Repentance after death

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

As we learn from studying the scripture - those that are more valent (exercise greater faith) receive a greater reward (noble and great that G-d makes his rulers) in the next estate in the plan of salvation.

 

The Traveler

Aye, Im just stating the bare minimum to be saved- become spotless and pure.

[wenglund]

11 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I was referring to the end state of man at judgment.

And, I understood that the state of man at the final judgement is a function of the resurrection, which precedes the final judgement. In a sense, the final judgement is a mutual recognition of the resurrection.

Quote

They must be spotless (that means without sin) to be saved from hell.

To the degree that they are spotless, they will be saved from from hell, and vice versa, which is why, in part, there are varying degrees of resurrected glory, and varying degrees or admixtures of resurrected heaven and hell, and varying kingdoms of the resurrected, though to the monochrome or binary mind, this will be incomprehensible.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, wenglund said:

And, I understood that the state of man at the final judgement is a function of the resurrection, which precedes the final judgement. In a sense, the final judgement is a mutual recognition of the resurrection.

To the degree that they are spotless, they will be saved from from hell, and vice versa, which is why, in part, there are varying degrees of resurrected glory, and varying degrees or admixtures of resurrected heaven and hell, and varying kingdoms of the resurrected, though to the monochrome or binary mind, this will be incomprehensible.

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Back and forth, back and forth...

You can have your own invention of salvation, thats fine. The fact remains that everyone who is saved from hell must repent from "all" their sins and become holy and without spot. That means they are cleansed from all sin, are born again having no more desire to do any evil.

[Rob Osborn]

There is only one path that repentance and forgiveness of sins grants access to. That one path is the one leading to eternal life. There arent offramps or avenues along the way where one can exit and remain in a saved condition and thus not reaching the end where eternal life is given. If one enters the path it is strait and narrow and only leads to one destination- that of eternal life. 

[wenglund]

11 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Back and forth, back and forth...

You can have your own invention of salvation, thats fine. The fact remains that everyone who is saved from hell must repent from "all" their sins and become holy and without spot. That means they are cleansed from all sin, are born again having no more desire to do any evil.

Modern revelation may seem to you like my own invention, in part because you lack the capacity grasp new light and knowledge, However, I lay no personal claim to it, and willingly and repeatedly give appropriate attribution. 

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

8 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

There is only one path that repentance and forgiveness of sins grants access to. That one path is the one leading to eternal life. There arent offramps or avenues along the way where one can exit and remain in a saved condition and thus not reaching the end where eternal life is given. If one enters the path it is strait and narrow and only leads to one destination- that of eternal life. 

According to modern revelation, the degree to which a person follows Christ along that strait and narrow path, or the  extent to which they hold to the iron rod,  will, among various things, determine the glory and admixture of spiritual life and death of their resurrected destination. But, this will be incomprehensible to the monochrome or binary mind and those that progress no further on the strait and narrow path than old light and knowledge.

Perhaps, for now, I will leave it at that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

12 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Modern revelation may seem to you like my own invention, in part because you lack the capacity grasp new light and knowledge, However, I lay no personal claim to it, and willingly and repeatedly give appropriate attribution. 

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Perhaps I should rephrase. There will be no wicked sinners anywhere in heaven, only sons and daughters of God who are holy and without spot.

[Rob Osborn]

6 minutes ago, wenglund said:

According to modern revelation, the degree to which a person follows Christ along that strait and narrow path, or the  extent to which they hold to the iron rod,  will, among various things, determine the glory and admixture of spiritual life and death of their resurrected destination. But, this will be incomprehensible to the monochrome or binary mind and those that progress no further on the strait and narrow path than old light and knowledge.

Perhaps, for now, I will leave it at that.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

All I can say- thats false doctrine.

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

All I can say- thats false doctrine.

So... you're saying that the LDS Church is teaching false doctrine?  Did I understand this right?

[Rob Osborn]

20 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

So... you're saying that the LDS Church is teaching false doctrine?  Did I understand this right?

Hum...somehow you missed it. Wade is teaching a false doctrine. There isnt a mixture of both spiritual life and spiritual death amongst the saved.

[classylady]

On 4/7/2018 at 6:03 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

I think there must be something to the idea of the sealing power beyond what we understand...particularly in that what we understand of it is practically nothing. But as Elder Bednar teaches, it cannot override agency.

Another point worth consideration: It may well matter when said children go wayward. After having made their own covenants = more culpable and in significantly greater danger than having not made covenants.

In point of fact, it seems reasonable that most of those who actually become sons of perdition will be those who had sealed parents were raised in the gospel and taught the truth, and who had their own covenants made and then betrayed them.

My best understanding of the "tentacles" quote is that it is simply not correct. It makes no sense at all.

