and you can just say I take everything out of context and meaning. Then, when you list scriptures and I start to go through each of them you just state Im taking things out of context.

I dont buy your argument. You have to prove to me how Im taking things out of context, you cant just say that line over and over. Thats what it is called ignorance. Perhaps in verse 37 you can explain what "any power" means, maybe we can go from there.

[Rob Osborn]

I find it of great interest that the footnote in verse 37 refers directly to D&C 29:28,41. They read-

28 Wherefore I will say unto them—Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.

41 Wherefore, I, the Lord God, caused that he should be cast out from the Garden of Eden, from my presence, because of his transgression, wherein he became spiritually dead, which is the first death, even that same death which is the last death, which is spiritual, which shall be pronounced upon the wicked when I shall say: Depart, ye cursed.

The second death, referred here as the "last death" is pronounced upon the wicked after resurrection and judgment. Who is it (the second death) prepared for? The devil and his angels. This is the correct context for understanding D&C 76:37. 

[Rob Osborn]

There are a few principles that apply with the second death. They are-

1. There is a first death, or first spiritual death. It precedes the second death.

2. One cannot go from the first death into the second death without being brought into Gods presence first.

3. The wicked are not brought into Gods presence until the last resurrection taking place at the end of the millennium.

4. One cannot be redeemed from the second death.

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Multiple meanings? How many meanings do you think it has? I

You ask that question as if you are open to the answer, when it has been made abundantly clear from lengthy past experience that you know you aren't. And, that is okay.

You also presumed to speak for me, and that is okay as well, though there is little need for my involvement when you are intent on carrying on both sides of the exchange, each designed to confirm your bias no matter what. So, enjoy carrying on without me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

For lurkers out there, Rob does not speak for the Church.  Although he apparently believes he speaks for God.

He says he honors and sustains the Prophet and other general authorities and then proceeds to declare that he somehow knows true doctrine that they have heretofore been declaring erroneously.  Not just one person or a dozen stating singular off the cuff statements or isolated speeches, but consistent statements that have withstood the test of time and are part of official Church publications.

So, we must apparently stop listening to the President of the Church and start listening to Rob. Yeah, I don't think so.

[Rob Osborn]

4 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

For lurkers out there, Rob does not speak for the Church.  Although he apparently believes he speaks for God.

He says he honors and sustains the Prophet and other general authorities and then proceeds to declare that he somehow knows true doctrine that they have heretofore been declaring erroneously.  Not just one person or a dozen stating singular off the cuff statements or isolated speeches, but consistent statements that have withstood the test of time and are part of official Church publications.

So, we must apparently stop listening to the President of the Church and start listening to Rob. Yeah, I don't think so.

Where have I been wrong in this topic? You cant just make an accusation without showing in exactly what thing I am in error of. Thats just common respect.

[Rob Osborn]

12 minutes ago, wenglund said:

You ask that question as if you are open to the answer, when it has been made abundantly clear from lengthy past experience that you know you aren't. And, that is okay.

You also presumed to speak for me, and that is okay as well, though there is little need for my involvement when you are intent on carrying on both sides of the exchange, each designed to confirm your bias no matter what. So, enjoy carrying on without me.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Hum...well then, whats your answer? It appears you just keep sidestepping everytime it comes up to disect a meaning ftom scripture.

[wenglund]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Hum...well then, whats your answer? 

Again, you ask that question as if you are open to the answer, when it has been made abundantly clear from lengthy past experience that you know you aren't. And, that is okay.

Regardless what I have said or will say, it will appear to you as "sidestepping," And, that is okay as well.

You are obviously incapable of seeing  outside your own point of view, which is fine, and so I would be wasting your time and mine attempting to expose you to different perspective no matter how reasonable and beneficial. It would be less messy and ineffectual to let you monologue undeterred.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

43 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Again, you ask that question as if you are open to the answer, when it has been made abundantly clear from lengthy past experience that you know you aren't. And, that is okay.

Regardless what I have said or will say, it will appear to you as "sidestepping," And, that is okay as well.

You are obviously incapable of seeing  outside your own point of view, which is fine, and so I would be wasting your time and mine attempting to expose you to different perspective no matter how reasonable and beneficial. It would be less messy and ineffectual to let you monologue undeterred.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I dont get it. When you post an answer I am willing to discuss it in length but then you arent willing to show the same courtesy back and answer when I post a reply or scripture. You just resort to the same end everytime. For instance- You said I took verse 37 out of context but wont expkain why you think that so I delve deeper into it thinking perhaps I missed something. I vome up with a cross reference but you refuse to reply. I am assuming, all I can assume, tgat you dont really understand it as well as you claim so you sidestep it. Prove my assumptions wrong.

