Repentance after death

[Jersey Boy]

10 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I read your post "very carefully" the first time.

And my question is rhetorical, in that D&C is plainly not rendered wrong by D&C 138, and nothing has changed in regards to the fact that we do work for the dead and leave judgment to God.

The fact that baptism is theoretically requisite for salvation in the Telestial Kingdom is neither here nor there as to what we are about in this life and in our duty to God.

You may have carefully read my post but it doesn't seem you grasp what I was trying quite hard to communicate. The fact of the matter is that D&C 138 plainly testifies the ordinances of the gospel (the very same ordinances the leaders of the Church have been teaching for many years pertain only to those who will inherit the celestial kingdom) are taught to and extended to those who procrastinated the day of their repentance until after death. Why are those who rejected the prophets and rebelled against the gospel while in the flesh expected to receive sacred gospel ordinances in the spirit world that many leaders have taught pertain only to those who will inherit the celestial kingdom?

Edited May 2, 2018 by Jersey Boy

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, Jersey Boy said:

You may have carefully read my post but it doesn't seem you grasp what I was trying quite hard to communicate. The fact of the matter is that D&C 138 plainly testifies the ordinances of the gospel (the very same ordinances the leaders of the Church have been teaching for many years pertain only to those who will inherit the celestial kingdom) are taught to and extended to those who procrastinated the day of their repentance until after death. Why are those who rejected the prophets and rebelled against the gospel while in the flesh expected to receive sacred gospel ordinances in the spirit world that many leaders have taught pertain only to those who will inherit the celestial kingdom?

If you want me to grasp what it is you're trying to communicate, why don't you say what you're trying to communicate instead of asking question?

[Jersey Boy]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If you want me to grasp what it is you're trying to communicate, why don't you say what you're trying to communicate instead of asking question?

Instead of deflecting, why don’t you try answering the question? I already did try my best to communicate my thoughts to you in my second to last post on this thread, a response I thoughtfully and very carefully crafted just for you..

 

[wenglund]

16 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't think so. I prefer donuts to spinach. I often choose the latter because I know and trust it's better for me. I don't always "feel" healthy just because I ate spinach though. I trust...so I choose. I put off my preferences for what I believe to be better.

I don't think so. But I guess it comes down to what one means by "prefer". I don't "prefer" pain to no pain ever. But I often choose pain anyhow.

Sure. But I don't think that means they "prefer" something that they are accepting by pure faith. That is key, imo.

It's not like tasting bacon and then tasting avacodo and saying, "Hmm...I prefer the bacon." It's more like tasting bacon and avacado and then being told that if you don't ever eat bacon and always eat avacado you'll eventually be given something that tastes so much better than either of them that you can't even begin to comprehend it. You may trust that to be true and thereby put off the bacon. But that doesn't make it so you prefer the taste of avacado to the taste of bacon.

Once again, I don't think so. I don't believe anyone "prefers" pain and agony and hurt. There's a reason terms like long-suffering are used. We don't prefer the pain. We take it because we've been told it will lead to something that we WILL prefer, eventually, and we choose to trust that or we do not. But we will all, imo, prefer what God has promises us will bring us a fulness. 

It's true in a perfect world. But if you take a child and teach them to wait to eat the marshmallow so they'll get a whole bag of marshmallows, many won't have the discipline to wait because they're children and incapable of associating long-term reward with short-term actions. That inability does not mean they didn't want the bag of marshmallows.

And I think it's going to be a bunch of folk who wanted (prefer) the bag of marshmallows but kept eating the marshmallow they had, and now they don't get the full bag. 

 

Perhaps the best evidence in support of what @zil and I and others have contended, and somewhat contrary to what you suggest above, are the Sons of Perdition.  These are men who were effectively given a good sense for happiness, but, as inexplicable as it may seem to us, they freely choose/chose (self selected) misery. It is what they prefer, in part because it suits their nature.

I am also of the belief that even though we will be separated from the flesh for a time after death, the inclinations of the natural man will still remain with us beyond the grave except were we to bring the natural man under subjection to the spirit while in mortality. If the former, then, as is the case during mortality, those for whom the natural man predominates, will prefer, to varying degrees, wickedness over righteousness,  short-term gratification over long-term joy, etc.,  They may prefer the telestial or terrestrial kingdoms over the celestial. because those kingdoms are better suited to their more natural rather than spiritual natures.

