Kishkumen wrote: ↑Mon Aug 08, 2022 2:12 pm
Yeah, I think the whole thing is so poorly defined that too much is left open to interpretation. Anyone who wants to argue that an ex-Mo who had been endowed, returned missionary, etc., would surely be a son of perdition after leaving the LDS Church, because, hey, what's to stop them from jumping to that conclusion, and people in our culture seem to want to raise the bogeyman of hell and the devil at the first possible opportunity. They are, well, more than a little punitive.
But, really, having listened to Bill Reel for some hours, I rather get the impression that he is confused about Mormonism more than he is someone who has received the Holy Spirit and then denied it or rejected Christ. And when I say confused, I am not questioning his knowledge of Mormonism or his intelligence. I am rejecting the idea that anyone who simply does not believe in Mormonism anymore could be a candidate for outer darkness. In Mormon terms, such a person is confused, not a son of perdition.
To that point it's mysterious enough to warrant much confusion from everyone on the topic. I'd maintain it was initially conceived of for anyone who rejected the gospel and only later became a place that nearly no one could possibly get consigned to (You have to really know God and his spirit and then while in that place of knowledge you'd have to tell them to f-off). "ok. Well, that fits precisely no one, ever.."
The Mormon after-world ideas worried me a great deal as a believer. I never could feel like I'd be celestial but even if I were, it felt completely arbitrary to put me in a celestial place and anyone else should be considered lesser. And if someone I cared about ended up in a lower place it felt appropriate to think I should trade places with them--since hell to me would be defined as putting me on a pedestal over others. The Celesital world, as it was called, sounded like the real hell.
They'd say, "Oh, no, everyone ends up where they want...essentially." That sounded silly. And then there are murderers or rapists in the telestial but somehow there was someone worse than that going off to live with satan? "oh yeah..it's really bad to reject God's spirit. That's the worse sin, so unforgivable".
"why, exactly?"
And yet, somehow Jesus is so finicky he'll consider any believer as so bad he never knew them? After pleading how much they tried to do well for him, he coldly would tell them, "I never knew you" and then he'd spit 'em out? All because, what, they're a hypocrite? "well, you did build your house on sand, after all, and if you don't believe anymore your foundation must have been built on sand." Sounds like a good reason to hate someone to me.
So which is it, God hates believers so badly, if they build their house on sand, that they are completely rejected by him? or Only very few who hates anything good, hates everyone and themselves, and God and love and anything...I mean only those will be living with Satan? Or maybe we seriously consider Mormons ought to think God never knew many a believer? ANd if he hates any believer what to make of any non-believer? There's plenty of room to be confused about.
Considering all the mixed messages I could see Mormons believing anyone who leaves the Church are Sons of Perdition, and I believe I've met a few, and I could see Mormons believing that basically no one could possibly be a son of Perdition (you have to really know something that no one could possibly know).
Surely I don't know what Bill's saying so I'm missing context. But it's a messy teaching-if that's what he's saying, I'd agree.