[wenglund]

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I dont get it. 

On that we agree.

All the best to you!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, wenglund said:

On that we agree.

All the best to you!

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

And the best to you. The truth is there, you just have to be open to it. Good day.

[Traveler]

@Rob Osborn

I am convinced that a kingdom – or kingdom of glory is not defined so much by a specific place as it is by the law given and those that abide (by choice) that law.  I would think that whatever law one is living – that will define the kingdom in which they abide.  I believe it possible to abide by Celestial law – even in present circumstance on this very earth.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

@Rob Osborn

I am convinced that a kingdom – or kingdom of glory is not defined so much by a specific place as it is by the law given and those that abide (by choice) that law.  I would think that whatever law one is living – that will define the kingdom in which they abide.  I believe it possible to abide by Celestial law – even in present circumstance on this very earth.

 

The Traveler

I would agree for the most part. I  believe that the celestial kingdom is indeed made of with a tiered glory of progression. What I cant comprehend, and thus my analysis of 76:103, is that whoremongers and adulterers are going to be in heaven. Once the principles are laid though it makes it impossible that those in verse 103 are saved from hell. Thus, the telestial world spoken of here cant possibly be a future destination for the saved.

[Rob Osborn]

A whole treatise could be written on the telestial inhabitants as recorded in section 76.

One of the issues to consider with verse 103 is that we must remember that this group remain unrepentant. We know this because anyone of these who would have repented, either here in mortality or the spirit world wouldnt be labled such. Arent we all liars, in some degree? The official doctrine of the church recognizes the telestial as being unrepentant. If they would have repented and accepted the gospel in the spirit world they would qualify for the terrestrial. Therefore, we know they are unrepentant and unaccepting of the gospel.

This of course brings up red flags as no whoremonger can be found in heaven. Besides that, no sinners are found in heaven either. The paradox is paramount in that the principles of salvation require repentance and baptism in order to be saved from the second death. According to the church teachings, telestial heirs are never baptized. 

So, the big question then is- why are there whoremongers in heaven? In Ephesians 5 we read-

"5 For this ye know, that no whoremonger, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God."

If those inhabitants spoken of in verse 103 were truly repentant then of course Christ would remember them no more and they wouldnt be labled whoremongers, etc. Besides, a truly repentant whoremonger can still qualify for celestial glory. So, through a simple walkthrough of principle, we know the whoremongers spoken of in verse 103 are still whoremongers, they must be. This is why, when cross referenced we sre told they are indeed still whoremongers after resurrection and judgment as Rev. 21:8 still calls them as such after resurrection and judgment. But, according to Ephesians, as another witness, they arent in heaven either- not any part! So, applying the principles of truth, we can be assured that the telestial world Joseph Smith is seeing where these whoremongers dwell is not any part of the kingdom of heaven. In applying the doctrine of the temple here, it makes most logical sense then that Joseph was seeing the wicked whoremongers on our earth right now who never gain salvation.

[Traveler]

15 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I would agree for the most part. I  believe that the celestial kingdom is indeed made of with a tiered glory of progression. What I cant comprehend, and thus my analysis of 76:103, is that whoremongers and adulterers are going to be in heaven. Once the principles are laid though it makes it impossible that those in verse 103 are saved from hell. Thus, the telestial world spoken of here cant possibly be a future destination for the saved.

 

I think there is much upon which we agree.  There are two thoughts I would pass on.

First – the meaning of hell – at least to my understanding – hell is a synonym of death.  So, in essence the idea of being saved from hell is the same as being resurrected. 

Second – sometimes I think there is a misunderstanding with the terms joy (freedom and happiness) and misery (or bondage and captivity).   What I think happens is centered in the thinking that joy or freedom is doing what we want.  That is the allusion.  Joy and freedom is discipline – it encompasses light and truth and embraces order and is to act.  Misery or bondage is the opposition of joy – it is the product of circumstance that ends in chaos and reaction (rather than to act).   By nature of what it is to murder, commit adultery and lie are all the reaction to circumstance that is the attempt of a lie and deception.  But when everybody knows in advance the lie and deception those tools become the bondage that ends freedom.  Thus, the bondage is the deception one makes for themselves – they become their own loss of freedom and prison keeper.  And their shame is their own deception – which is obvious to everyone and eventually themselves.   This is all to say that goodness and evil are their own rewards – one being freedom the other being bondage.

 

The Traveler