"Nemo the Mormon" Speaking Out (Again)

[teddyaware]

7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

The abuse metaphors write themselves. One day the wrath of God will abate but only after God torments them until they break and are rendered malleable and subservient. They ate dealt a heavy blow by the hand of God and eventually rush to His knees to apologize for somehow forcing God to do this to them and promise to never do anything to make God lose His temper ever again.

With full and complete exposure to all the possibilities we might encounter while in this fallen state, we all had complete foreknowledge and agreed to the Father’s plan of salvation before we were born. You and others like yourself likely said, “Lord, if causing me to experience the full, unalloyed effects of my sinfulness turns out to be the only way you’ll be able to save and reclaim me from an endless hell, then you have have my permission to cause me to experience what it’s like to live with myself in my unconverted, unredeemed state until I finally wake up realize that the only way to escape the perfectly natural effects of my rebellion against truth is to repent accept Christ as my Lord and Savior.

 But I guess you think it would be better to just let the unconverted wicked spend all eternity in the endless sorrow and misery of hell without the Lord even trying to rescue them? It’s hard to kick against the pricks wishing to live in a fantasy world where good and evil have no consequences. 

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2)

Edited Tuesday at 10:56 PM by teddyaware

[Calm]

7 hours ago, teddyaware said:

But I guess you think it would be better to just let the unconverted wicked spend all eternity in the endless sorrow and misery of hell without the Lord even trying to rescue them? It’s hard to kick against the pricks wishing to live in a fantasy world where good and evil have no consequences. 

Why would you think Nehor and others who see the OT and other scriptural version of hell as abuse believe that way rather than simply your premises that God, if there is a God who loves mankind, has set up such a hell?  It’s not like they are rejecting only half of the story, but wholeheartedly trust in the rest of it.

I don’t believe Nehor is suggesting there is no law if there is God, but rather that image of law where people suffer in misery due to circumstances that appear to be beyond their control isn’t actually all that lawful.  It certainly isn’t just in the way we are taught to understand justice.  We have to make quite a few assumptions to justify it.  Some people don’t see it as wise to base their own lives and others on assumptions, especially when it doesn’t appear that such a version of God is trustworthy, not having fulfilled promises as others assured them God would.

Edited Wednesday at 06:28 AM by Calm

[teddyaware]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Why would you think Nehor and others who see the OT and other scriptural version of hell as abuse believe that way rather than simply your premises that God, if there is a God who loves mankind, has set up such a hell?  It’s not like they are rejecting only half of the story, but wholeheartedly trust in the rest of it.

I don’t believe Nehor is suggesting there is no law if there is God, but rather that image of law where people suffer in misery due to circumstances that appear to be beyond their control isn’t actually all that lawful.  It certainly isn’t just in the way we are taught to understand justice.  We have to make quite a few assumptions to justify it.  Some people don’t see it as wise to base their own lives and others on assumptions, especially when it doesn’t appear that such a version of God is trustworthy, not having fulfilled promises as others assured them God 

 

God didn’t create hell. Fundamentally, hell is the inescapable natural consequence of one having to live within his own tormented conscience due his failure to comply with the eternal laws that alone are able to reconcile repentant souls to the God of truth and justice. In truth, hell is a naturally occurring spiritual condition that needs to exist as an essential manifestation of the immutable law of opposition in all things.

Indeed, the existence of hell is powerful evidence of God’s infinite and eternal love for each of his spirit children, for it’s by the means of the torment of conscience for rebellion that recalcitrant human souls are finally able to awaken from the sleep of death and reach out in faith to the Savior (who suffered in the depths of hell for us all) for rescue and deliverance. The abolishment of hell would mean the end of existence for hell is an essential and indispensable manifestation of the law of diametric opposition in all things, and as father Lehi so eloquently testified, without opposition in all things nothing could exist. Without hell no one could be saved, for there would be nothing to be saved from and life would be totally meaningless. And lest we forget, with full foreknowledge we all joyfully signed up for this experience in the fallen state knowing that it was the right thing to do.

By his own experience, Alma powerfully testifies how the state of hell is able to awaken souls to the wonders of God’s redeeming love…

13 Yea, I did remember all my sins and iniquities, for which I was tormented with the pains of hell; yea, I saw that I had rebelled against my God, and that I had not kept his holy commandments.

14 Yea, and I had murdered many of his children, or rather led them away unto destruction; yea, and in fine so great had been my iniquities, that the very thought of coming into the presence of my God did rack my soul with inexpressible horror.

15 Oh, thought I, that I could be banished and become extinct both soul and body, that I might not be brought to stand in the presence of my God, to be judged of my deeds.

16 And now, for three days and for three nights was I racked, even with the pains of a damned soul.

17 And it came to pass that as I was thus racked with torment, while I was harrowed up by the memory of my many sins, behold, I remembered also to have heard my father prophesy unto the people concerning the coming of one Jesus Christ, a Son of God, to atone for the sins of the world.