I think it is also likely that those with a firm philosophical bent towards equality (and other philosophies of men), will, as we find many doing in mortality, have an aversion for the inequality of outcome in the eternities, and opt (self select) for the lowest kingdom where there may be a greater semblance of equality--if not shared beliefs , and out of spite for the high achievers in the Celestial kingdom.  Again, this may seem inexplicable to the rational mind, but there is such ample evidence of it in mortality to give reason for believing it may not be much different in the after life.

But, this is just an educated guess. I could be entirely wrong as you keep telling me. We'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 2, 2018 by wenglund

[wenglund]

17 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

 Why are those who rejected the prophets and rebelled against the gospel while in the flesh expected to receive sacred gospel ordinances in the spirit world that many leaders have taught pertain only to those who will inherit the celestial kingdom?

Excellent question.

Speaking only for myself, I see at least two ways to reasonably reconcile portions of D$C 76 with portions of D&C 138

1. If one views the description of the Terrestrial kingdom in D&C 76 in absolute terms, then those spirits in prison who fit the description,  and yet accept the gospel preached to them in prison, and repent, and receive the vicarious ordinances of baptism--as indicated in D&C 138, while not celestialized thereby,  will be benefited--i.e. they will be redeemed and cleansed from their sins, though still to be judged as terrestrial according to their works. Baptism, then, isn't a requisite for the terrestrial kingdom,  but a blessing therein nevertheless.
2. If one views the description of the Terrestrial kingdom in D&C 76 as a general rule, then D&C 138 may be seen as clarifying the exceptions to that rule--i.e. those who accept the gospel in prison, repent, and receive the vicarious ordinance of baptism, will be celestialized.

There may be other ways to reconcile the two sections, if not also admit to not knowing or having a clue, but I am inclined at this point, and for reasons of my own, to favor the second reconciliation. We'll see.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Edited May 2, 2018 by wenglund

[The Folk Prophet]

9 hours ago, Jersey Boy said:

Instead of deflecting, why don’t you try answering the question?

Ha. I'm under no obligation to answer anyone's questions. Tell me your mind if you want to. No skin off my back if you don't want to speak plainly.

[The Folk Prophet]

7 hours ago, wenglund said:

Perhaps the best evidence in support of what @zil and I and others have contended, and somewhat contrary to what you suggest above, are the Sons of Perdition.  These are men who were effectively given a good sense for happiness, but, as inexplicable as it may seem to us, they freely choose/chose (self selected) misery. It is what they prefer, in part because it suits their nature.

That isn't "evidence", it's merely conjecture.

7 hours ago, wenglund said:

I am also of the belief that even though we will be separated from the flesh for a time after death, the inclinations of the natural man will still remain with us beyond the grave except were we to bring the natural man under subjection to the spirit while in mortality.

I'm of the opinion that this sort of thinking is pseudo folk-doctrine and that across the entire spectrum of human experience and the little of what we know concerning others' potential for exaltation who never had the opportunity to hear the truth in this life, it doesn't make sense. 

7 hours ago, wenglund said:

If the former, then, as is the case during mortality, those for whom the natural man predominates, will prefer, to varying degrees, wickedness over righteousness

Right...implying that the man who lives his life mating with anything that moves and ingesting any mind-altering substance he can get his hands on because he was raised and taught to do so and never had the opportunity to learn that there was anything wrong with this at all is under condemnation because he didn't overcome that in mortality. As in, for example, literally billions of Asians who's culture(s) for thousands of years had no word of Christianity or any of the principles therein or any influence therefrom. They're all out of luck because the natural man, they having no understanding that the natural man was evil, dominated their existences. All doomed?

I don't think so.

7 hours ago, wenglund said:

But, this is just an educated guess. I could be entirely wrong as you keep telling me. We'll see.

Which is really all I'm after here. We could all be entirely wrong. Because most of this hasn't been revealed and we love to apply our mortal views and intelligence to things that we cannot even begin to understand.

As I've said, there are plain principles we do understand though -- we need to repent now, humble ourselves, obey the word of God, and serve him, etc. These principles are plain, understandable, and worth pursuit.

"Educated" guesses don't mean a whole lot when the information we have that is factual truth on any given matter is so exceedingly sparse.

What I see is this trend where people take these little snippets of information that are not only limited in scope, but moderately cryptic, and interpolate therefrom vast speculative theories that in some cases aren't particularly harmful, per se, but in many cases are used to deny other principles that are taught in the church. Extreme examples are like Rob's nonsense. But even lesser examples, though less egregious and less potentially harmful, are still more likely wrong than right when they come up against plain principles taught in the church or the scriptures.