I wish we knew more about the sealing power between parents and children and between husband and wife. I’m sure it goes along with the Abrahamic Covenant. And even though we study the Abrahamic Covenant, I don’t believe we fully understand  all the ramifications it entails. There is special power in belonging to the house of Abraham, including Priesthood. And, all can receive those blessings! Eventually, as all proxy work is completed, and all mankind is sealed into the family of God, all will be under the Abrahamic Covenant.  Though, I’m not sure if those who reject it will be under the Abrahamic Covenant. And, that goes back to the question of wayward children. There’s only so much a parent can do. But, yet we are told wayward children of righteous Covenant keeping parents will some day have a desire to return back to the divine arms (tentacles). But, IMO, if that child has no desire to return, their agency will not be overridden.

I appreciate your insight TFP. Thanks.  

[Colirio]

4 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

There is only one path that repentance and forgiveness of sins grants access to. That one path is the one leading to eternal life. There arent offramps or avenues along the way where one can exit and remain in a saved condition and thus not reaching the end where eternal life is given. If one enters the path it is strait and narrow and only leads to one destination- that of eternal life. 

Elder Dallin H. Oaks seems to disagree with several points you have made in various threads. Is he wrong? 

 

 

[Rob Osborn]

47 minutes ago, Colirio said:

Elder Dallin H. Oaks seems to disagree with several points you have made in various threads. Is he wrong? 

 

 

I love Elder Oaks but he is wrong on several points.

[Colirio]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I love Elder Oaks but he is wrong on several points.

So, just to be clear, a man who served as the president of BYU, served as a supreme court judge, and has been an apostle of the Lord for almost 34 years, a man who the church (and you) sustain as a prophet, seer, and revelator, is wrong about the true nature of what happens after this life is over???

 

And you intend for others to believe your personal understanding of the scriptures is more correct than his understanding? 

 

Good luck with that... 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Colirio said:

So, just to be clear, a man who served as the president of BYU, served as a supreme court judge, and has been an apostle of the Lord for almost 34 years, a man who the church (and you) sustain as a prophet, seer, and revelator, is wrong about the true nature of what happens after this life is over???

 

And you intend for others to believe your personal understanding of the scriptures is more correct than his understanding? 

 

Good luck with that... 

Now you're getting it.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, Colirio said:

So, just to be clear, a man who served as the president of BYU, served as a supreme court judge, and has been an apostle of the Lord for almost 34 years, a man who the church (and you) sustain as a prophet, seer, and revelator, is wrong about the true nature of what happens after this life is over???

 

And you intend for others to believe your personal understanding of the scriptures is more correct than his understanding? 

 

Good luck with that... 

We have been over this quite a bit already. All I can say is that when you formulate the gospel one principle at a time coming to the correct definitions according to scripture, then you have the correct picture. If a prophet of God, or any one of for that natter, get that wrong it means all the same- its still wrong, doesnt matter who is voicing their mind. He really only says two things in that short excert that he is off. The first is actually quite paramount in the wrong department. He states that man can be saved into heaven without any obedience to ordinances. Thats so wrong Im not sure how to react. I had to actually go back and listen to it again because I though I heard it wrong. Section 138 states quite truthfully that obedience to ordinances by the wicked in spirit prison are required to be saved from hell. 

The second mistake is stating that resurrected beings are damned to lower degrees of glory. Thats wrong, a basic misunderstanding of semantics that lead to a fundamental flaw and contradiction in a gospel principle. Weve kinda hashed that out over many many pages. No one was ever able to provide even one scripture stating someone could be saved and damned at the same time. Its why I resort to the scriptures to clarify doctrine. 

[SpiritDragon]

33 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

We have been over this quite a bit already. All I can say is that when you formulate the gospel one principle at a time coming to the correct definitions according to scripture, then you have the correct picture. If a prophet of God, or any one of for that natter, get that wrong it means all the same- its still wrong, doesnt matter who is voicing their mind. He really only says two things in that short excert that he is off. The first is actually quite paramount in the wrong department. He states that man can be saved into heaven without any obedience to ordinances. Thats so wrong Im not sure how to react. I had to actually go back and listen to it again because I though I heard it wrong. Section 138 states quite truthfully that obedience to ordinances by the wicked in spirit prison are required to be saved from hell. 

The second mistake is stating that resurrected beings are damned to lower degrees of glory. Thats wrong, a basic misunderstanding of semantics that lead to a fundamental flaw and contradiction in a gospel principle. Weve kinda hashed that out over many many pages. No one was ever able to provide even one scripture stating someone could be saved and damned at the same time. Its why I resort to the scriptures to clarify doctrine. 

