Repentance after death

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

The Book of Mormon’s “day of this life” refers to the mortal probation, a span of time which starts at birth in the flesh on earth, continues on through the post-mortal spirit world, and finally comes to an end with the resurrection of the body. Many LDS leaders have espoused this understanding of what is meant by “the day of this life,” including President Alvin R Dyer who declared:

”The day of this life is from the day of mortal birth until the end of the period of the spirit world.  It is not at the end of this mortal life.  This is why we preach the gospel in the spirit world so that the work can be done for people vicariously here upon the earth, within the recognized day of this life.” (Alvin R Dyer)

Therefore, Elder McConkie was correct in his assertion. For long as there are operating LDS temples and sufficient numbers of temple recommend holding Latter-day Saints to perform the saving ordinances for and in behalf of the dead, the Lord will continue to judge the dead as if they had truly accepted the gospel in the flesh while they live according to God’s commandments in the spirit world. 

I agree that the time expands until resurrection. I dont agree with McConkie that different rewards are given for the timing of accepting.

[wenglund]

3 hours ago, zil said:

Or maybe he means from hell (the lowest hell) to the telestial kingdom (not so low, but still not exaltation).

That is what I figured, with the highest hell being the Terrestrial kingdom, both overlapping with the two lowest of the three heavens. (2 Cor 12:2).  This reconciles all scriptures (the old light and knowledge consistently with the new light and knowledge), and in a way that reasonably satisfy justice and mercy and the irrevocable law (D&C 130:20). 

Though, as indicated by Rob above, this perspective isn't comprehensible to the rigid binary mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 23, 2018 by wenglund

[Rob Osborn]

28 minutes ago, wenglund said:

That is what I figured, with the highest hell being the Terrestrial kingdom, both overlapping with the two lowest of the three heavens. (2 Cor 12:2).  This reconciles all scriptures (the old light and knowledge consistently with the new light and knowledge), and in a way that reasonably satisfy justice and mercy and the irrevocable law (D&C 130:20). 

Though, as indicated by Rob above, this perspective isn't comprehensible to the rigid binary mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Wow, and some think I have false doctrines. Thats about as false a doctrine as one can get.

 

Edited April 23, 2018 by Rob Osborn

[wenglund]

10 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Wow, and some think I have false doctrines. Thays about as false a doctrine as one can get.

 

Things that people can't comprehend they often mistakenly assume are false as one can get--which is why it would be unwise to give any credence to such errant judgments.

And, what some think you are false regarding, isn't doctrine (we grant that your belief in the old light and knowledge is still true), but your condemning and dismissive judgments of modern prophets and apostles regarding new light and knowledge..

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited April 23, 2018 by wenglund

[Rob Osborn]

6 hours ago, wenglund said:

Things that people can't comprehend they often mistakenly assume are false as one can get--which is why it would be unwise to give any credence to such errant judgments.

And, what some think you are false regarding, isn't doctrine (we grant that your belief in the old light and knowledge is still true), but your condemning and dismissive judgments of modern prophets and apostles regarding new light and knowledge..

To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yeah, you cant accuse me of that anymore. This idea you have of hell consisting of the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms is so far beyond what prophets have said to the contrary. You really expect me to believe the prophets agree with you on this? At least I can show where a modern prophet believes we are now in the telestial kingdom. But to go so far as to think that a kingdom of "glory" is hell? Yeah, thats as blatantly false a doctrine as one can get. Dont accuse me anymore of disregarding prophets. You are in a worse boat than myself.