[wenglund]

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That isn't "evidence", it's merely conjecture.

I'm of the opinion that this sort of thinking is pseudo folk-doctrine and that across the entire spectrum of human experience and the little of what we know concerning others' potential for exaltation who never had the opportunity to hear the truth in this life, it doesn't make sense. 

Right...implying that the man who lives his life mating with anything that moves and ingesting any mind-altering substance he can get his hands on because he was raised and taught to do so and never had the opportunity to learn that there was anything wrong with this at all is under condemnation because he didn't overcome that in mortality. As in, for example, literally billions of Asians who's culture(s) for thousands of years had no word of Christianity or any of the principles therein or any influence therefrom. They're all out of luck because the natural man, they having no understanding that the natural man was evil, dominated their existences. All doomed?

I don't think so.

Which is really all I'm after here. We could all be entirely wrong. Because most of this hasn't been revealed and we love to apply our mortal views and intelligence to things that we cannot even begin to understand.

As I've said, there are plain principles we do understand though -- we need to repent now, humble ourselves, obey the word of God, and serve him, etc. These principles are plain, understandable, and worth pursuit.

"Educated" guesses don't mean a whole lot when the information we have that is factual truth on any given matter is so exceedingly sparse.

What I see is this trend where people take these little snippets of information that are not only limited in scope, but moderately cryptic, and interpolate therefrom vast speculative theories that in some cases aren't particularly harmful, per se, but in many cases are used to deny other principles that are taught in the church. Extreme examples are like Rob's nonsense. But even lesser examples, though less egregious and less potentially harmful, are still more likely wrong than right when they come up against plain principles taught in the church or the scriptures.

I am not sure I can square your adamant claims that I am wrong,  with your primary point that no one has a clue..  It would seem to me that the tempering aspects of the later would militate against the Rob-like dogmatism of the former.

I agree that we should proceed cautiously in reasoning about the hereafter, particularly  where there is the potential for one's conclusions to "deny other principles that are taught in the church."  However, to me, the antidote isn't negating exploration into the relative unknown, but humility and eschewing dogmatism. 

Granted, sure truths about the eternities are relatively scarce, and that should also advise caution, though it need not negate exploring rationally in good faith based on the principle that the earthy is created in the likeness of the heavenly, that mortality and the finite are somewhat a reflection of the immortal and eternal--in other words, things occurring in mortality may well be evidence of things in immortality. Else-wise, scriptures like D&C 130:18 are rendered somewhat meaningless, and we may be somewhat robbed (pun intended) of motivating and peace-inducing enlightenment of the future beyond the grave.

It also helps to correctly understand a persons position before adamantly dismissing it. For example, you seem to conflate my reasonable explanation of how people might self select resurrected kingdoms, with absolutist principles by which people will be judged.  Nothing I said may rightly be construed as suggesting that those with natural man tendencies in mortality will be prevented thereby from the opportunity in the after life to repent and receive exaltation. In fact, in my post reconciling D&C 76 with D&C 138 above, I favored the option of post-mortal repentance. In other words, I am not stating what will absolutely happen to all, but rather why things may pan out the way they do for some.  I am not denying the opportunity to repent to druggies who knew no better, but instead I am explaining why some who knew better, and also some who upon learning better, may  yet chose not to repent, preferring instead to  remain at the level of intelligence they attained in this life, and  abide their natural man inclinations through the eternities. 

As with Rob, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Edited May 2, 2018 by wenglund

[Traveler]

I would make three suggestions:

#1. Repentance is necessary to receive forgiveness of sins.

#2. There are consequences for procrastinating or delaying repentance.  There is nothing beneficial to be achieved by procrastinating repentance.  There is a corollary to this statement – that is that there are blessings for repenting “NOW!” – that cannot “EVER” be obtained otherwise – even if one repents later.

#3. Repentance is for remission of sins, although necessary for salvation does not insure exaltation.  Repentance does not by itself make someone worthy for exaltation – that can only come by and through obedience to Laws of whatever exaltation one obtains.  (It is by the law that one is justified).