Perhaps you need to take a step back and humble yourself and realize that your wrong already, Rob. The scriptures teach quite plainly the same things that elder Oaks is teaching - they are in harmony one with another. The only thing at odds here is your prideful conclusion that definitions in the scriptures mean something other than what they truly do mean. I could try to help you by pointing out flaws in your definition, but it would be as productive as pointing to a cockroach in your house while holding a picture of a cockroach that is labeled as such while you still deny there is a cockroach in front of you.

Do you believe the church is true Rob? Do you have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? Faith that He leads His church and would correct His apostles if they were teaching false doctrines directly related to the plan of salvation?

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, SpiritDragon said:

Perhaps you need to take a step back and humble yourself and realize that your wrong already, Rob. The scriptures teach quite plainly the same things that elder Oaks is teaching - they are in harmony one with another. The only thing at odds here is your prideful conclusion that definitions in the scriptures mean something other than what they truly do mean. I could try to help you by pointing out flaws in your definition, but it would be as productive as pointing to a cockroach in your house while holding a picture of a cockroach that is labeled as such while you still deny there is a cockroach in front of you.

Do you believe the church is true Rob? Do you have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? Faith that He leads His church and would correct His apostles if they were teaching false doctrines directly related to the plan of salvation?

Of course I believe the church is true. I have an incredible testimony of the validity of the Book of Mormon and of Joseph Smith and all the Lords holy prophets. My faith in Jesus Christ is solid.

Now, I call things as I see them, whether it bothers others or not. I dont just randomly come up with my ideas and understanding of scripture. I use a very methodological approach using several different methods and critique in defining gospel doctrine. I use word associations, flow charts and spend a lotvof time researching semantics as they relate to the writer and their use and chouce of words. If you havent noticed already I am very picky with semantics- the logic and meaning of words. Words are very very powerful. But, often times, they are misused and can lead to generational misunderstandings and redefinition that changes a writers original intent.

I really wish you could physically see the process I go through to understand how words are used. Its not something I take lightly. I confer with my sister everyday who mastered in English at BYU. She has really helped me in my research and work. Over the years she has worked with me she has herself come to some paramount changes in her understanding also realizing the issues I am taking on are significant yet undoubtedly true. But not just from a semantics or linguistics point of view. It's when you combine the semantics with the myriad of scripture and cross references that things come together.

It's not being cocky or arrogant, it's correctly understanding gospel principle in the wsy the writer originally intended it to mean. It's largely connecting the dots from an overall point of view- more than two decades of study. It is so difficult however to get anywhere in these forums sometimes because people are so ingrained into a certain mindset that you can show evidence after evidence and they either can't see or refuse to see it. I remember the first time I told my father that the temple language states that our earth right now is the telestial kingdom. He was a worker at the temple at the time. It took him several years to finally catch on to that. It took myself several years to finally catch on to that myself. Brains and intuition are funny that way- we truly see and hear only what we program it to see. This of course led me into many long discussions with my sister as to how language is used and gets changed and different beliefs come about, and all because of geberally how one or two simple words get misunderstood. Whereas I myself am not great in linguistics my sister who is a genious with words and how they are used and change through time and others I communicate with such as my older brother who studies Hebrew it does take on a professional and scholarly approach.

I know that a lot of my work goes against the grain of perceptual belief within my religion. But on the other hand I do have solid evidence that sonething is amiss. In no way am I against the church or the prophets. I wish you could see my work physically and communicate with me face to face because I honestly believe you would then know I do have a strong and genuine testimony of Jesus Christ and his gospel. 

I find it truly amazing that we can take one word such as "damnation" and change its meaning over time in the which it ends up creating its own doctrine that then becomes established in manuals and other church publications.  Its also sad too on the one hand because we end up distancing ourselves from the true and pure doctrines of Christ as found in our Book of Mormon. To me personally, it doesnt matter if most think I am a crackpot or sloppy or stupid. They don't know me or my research nor my unbelievably good resources such as my sister who understands linguistics and semantics better than almost everyone else.

If you want to show me using scripture where I am wrong thats great. I am open to new understanding, I have been wrong before. But if its just going to be quoting one prophet against another Im not really game. Prove to me, through scripture, where the flaws are in my definitions.

[SpiritDragon]

5 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Of course I believe the church is true. I have an incredible testimony of the validity of the Book of Mormon and of Joseph Smith and all the Lords holy prophets. My faith in Jesus Christ is solid

But not solid enough to believe that those He has called to lead his church understand His doctrine?

 

5 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I use a very methodological approach using several different methods and critique in defining gospel doctrine. I use word associations, flow charts and spend a lotvof time researching semantics as they relate to the writer and their use and chouce of words. If you havent noticed already I am very picky with semantics- the logic and meaning of words. Words are very very powerful. But, often times, they are misused and can lead to generational misunderstandings and redefinition that changes a writers original intent.

