Repentance after death

[wenglund]

12 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You must think that God must miserably fail in bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. 

You continue to make false assumptions about my beliefs. Please stop it.

To me, it isn't God who is failing, but mankind, and this based on free agency, by which God is bounded.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

3 minutes ago, wenglund said:

You continue to make false assumptions about my beliefs. Please stop it.

To me, it isn't God who is failing, but mankind, and this based on free agency, by which God is bounded.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

All of the saved receive immortality and eternal life in the end. How do you reconcile this fact?

[wenglund]

28 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah, no one I know is living the celestial law while on earth as no mortal I know is perfect.

I don't view you as in a position to judge (this is reserved to the Father as mediated by the Son), particularly given your evident ignorance of what it means to live a celestial law especially as it relates to perfection.

Why else did the Savior commend us to become as a little child in mortality were it not that the little children, by virtue of the atonement, living a celestial law, perfectly pure and sinless.

How did you not know this?

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Edited May 3, 2018 by wenglund

[wenglund]

42 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Thats only your perception, I see it very clear. Perhaps maybe we are speaking of different things?

No, it is more than my perception. It is a rational given that I am in a far better position to know what I believe and mean than you. Unless you can accept this, and humbly grant that, based upon my authoritative position,  it evidently isn't clear to you (if not oft turned upside down), then you will continue to make false assumptions about my beliefs, which false assumption are a significant barrier to effective communication.

At some point (and I am about there), I will lose patience in having to continually correct you, and will once again deem fruitless attempting to converse with you. 

In short, stop assuming what I believe, and let me speak for myself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

[Rob Osborn]

7 minutes ago, wenglund said:

No, it is more than my perception. It is a rational given that I am in a far better position to know what I believe and mean than you. Unless you can accept this, and humbly grant that, based upon my authoritative position,  it evidently isn't clear to you (if not oft turned upside down), then you will continue to make false assumptions about my beliefs, which false assumption are a significant barrier to effective communication.

At some point (and I am about there), I will lose patience in having to continually correct you, and will once again deem fruitless attempting to converse with you. 

In short, stop assuming what I believe, and let me speak for myself.

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

And what is your "authoritive position"? Are you a General Authority?

[wenglund]

25 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

All of the saved receive immortality and eternal life in the end. How do you reconcile this fact?

I reconcile it the same way I have repeatedly reconciled it in the past with you. It depends upon which salvation one is referring to and the degree and ways in which they are saved. The new and greater light and knowledge that depicts things more along a spectrum, doesn't negate or contradict, but illuminates in greater detail, the old binary light and knowledge, and thus need not be reconciled..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

Just now, wenglund said:

I reconcile it the same way I have repeatedly reconciled it in the past with you. It depends upon which salvation one is referring to and the degree and ways in which they are saved. The new and greater light and knowledge that depicts things more along a spectrum, doesn't negate or contradict, but illuminates in greater detail, the old binary light and knowledge, and thus need not be reconciled..

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

So, you think "eternal life" is all shades then from dark to light?

[wenglund]

1 minute ago, Rob Osborn said:

And what is your "authoritive position"? Are you a General Authority?

One does not need to be a general authority in order to be an authority on what one personally believes. Obviously. One simply needs an adequate level of self awarenes and self knowledge. How did you not know this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

11 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, you think "eternal life" is all shades then from dark to light?

Metaphorically speaking, yes and no. It depends upon which of the varied meanings of "eternal life" one has in mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited May 3, 2018 by wenglund

[Traveler]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

By worldly standards or godly standards. Kingdom has such a myriad of meaning we could be both thinking of vastly different things and neither be incorrect. Please get to the point.

I am not sure I understand why you are asking the question – Are you implying that G-d intended to confuse and deceive ancients that listened to Prophets (from which the scriptures come) what it meant to be an heir?  Why do you think there must be an implied difference?  Thus, the question????

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

An heir is entitled to become all powerful as the one who has that power. In this case its God- an heir in Gods kingdom is to receive that same power and authority- to become gods ourselves.

 

I think you are confused – you answer implies a single heir, not joint heirs.  Also, you are thinking in only in terms of what happens when (if) the estate owner (sovereign) no longer exists.  I will try to make this easy for you – an heir has “access” (not ownership) to the estate but only under the oversight and control of the sovereign while the sovereign is cognizant.  If you like I can recommend some reading material that will help you to understand terms and their context better.

 

The Traveler

[wenglund]

10 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 Also, you are thinking in only in terms of what happens when (if) the estate owner (sovereign) no longer exists.  I will try to make this easy for you – an heir has “access” (not ownership) to the estate but only under the oversight and control of the sovereign while the sovereign is cognizant. 

..such as with stewardship and divine investiture?

Thanks, -Wade Enlgnd-

[Rob Osborn]

32 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 

I think you are confused – you answer implies a single heir, not joint heirs.  Also, you are thinking in only in terms of what happens when (if) the estate owner (sovereign) no longer exists.  I will try to make this easy for you – an heir has “access” (not ownership) to the estate but only under the oversight and control of the sovereign while the sovereign is cognizant.  If you like I can recommend some reading material that will help you to understand terms and their context better.