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

First off I want to apologize to those I offended. I truly love all my brothers and sisters here in the forums. I never mean any ill will. Sometimes the dialogue gets condescending and spiteful but know this- in the end I love you all and have no ill fealings towards others. The vacation time was good though as I was able to do some research into Noah Webster and his work. I feel quite strongly the Lord raised him up to help with the problems of semantics in the scriptures. His work was contemporary with Joseph Smith and bringing forth the Book of Mormon. Why is this important now? Webster knew and understood that the English language was already eroding and there were problems arising with correctly using words and definitions the right way (semantics). So, he spent a large portion of his life devoted to the study of language and created a new Americam dictionary. His work was very extensive. He not only wanted to keep intact the correct usage of words but to reinforce the reasons why an understanding of biblical language was important to knowledge. I thus find it no coincidence that he was raised up by the Lord as a founding father at that specific time in post New England collonization to create a work that correctly defines the words Joseph Smith wanted to convey in the Book of Mormon. Now, almost 200 years later, as our words and definitions have changed so too has our doctrine deviated as that found in the Book of Mormon. But, thanks to Noah Webster we have a checks and balance so to speak on correctly understanding what words like "damnation" really mean and exactly how Joseph Smith used it to mean exactly what the Lord wanted conveyed.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

I am not sure I can square your adamant claims that I am wrong,  with your primary point that no one has a clue..  It would seem to me that the tempering aspects of the later would militate against the Rob-like dogmatism of the former.

I agree that we should proceed cautiously in reasoning about the hereafter, particularly  where there is the potential for one's conclusions to "deny other principles that are taught in the church."  However, to me, the antidote isn't negating exploration into the relative unknown, but humility and eschewing dogmatism. 

Granted, sure truths about the eternities are relatively scarce, and that should also advise caution, though it need not negate exploring rationally in good faith based on the principle that the earthy is created in the likeness of the heavenly, that mortality and the finite are somewhat a reflection of the immortal and eternal--in other words, things occurring in mortality may well be evidence of things in immortality. Else-wise, scriptures like D&C 130:18 are rendered somewhat meaningless, and we may be somewhat robbed (pun intended) of motivating and peace-inducing enlightenment of the future beyond the grave.

It also helps to correctly understand a persons position before adamantly dismissing it. For example, you seem to conflate my reasonable explanation of how people might self select resurrected kingdoms, with absolutist principles by which people will be judged.  Nothing I said may rightly be construed as suggesting that those with natural man tendencies in mortality will be prevented thereby from the opportunity in the after life to repent and receive exaltation. In fact, in my post reconciling D&C 76 with D&C 138 above, I favored the option of post-mortal repentance. In other words, I am not stating what will absolutely happen to all, but rather why things may pan out the way they do for some.  I am not denying the opportunity to repent to druggies who knew no better, but instead I am explaining why some who knew better, and also some who upon learning better, may  yet chose not to repent, preferring instead to  remain at the level of intelligence they attained in this life, and  abide their natural man inclinations through the eternities. 

As with Rob, to each their own.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

The natural man is an enemy to God and forever will be. God willnot save his enemies from Satan. All must repent and have a "mighty change" or they cannot be saved from Satan in hell eternally.

[Rob Osborn]

12 minutes ago, Traveler said:

I would make three suggestions:

#1. Repentance is necessary to receive forgiveness of sins.

#2. There are consequences for procrastinating or delaying repentance.  There is nothing beneficial to be achieved by procrastinating repentance.  There is a corollary to this statement – that is that there are blessings for repenting “NOW!” – that cannot “EVER” be obtained otherwise – even if one repents later.

#3. Repentance is for remission of sins, although necessary for salvation does not insure exaltation.  Repentance does not by itself make someone worthy for exaltation – that can only come by and through obedience to Laws of whatever exaltation one obtains.  (It is by the law that one is justified).

 

The Traveler

Im curious- if one repents and is baptized it is said they become joint heirs with Christ in the attainment of all the Father has to give. How do you reconcile this?

Edited May 2, 2018 by Rob Osborn

[wenglund]

12 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

First off I want to apologize to those I offended. I truly love all my brothers and sisters here in the forums. I never mean any ill will. Sometimes the dialogue gets condescending and spiteful but know this- in the end I love you all and have no ill fealings towards others.

The same gratefully to you as well.