[Rob Osborn]

Hell
        
        
            
                
                    
                        See also Damnation; Death, Spiritual; Devil; Sons of Perdition
                    
                
            
            Latter-day revelation speaks of hell in at least two senses. First, it is the temporary abode in the spirit world for those who were disobedient in mortality. In this sense, hell has an end. The spirits there will be taught the gospel, and sometime following their repentance they will be resurrected to a degree of glory of which they are worthy. Those who will not repent, but are nevertheless not sons of perdition, will remain in hell throughout the Millennium. After these thousand years of torment, they will be resurrected to a telestial glory (D&C 76:81–86; 88:100–101).
            Second, it is the permanent location of those who are not redeemed by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. In this sense, hell is permanent. It is for those who are found “filthy still” (D&C 88:35, 102). This is the place where Satan, his angels, and the sons of perdition—those who have denied the Son after the Father has revealed Him—will dwell eternally (D&C 76:43–46).
            The scriptures sometimes refer to hell as outer darkness. (Guide to the Scriptures, "Hell")

[Jersey Boy]

45 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah, you cant accuse me of that anymore. This idea you have of hell consisting of the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms is so far beyond what prophets have said to the contrary. You really expect me to believe the prophets agree with you on this? At least I can show where a modern prophet believes we are now in the telestial kingdom. But to go so far as to think that a kingdom of "glory" is hell? Yeah, thats as blatantly false a doctrine as one can get. Dont accuse me anymore of disregarding prophets. You are in a worse boat than myself.

In LDS doctrine, just as there are two meanings for hell — the one being a temporary abode where the wicked and rebellious who have not committed the unpardonable sin are punished for their transgressions with the purpose of bringing them to Christ and repentance, and the other being the permanent dwelling place of the unrepentant sons of perdition — there are also two meanings for the expression telestial. The first refers to the telestial world, or the fallen world which we mortals now inhabit, and the second referring to the telestial kingdom, one of the three post-resurrection kingdoms of heavenly glory. You may say this isn’t so, but I can assure every member of the First Presidency and every member of the Quorum of the Twelve would agree with my assessment. It’s in the temple that we learn the fallen orb on which we now live is a “telestial world,” and it’s in the scriptures where it is abundantly testified to that there is a  post-resurrection realm of heavenly glory known as the “telestial kingdom” (as opposed to the present pre-resurrection telestial world we call the planet earth.)

For my convenience, will you please repost the quote from the modern prophet whom you say teaches that we are now living in the same telestial kingdom of glory spoken of at length in D&C sections 76 and 88?

Edited April 23, 2018 by Jersey Boy

[Rob Osborn]

18 minutes ago, Jersey Boy said:

In LDS doctrine, just as there are two meanings for hell — the one being a temporary abode where the wicked and rebellious who have not committed the unpardonable sin are punished for their transgressions with the purpose of bringing them to Christ and repentance, and the other being the permanent dwelling place of the unrepentant sons of perdition — there are also two meanings for the expression telestial. The first refers to the telestial world, or the fallen world which we mortals now inhabit, and the second referring to the telestial kingdom, one of the three post-resurrection kingdoms of heavenly glory. You may say this isn’t so, but I can assure every member of the First Presidency and every member of the Quorum of the Twelve would agree with my assessment. It’s in the temple that we learn the fallen orb on which we now live is a “telestial world,” and it’s in the scriptures where it is abundantly testified to that there is a  post-resurrection realm of heavenly glory known as the “telestial kingdom” (as opposed to the present pre-resurrection telestial world we call the planet earth.)

For my convenience, will you please repost the quote from the modern prophet whom you say teaches that we are now living in the same telestial kingdom of glory spoken of at length in D&C sections 76 and 88?

"We are in the telestial kingdom; that is spelled with a t, not a c." https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/11/saturday-morning-session/be-ye-therefore-perfect-eventually?lang=eng

The temple actually teaches that we now live in "the telestial kingdom" (exact wording).

[Traveler]

19 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Help me out here, Traveler.  I believe you're giving two conflicting ideas. So, please clarify.

The first statement seems to show frustration at people who believe they've got the answer.

The second statement seems to justify those who believe they've got the answer.

Paul said that we “see through a glass darkly”.  I think that means that in this life we live by faith without accurate understanding of things.  So, yes I am a little frustrated with those (including LDS) that claim to have studied and now “see through a glass clearly”.

I do not see why you would think my second statement is contradictory.  – My question is simply – Is it a sin to think or claim we see things that have not been made known.  Let me put it another way – is it a sin to believe something that is not 100% accurate?  Especially to become close minded about it.