 

The Traveler

I dont really get what your point is. I feel like Im in some guessing game and frankly I dont really care to waste any more of my time. Good day.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, wenglund said:

One does not need to be a general authority in order to be an authority on what one personally believes. Obviously. One simply needs an adequate level of self awarenes and self knowledge. How did you not know this?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yeah, so...you have your belief, I have mine. Whos right? Back and forth obviously proves nothing as far as being authorative.

[Rob Osborn]

Not to get too nitpicky but in the scriptures being an "heir" means to "possess"

." One who is entitled to possess. In Scripture, saints are called heirs of the promise, heirs of righteousness, heirs of salvation, etc., by virtue of the death of Christ, or of God's gracious promises."

It can also mean one who moves from mere "steward" to "master".

Edited May 3, 2018 by Rob Osborn

[wenglund]

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah, so...you have your belief, I have mine. Whos right? Back and forth obviously proves nothing as far as being authorative.

You completely missed tmy point. I wasn't speaking to who's opinion was right, Rather, I was speaking about you not correctly grasping and stating my opinion, and who would know best (authoritatively) what my opinion is and whether you correctly grasp my opinion or not.

This was the third attempt to get across to you this simple point, but without success, thereby giving sufficient evidence that it would be fruitless to keep trying.

All the best to you.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

[Rob Osborn]

8 minutes ago, wenglund said:

You completely missed tmy point. I wasn't speaking to who's opinion was right, Rather, I was speaking about you not correctly grasping and stating my opinion, and who would know best (authoritatively) what my opinion is and whether you correctly grasp my opinion or not.

This was the third attempt to get across to you this simple point, but without success, thereby giving sufficient evidence that it would be fruitless to keep trying.

All the best to you.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

Yeah, you lost me a long time ago.

[Rob Osborn]

10 hours ago, wenglund said:

Metaphorically speaking, yes and no. It depends upon which of the varied meanings of "eternal life" one has in mind.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

There's only one meaning.

[zil]

7 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yeah, you lost me a long time ago. 

You can't read Wade's mind.  Only Wade knows what Wade believes, and only Wade can explain what Wade believes.  Yet you keep making erroneous statements about what Wade believes rather than asking Wade for clarification or confirmation.

In other words, stop saying: "You (Wade) believe X."  And either say nothing, or instead ask, "Do I understand correctly that you believe X?"  Or "Could you please clarify what you mean by [ quote Wade's text here ]?"

Only Wade has authority to state Wade's beliefs.  Only Wade can with authority state what Wade believes.  Only Wade can authoritatively state what Wade believes.

 

...Get it now?

Edited May 4, 2018 by zil
Stupid BB code

[Rob Osborn]

12 minutes ago, zil said:

You can't read Wade's mind.  Only Wade knows what Wade believes, and only Wade can explain what Wade believes.  Yet you keep making erroneous statements about what Wade believes rather than asking Wade for clarification or confirmation.

In other words, stop saying: "You (Wade) believe X."  And either say nothing, or instead ask, "Do I understand correctly that you believe X?"  Or "Could you please clarify what you mean by [ quote Wade's text here ]?"

Only Wade has authority to state Wade's beliefs.  Only Wade can with authority state what Wade believes.  Only Wade can authoritatively state what Wade believes.

 

...Get it now?

Yeah, I get it. Wade thinks I have a binary mind incapable of deeper understanding...it's a two way street.

[estradling75]

28 minutes ago, zil said:

You can't read Wade's mind.  Only Wade knows what Wade believes, and only Wade can explain what Wade believes.  Yet you keep making erroneous statements about what Wade believes rather than asking Wade for clarification or confirmation.

In other words, stop saying: "You (Wade) believe X."  And either say nothing, or instead ask, "Do I understand correctly that you believe X?"  Or "Could you please clarify what you mean by [ quote Wade's text here ]?"

Only Wade has authority to state Wade's beliefs.  Only Wade can with authority state what Wade believes.  Only Wade can authoritatively state what Wade believes.

 

...Get it now?

I do not see why you bothered... Rob has repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to correctly understand another persons point of view...  Which is ironic because the best way to persuade someone (which he is so desperate to do) is to start from a point of shared understanding and then build from there

[Rob Osborn]

7 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I do not see why you bothered... Rob has repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to correctly understand another persons point of view...  Which is ironic because the best way to persuade someone (which he is so desperate to do) is to start from a point of shared understanding and then build from there

Humm...I can't figure out where the common understanding between me and Wade even is. 

[Traveler]

17 hours ago, wenglund said:

..such as with stewardship and divine investiture?

Thanks, -Wade Enlgnd-

I believe so - Perhaps another term is Agency.

 

The Traveler

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Humm...I can't figure out where the common understanding between me and Wade even is. 

Exactly, though from my perspective there is a huge overlap--which I have reiterated often. The disconnect on your end is debilitating to effective communication, and yet you believe you see things clearly, which makes it all the more debilitating.

The good news is that it isn't vital to the welfare of the universe or even our respective personal success that you and I effectively communicate or even communicate at all. That is why I am at peace no longer fruitlessly trying. You are a good and well intending man, and I will  leave it at that. All the best,

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I believe so - Perhaps another term is Agency.

 

The Traveler

By "agency" do you mean: "the office or function of one who is authorized to act for or in the place of another," rather than "the ability and privilege God has given us to choose and act for ourselves?"

Thanks, -Wade Englnd-