Quote

The vacation time was good though as I was able to do some research into Noah Webster and his work. I feel quite strongly the Lord raised him up to help with the problems of semantics in the scriptures. His work was contemporary with Joseph Smith and bringing forth the Book of Mormon. Why is this important now? Webster knew and understood that the English language was already eroding and there were problems arising with correctly using words and definitions the right way (semantics). So, he spent a large portion of his life devoted to the study of language and created a new Americam dictionary. His work was very extensive. He not only wanted to keep intact the correct usage of words but to reinforce the reasons why an understanding of biblical language was important to knowledge. I thus find it no coincidence that he was raised up by the Lord as a founding father at that specific time in post New England collonization to create a work that correctly defines the words Joseph Smith wanted to convey in the Book of Mormon. Now, almost 200 years later, as our words and definitions have changed so too has our doctrine deviated as that found in the Book of Mormon. But, thanks to Noah Webster we have a checks and balance so to speak on correctly understanding what words like "damnation" really mean and exactly how Joseph Smith used it to mean exactly what the Lord wanted conveyed.

While the works of Noah Webster may prove illuminating,  I would caution against using his vast though finite and 19th century knowledge of language to construct a conceptual box in which to confine an omniscient and infinite God, particularly dogmatically. Doing so may prevent progress in light and knowledge.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, wenglund said:

The same gratefully to you as well.

While the works of Noah Webster may prove illuminating,  I would caution against using his vast though finite and 19th century knowledge of language to construct a conceptual box in which to confine an omniscient and infinite God, particularly dogmatically. Doing so may prevent progress in light and knowledge.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

He was actually a genius and raised by God to help esrablish our country as a Christian nation. All I am stating is that his work stands ad a witness and pillar of strength to preserving the true and pure doctrines of Christ. The language Joseph Smith used correlates with Noah Websters definitions of words. Because we have that unchanging source (his 1828 dictionary) we can preserve the original meaning of tge Book of Mormon. Thus, "damnation" wasnt meant what we think it now means as Joseph used the word. Joseph Smith used the word as the type of future condemnation to hell.

[Rob Osborn]

 

Heres a little treasure from Joseph Smith teaching either repentance and baptism to then receive celestial glory or remain disobedient to receive the damnation of hell-

"Upon the same principle do I contend that baptism is
a sign ordained of God, for the believer in Christ to take upon himself in order to enter into the
kingdom of God, “for except ye are born of water and of the Spirit ye cannot enter into the Kingdom
of God,” said the Savior. It is a sign and a commandment which God has set for man to enter into
His kingdom. Those who seek to enter in any other way will seek in vain; for God will not receive
them, neither will the angels acknowledge their works as accepted, for they have not obeyed the
ordinances, nor attended to the signs which God ordained for the salvation of man, to prepare him
for, and give him a title to, a celestial glory; and God had decreed that all who will not obey His
voice shall not escape the damnation of hell.  What is the damnation of hell? To go with that
society who have not obeyed His commands." (TPJS pg. 198)

Edited May 2, 2018 by Rob Osborn

[The Folk Prophet]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

As with Rob, to each their own.

You know...I was going to continue and explain what I'm getting at further and continue along with what I have, thus far, felt was an intellectual stimulating and useful conversation, but I realize with this statement of yours that I have been fooling myself. 

[wenglund]

27 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Im curious- if one repents and is baptized it is said they become joint heirs with Christ in the attainment of all the Father has to give. How do you reconcile this?

I am aware that baptism is a means by which we become sons and daughters of Christ. However, to become joint-heirs requires obtaining the two priesthoods and the oath and covenant thereof (D&C 84).

And, fulfilling the basic requirement to enter the Celestial kingdom doesn't guarantee Celestial glory. After all, many who have been baptized have turned from the faith.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

[Rob Osborn]

3 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I am aware that baptism is a means by which we become sons and daughters of Christ. However, to become joint-heirs requires obtaining the two priesthoods and the oath and covenant thereof (D&C 84).

And, fulfilling the basic requirement to enter the Celestial kingdom doesn't guarantee Celestial glory. After all, many who have been baptized have turned from the faith.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Yes, but the gateway is repentance and baptism. The baptismal covenant contains with in it the promise to be obedient to all he commands one to do. Through baptism however we do become joint-heirs as we are called his "children" with Christ to receive all the Father hath. A "child" is just that- an heir.

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You know...I was going to continue and explain what I'm getting at further and continue along with what I have, thus far, felt was an intellectual stimulating and useful conversation, but I realize with this statement of yours that I have been fooling myself. 

You are free to take it that way, though my intent was to enhance the potential for stimulating intellectual and useful conversation by discouraging seemingly emphatic and frequent dismissals I sense coming from you, while still respecting your right to post as you wish, just as I have done with Rob. 