I really wish you could physically see the process I go through to understand how words are used. Its not something I take lightly. I confer with my sister everyday who mastered in English at BYU. She has really helped me in my research and work. Over the years she has worked with me she has herself come to some paramount changes in her understanding also realizing the issues I am taking on are significant yet undoubtedly true. But not just from a semantics or linguistics point of view. It's when you combine the semantics with the myriad of scripture and cross references that things come together.

I believe you have put a lot of time and effort into drawing your conclusions. I don't believe that flow charts and word association trump a 200 year history of apostolic witness to the contrary. 

5 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

If you want to show me using scripture where I am wrong thats great. I am open to new understanding, I have been wrong before. But if its just going to be quoting one prophet against another Im not really game. Prove to me, through scripture, where the flaws are in my definitions.

To what avail, Rob? It's not that many here haven't successfully shown you more than enough reason to see the error in your ways. I could take the time to pull up well thought out rebuttals - but I've seen you go as far to say that when a revelations doesn't match your view that even the prophet Joseph Smith himself didn't understand his own vision. Why should I spend the time to portray more to you when with a wave of your hand you can decide that, "well Nephi was wrong here and Moroni didn't understand that there because my flowchart which can't be wrong says otherwise."

Words are important and so is context. But words don't always have only one meaning or refer to the same thing. For instance, if I were to reference Celestial bodies I could be referring to human bodies resurrected to a Celestial glory or I could be talking about planets. You seem to cling to the notion that Hell can only refer to outer darkness, but it is plain to see that it also refers to spirit prison and likely can even be experienced in part in mortality.

[Jersey Boy]

6 hours ago, SpiritDragon said:

Perhaps you need to take a step back and humble yourself and realize that your wrong already, Rob. The scriptures teach quite plainly the same things that elder Oaks is teaching - they are in harmony one with another. The only thing at odds here is your prideful conclusion that definitions in the scriptures mean something other than what they truly do mean. I could try to help you by pointing out flaws in your definition, but it would be as productive as pointing to a cockroach in your house while holding a picture of a cockroach that is labeled as such while you still deny there is a cockroach in front of you.

Do you believe the church is true Rob? Do you have faith in the Lord Jesus Christ? Faith that He leads His church and would correct His apostles if they were teaching false doctrines directly related to the plan of salvation?

It seems to me his understanding concerning those who qualify to inherit the celestial kingdom sounds a lot like what was offered as the substitute plan of salvation that was rejected in the council in heaven. In the plan of salvation that was rejected by the Father, everyone gets saved with an equal degree of glory whether or not they are worthy of inheriting a celestial glory, whether or not they can even appreciate and comprehend possessing a celestial glory, and whether or not they even have a sincere desire and the requisite faith to inherit a celestial glory. 

Edited April 10, 2018 by Jersey Boy

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, SpiritDragon said:

I've seen you go as far to say that when a revelations doesn't match your view that even the prophet Joseph Smith himself didn't understand his own vision. Why should I spend the time to portray more to you when with a wave of your hand you can decide that, "well Nephi was wrong here and Moroni didn't understand that there because my flowchart which can't be wrong says otherwise."

Why do you think most people have simply stopped talking to him?  He's so convinced of his superior abilities that neither ancient nor modern prophets (including Joseph Smith) can dissuade him.  What hope have we mere ignorant lay persons of persuading him otherwise?

Edited April 10, 2018 by Guest

[zil]

1 hour ago, SpiritDragon said:

For instance, if I were to reference Celestial bodies I could be referring to human bodies resurrected to a Celestial glory or I could be talking about planets.

Or you could be jokingly talking about your favorite actresses.

58 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Why do you think most people have simply stopped talking to him?

For those who don't know - this exact conversation has been repeated, with the exact same conclusions, umpteen billion¹ times since October 2016 when Rob joined these forums - that's right, for 1.5 years the same conversation has happened ad nauseam.  No one has budged in their opinions.  If Rob has gotten converts, they keep it private.  Forum members have been held hostage that entire time, unable to have a conversation on this topic without Rob stepping in to derail it.

¹Slight hyperbole.

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, zil said:

umpteen billion¹ times

¹Slight hyperbole.

Actually, I dont' think it was hyperbole.  By my count, we've just passed "umpteen billion" as of last week.

[anatess2]

16 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Hum...somehow you missed it. Wade is teaching a false doctrine. There isnt a mixture of both spiritual life and spiritual death amongst the saved.

 

12 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I love Elder Oaks but he is wrong on several points.

No, I don't think I missed it at all.

[Rob Osborn]

Its seems fruitless to carry on conversation on this. Someone came in and attacked me and hijacked this thread. Im sorry. It wasnt my doing. To get back on topic-

Forgiveness of sins happens only through obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. That process is allowed past our mortal lives.