 

Thanks for asking

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

6 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Let me put it another way – is it a sin to believe something that is not 100% accurate?  Especially to become close minded about it.

That would make all LDS sinners. A belief in something doesnt constitute "sin" regardless of the accuracy of tge belief.

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah, you cant accuse me of that anymore. This idea you have of hell consisting of the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms is so far beyond what prophets have said to the contrary. You really expect me to believe the prophets agree with you on this? At least I can show where a modern prophet believes we are now in the telestial kingdom. But to go so far as to think that a kingdom of "glory" is hell? Yeah, thats as blatantly false a doctrine as one can get. Dont accuse me anymore of disregarding prophets. You are in a worse boat than myself.

I am not stating doctrine, and have never claimed to. Rather, I am sharing new light and knowledge. And, as good and decent a man as I think you are, you are the last person I would expect to believe what I shared. If you don't believe what modern prophets and apostles have said, there is no reason you would believe me--which is why I am happy to leave each to their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I do not see why you would think my second statement is contradictory. 

Yes, I understood both comments accurately based on your response.  But to answer this question here ^^.

I'll say it again.

1) Your first statements says that you've experienced frustration at A

2) Your second statement says A is perfectly fine.

So, why are you frustrated at something you then say is fine?

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Hell
        
        
            
                
                    
                        See also Damnation; Death, Spiritual; Devil; Sons of Perdition
                    
                
            
            Latter-day revelation speaks of hell in at least two senses. First, it is the temporary abode in the spirit world for those who were disobedient in mortality. In this sense, hell has an end. The spirits there will be taught the gospel, and sometime following their repentance they will be resurrected to a degree of glory of which they are worthy. Those who will not repent, but are nevertheless not sons of perdition, will remain in hell throughout the Millennium. After these thousand years of torment, they will be resurrected to a telestial glory (D&C 76:81–86; 88:100–101).
            Second, it is the permanent location of those who are not redeemed by the Atonement of Jesus Christ. In this sense, hell is permanent. It is for those who are found “filthy still” (D&C 88:35, 102). This is the place where Satan, his angels, and the sons of perdition—those who have denied the Son after the Father has revealed Him—will dwell eternally (D&C 76:43–46).
            The scriptures sometimes refer to hell as outer darkness. (Guide to the Scriptures, "Hell")

If you think this is an exhaustive and comprehensive definition of "hell," rather than a brief and general guide, then that is fine for you. It isn't fine for me. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

That would make all LDS sinners. A belief in something doesnt constitute "sin" regardless of the accuracy of tge belief.

 

Could you explain this response?

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

42 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Yes, I understood both comments accurately based on your response.  But to answer this question here ^^.

I'll say it again.

1) Your first statements says that you've experienced frustration at A

2) Your second statement says A is perfectly fine.

So, why are you frustrated at something you then say is fine?

You will have to help me out - what was it that I said secondly the gave you the impression that I initially indicated a problamatic that I then implied as fine.  I re-read what I thought was the post you  referenced and the only thing was whan I asked if something was a sin?  Are you interpertating my question about sin and an indication that it is not?

 

The Traveler

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

"We are in the telestial kingdom; that is spelled with a t, not a c." https://www.lds.org/ensign/2017/11/saturday-morning-session/be-ye-therefore-perfect-eventually?lang=eng

The temple actually teaches that we now live in "the telestial kingdom" (exact wording).

I agree. Do you?  

If so, then that would prove interesting given that  D&C 76:81-84  (see also verse 106) describes the inhabitants of that kingdom as "they who are thrust down to hell" (note the present tense)  In other words, the telestial kingdom is "hell."

Yet, not 3 hours ago you dogmatically proclaimed: "...This idea you have of hell consisting of the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms is so far beyond what prophets have said to the contrary. You really expect me to believe the prophets agree with you on this? ", 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, Traveler said:

You will have to help me out - what was it that I said secondly the gave you the impression that I initially indicated a problamatic that I then implied as fine.  I re-read what I thought was the post you  referenced and the only thing was whan I asked if something was a sin?  Are you interpertating my question about sin and an indication that it is not?