Also, my comments were supposed to lighthearted--a gentle ribbing rather than a scathing rebuke. Evidently I failed in that effort. I would have thought from all the thumbs ups that I have given your posts over the past while, you would know how much I generally respect and agree with your position.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 2, 2018 by wenglund

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

First off I want to apologize to those I offended. I truly love all my brothers and sisters here in the forums. I never mean any ill will. Sometimes the dialogue gets condescending and spiteful but know this- in the end I love you all and have no ill fealings towards others.

Wow!  That took a lot of strength to say that.  I would like to return that in kind.  I also apologize for anything I've said to hurt you.  I hope we can have a better relationship moving forward.

[Rob Osborn]

5 minutes ago, wenglund said:

You are free to take it that way, though my intent was to enhance the potential for stimulating intellectual and useful conversation by discouraging seemingly emphatic and frequent dismissals I sense coming from you, while still respecting your right to post as you wish, just as I have done with Rob.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Just to help you out a bit, be very careful in the manner in which you speak with others or you may be put on vacation for a week like I was...

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Just to help you out a bit, be very careful in the manner in which you speak with others or you may be put on vacation for a week like I was...

Good advise, though I believe I should be careful regardless of possible penalties--which tends to be my intent, though I am not always successful. .It also helps not to be thin skinned when seemingly on the receiving end, trusting that others are attempting to be careful as well, whether successful or not. Such are the hazards of cyber communications.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 2, 2018 by wenglund

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yes, but the gateway is repentance and baptism. The baptismal covenant contains with in it the promise to be obedient to all he commands one to do. Through baptism however we do become joint-heirs as we are called his "children" with Christ to receive all the Father hath. A "child" is just that- an heir.

This makes sense as a general rule.

However,  we all (including Satan and a third of the hosts of heaven) are children of our heavenly Father.  As children, we are made eligible to receive His inheritance, though, as with birthrights, we are not guaranteed that inheritance . Not only can we negate our eligibility through disobedience (selling our birthright, etc.)--as was the case with Satan and his hosts and the Son's of Perdition,  but we can limit the extent of our inheritance through lack of works (ordinances and Christ-like labors) and failing to endure to the end To obtain a full inheritance, and thereby become joint heirs with Christ requires more than simply taking upon us his name, and having our sins cleansed by his blood.  We need also to strive until the end to become like him. We need to abide the celestial law to inherit the celestial kingdom.  

Said another way, the degree to which we inherit the things of the Father are contingent up the extent to which we freely comply with the will of the Father. And, since God's children will comply to varying degrees with God's will, they will rightly receive varying degrees of the Father's glory and kingdoms, etc.

At least that is how I understand things.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

44 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Good advise, though I believe I should be careful regardless of possible penalties--which tends to be my intent, though I am not always successful. .It also helps not to be thin skinned when seemingly on the receiving end, trusting that others are attempting to be careful as well, whether successful or not. Such are the hazards of cyber communications.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

I agree. I dont care really what others think or say of me, especially in the midst of debate. It does bother me though when suddenly out of the blue you get banned from even viewing the topic let alone commenting and you are left wondering what just happened.

[Rob Osborn]

15 minutes ago, wenglund said:

This makes sense as a general rule.

However,  we all (including Satan and a third of the hosts of heaven) are children of our heavenly Father.  As children, we are made eligible to receive His inheritance, though, as with birthrights, we are not guaranteed that inheritance . Not only can we negate our eligibility through disobedience (selling our birthright, etc.)--as was the case with Satan and his hosts and the Son's of Perdition,  but we can limit the extent of our inheritance through lack of works (ordinances and Christ-like labors) and failing to endure to the end To obtain a full inheritance, and thereby become joint heirs with Christ requires more than simply taking upon us his name, and having our sins cleansed by his blood.  We need also to strive until the end to become like him. We need to abide the celestial law to inherit the celestial kingdom.  

Said another way, the degree to which we inherit the things of the Father are contingent up the extent to which we freely comply with the will of the Father. And, since God's children will comply to varying degrees with God's will, they will rightly receive varying degrees of the Father's glory and kingdoms, etc.

At least that is how I understand things.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The path portion is where we disagree. You see the path of salvation as having exits along the way where only a percentage of obedience is attained and thus many places short of obedience where the saved end up. I see the path as having to reach the end before one is saved which includes obedience to all saving ordinances.