For me there were only three ways to interpret the asking of that question in the context.

1) You believe it is not a sin.  And you put the question out there in case anyone disagreed.
2) You didn't really know.  So, you asked for opinions / comments.
3) You believe it IS a sin.  And you asked it rhetorically to emphasize that it IS a sin.

I took it to mean #1 above.

#2 above is still the same result. You declared a position quite strongly.  Then you indicate uncertainty?  I didn't think that likely.

#3 above makes no sense.  To declare a strong position and then ask the question to others?  That just didn't make sense in the flow of thought.

So, if you feel the need, explain further.  Otherwise, I guess this is just another rabbit hole.

[Rob Osborn]

33 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I agree. Do you?  

If so, then that would prove interesting given that  D&C 76:81-84  (see also verse 106) describes the inhabitants of that kingdom as "they who are thrust down to hell" (note the present tense)  In other words, the telestial kingdom is "hell."

Yet, not 3 hours ago you dogmatically proclaimed: "...This idea you have of hell consisting of the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms is so far beyond what prophets have said to the contrary. You really expect me to believe the prophets agree with you on this? ", 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

They are thrust down to hell after their death- they go into spirit prison which is hell. 

[Rob Osborn]

59 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

Could you explain this response?

 

The Traveler

Not every single belief is 100% accurate. Thus, as Im understanding you, they must all be sinners.

For instance- in this topic you have some who believe repentance isnt possible after death and some who believe it is. Neither group are sinners though in this whether one is right and the other wrong.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

If you think this is an exhaustive and comprehensive definition of "hell," rather than a brief and general guide, then that is fine for you. It isn't fine for me. To each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Its the whole truth. You are inventing your own definition and place of hell contrary to scripture.

[wenglund]

15 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

They are thrust down to hell after their death- they go into spirit prison which is hell. 

Speaking of inventing, the passage does not contain the words "after death". Rather, it describes those who ARE in the telestial kingdom--i.e. those who ARE thrust down and who ARE cast down to hell. In fact,  verse 104 describes them as ".they who suffer the wrath of God on earth."

Granted, the general context of Section 76 is the resurrection, which is after death, but earlier in this and other threads you de-contextualized the relevant passages so as to promote your assertion that we are currently in the telestial kingdom.  So, unfortunately, you live by the de-contextualizing sword, and you die by the same.

But, even in context the passage doesn't say what you claim it says. It is referring to those who ARE in the resurrected tellestial kingdom.

However, those of us, unlike you,  not bound by interpretive rigidity and dogmatism, and who can think beyond the binary, and are willing and able to accept new light and knowledge, may understand that there is a telestial kingdom that is mortal earth, and there is the telestial kingdom of immortal or resurrected heaven, the former being a type and a shadow of the latter, if not also a precursor.

To each their own.

P.S. While we currently be IN the telestial world/kingdom of mortal earth, we need not be OF the telestial world. In other words, while we may be IN hell on earth, we need not be of hell, but can be OF heaven on earth.  We can attain a bit more heaven and glory and less hell by living the terrestrial law, or we can attain a lot more heaven and glory by living the celestial law.

But, the distinction between IN and OF moves the mind beyond the binary perception of in-or-out, and may be more than some can comprehend.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

[Rob Osborn]

11 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Speaking of inventing, the passage does not contain the words "after death". Rather, it describes those who ARE in the telestial kingdom--i.e. those who ARE thrust down and who ARE cast down to hell. In fact,  verse 104 describes them as ".they who suffer the wrath of God on earth."

Granted, the general context of Section 76 is the resurrection, which is after death, but earlier in this and other threads you de-contextualized the relevant passages so as to promote your assertion that we are currently in the telestial kingdom.  So, unfortunately, you live by the de-contextualizing sword, and you die by the same.

But, even in context the passage doesn't say what you claim it says. It is referring to those who ARE in the resurrected tellestial kingdom.

However, those of us, unlike you,  not bound by interpretive rigidity and dogmatism, and who can think beyond the binary, and are willing and able to accept new light and knowledge, may understand that there is a telestial kingdom that is mortal earth, and there is the telestial kingdom of immortal or resurrected heaven, the former being a type and a shadow of the latter, if not also a precursor.

To each their own.

P.S. While we currently be IN the telestial world/kingdom of mortal earth, we need not be OF the telestial world. In other words, while we may be IN hell on earth, we need not be of hell, but can be OF heaven on earth.  We can attain a bit more heaven and glory and less hell by living the terrestrial law, or we can attain a lot more heaven and glory by living the celestial law.

But, the distinction between IN and OF moves the mind beyond the binary perception of in-or-out, and may be more than some can comprehend.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

You know what I think? I think you are starting to see tge strict dichotomy of saved or damned and so now you are trying to contrive a means to explain the wicked on tge left hand to include the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms. Good luck with that.

BTW, if you claim that the ones spoken of in section 76:103 are currently in the telestial then you must admit they are in the lake of fire and brimstone which is the second death.

You definitely have to jump through more severely increasingly tighter hoops to make your paradigm work.

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

For me there were only three ways to interpret the asking of that question in the context.

1) You believe it is not a sin.  And you put the question out there in case anyone disagreed.
2) You didn't really know.  So, you asked for opinions / comments.
3) You believe it IS a sin.  And you asked it rhetorically to emphasize that it IS a sin.

I took it to mean #1 above.

#2 above is still the same result. You declared a position quite strongly.  Then you indicate uncertainty?  I didn't think that likely.

#3 above makes no sense.  To declare a strong position and then ask the question to others?  That just didn't make sense in the flow of thought.

So, if you feel the need, explain further.  Otherwise, I guess this is just another rabbit hole.

Perhaps it is a rabbbit hole.  I attempted to state my opinion and give others opportunity - especially if they disagree.  But I did want to propose a possibility - that is - that it is possible to sin in arguing a point - that is slightly off just a little and not quite 100% true.  I believe Elder Uchtdorf once gave a talk where he made reference to piolet error in navigation.  The piolet thought he was following the correct course - he was only off a little very small % - an error (sin) that resulted in the loss of plane and many lives.

In the TV show Steinfelt - a character states - "It is not a lie if you really believe it is true."  When you first posted your response - I thought this may express your opinion and why you called it another rabbit hole.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Not every single belief is 100% accurate. Thus, as Im understanding you, they must all be sinners.

For instance- in this topic you have some who believe repentance isnt possible after death and some who believe it is. Neither group are sinners though in this whether one is right and the other wrong.

Perhaps if I ask a different question - When the spirit testifies concerning a matter; is it 100% accurate?  Always?  And does accurate include complete?

 

The Traveler

Edited April 23, 2018 by Traveler

[wenglund]

23 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You know what I think? I think you are starting to see tge strict dichotomy of saved or damned and so now you are trying to contrive a means to explain the wicked on tge left hand to include the telestial and terrestrial kingdoms. Good luck with that.

I do believe in the old light dichotomy of damned and saved, though not in a strict sense, since that would deny new light and knowledge.

There is no luck needed in grasping the dichotomous separation between left and right hands in elevated ways along a spectrum.  Life is full of such things--at least to those with eyes to see and ears to hear. For example, here is a group of people on Christs left and right: One can imagine the population of the earth similarly arrayed beneath his feet.

Quote

BTW, if you claim that the ones spoken of in section 76:103 are currently in the telestial then you must admit they are in the lake of fire and brimstone which is the second death.

Yes, as well as the vengeance of the eternal fires and wrath of the almighty God (vs 105-106), each "according to his own works, his own dominion [note the implication of range or spectrum] , in the mansions [note the non-binary plurality] which are prepared." (D&C 76:111)

Quote

You definitely have to jump through more severely increasingly tighter hoops to make your paradigm work.

I don't doubt it seems that way to the interpretive rigid and dogmatically binary mind.  However, to the nuanced-capable and those benefited by new light and knowledge, the hoops are non-existent and the paradigm work a gentle and comforting breeze--in Hebrew it is called ruwach, which is used in reference to the Holy Spirit..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-