18 Now, as my mind caught hold upon this thought, I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who am in the gall of bitterness, and am encircled about by the everlasting chains of death.

19 And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my pains no more; yea, I was harrowed up by the memory of my sins no more.

20 And oh, what joy, and what marvelous light I did behold; yea, my soul was filled with joy as exceeding as was my pain!

21 Yea, I say unto you, my son, that there could be nothing so exquisite and so bitter as were my pains. Yea, and again I say unto you, my son, that on the other hand, there can be nothing so exquisite and sweet as was my joy. (Alma 36)

Edited Wednesday at 01:34 PM by teddyaware

[Teancum]

20 hours ago, teddyaware said:

With full and complete exposure to all the possibilities we might encounter while in this fallen state, we all had complete foreknowledge and agreed to the Father’s plan of salvation before we were born. You and others like yourself likely said, “Lord, if causing me to experience the full, unalloyed effects of my sinfulness turns out to be the only way you’ll be able to save and reclaim me from an endless hell, then you have have my permission to cause me to experience what it’s like to live with myself in my unconverted, unredeemed state until I finally wake up realize that the only way to escape the perfectly natural effects of my rebellion against truth is to repent accept Christ as my Lord and Savior.

 But I guess you think it would be better to just let the unconverted wicked spend all eternity in the endless sorrow and misery of hell without the Lord even trying to rescue them? It’s hard to kick against the pricks wishing to live in a fantasy world where good and evil have no consequences. 

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2)

Is that your own spin on LDS doctrine and speculative myth?

[The Nehor]

20 hours ago, teddyaware said:

With full and complete exposure to all the possibilities we might encounter while in this fallen state, we all had complete foreknowledge and agreed to the Father’s plan of salvation before we were born. You and others like yourself likely said, “Lord, if causing me to experience the full, unalloyed effects of my sinfulness turns out to be the only way you’ll be able to save and reclaim me from an endless hell, then you have have my permission to cause me to experience what it’s like to live with myself in my unconverted, unredeemed state until I finally wake up realize that the only way to escape the perfectly natural effects of my rebellion against truth is to repent accept Christ as my Lord and Savior.

 But I guess you think it would be better to just let the unconverted wicked spend all eternity in the endless sorrow and misery of hell without the Lord even trying to rescue them? It’s hard to kick against the pricks wishing to live in a fantasy world where good and evil have no consequences.

An inevitable rebellion against truth that we cannot escape. There is no way to not rebel. Setting up a standard where someone is inevitably doomed to fail is not good. Creating an escape hatch isn’t proof of any deep and abiding love. It is common decency.

You also present a false dichotomy. Either people roast in hell for a long time until they beg God for forgiveness for doing something they could not avoid doing (which is still all kinds of screwed up) or there is no way and they are there forever. Those are the only two options. An omniscient being sat down to figure things out and this is what they came up with? Really?

Behold the mercy of our God. He pushed us into a well….or if you want we agreed to be pushed into the well because it was the only way to progress I guess. Then God wants praise and thanks and abject humility and deference because God was nice enough to lower a rope for us to climb out with? I mean, the Book of Mormon calls humans wretched and all that but God designed us and designed the world we live in so if it went wrong is it really not on God?

20 hours ago, teddyaware said:

 

13 And if ye shall say there is no law, ye shall also say there is no sin. If ye shall say there is no sin, ye shall also say there is no righteousness. And if there be no righteousness there be no happiness. And if there be no righteousness nor happiness there be no punishment nor misery. And if these things are not there is no God. And if there is no God we are not, neither the earth; for there could have been no creation of things, neither to act nor to be acted upon; wherefore, all things must have vanished away. (2 Nephi 2)

These don’t follow each other naturally. Broken down this is saying if there is no objective morality or maybe a subjective morality that God imposes the Universe wouldn’t exist. This whole sequence is filled with so many baked in presuppositions required for this to work that it is virtually meaningless.

[Teancum]

5 hours ago, teddyaware said:

 

God didn’t create hell.

Correct. Man invented hell. It as make believe as other after life torment club religions use to manipulate and control people.

5 hours ago, teddyaware said:

 

Fundamentally, hell is the inescapable natural consequence of one having to live within his own tormented conscience due his failure to comply with the eternal laws that alone are able to reconcile repentant souls to the God of truth and justice. In truth, hell is a naturally occurring spiritual condition that needs to exist as an essential manifestation of the immutable law of opposition in all things.

No. Hell is not  inescapable able. Nobody needs to escape something that does not exist.

 

5 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Indeed, the existence of hell is powerful evidence of God’s infinite and eternal love for each of his spirit children, for it’s by the means of the torment of conscience for rebellion that recalcitrant human souls are finally able to awaken from the sleep of death and reach out in faith to the Savior (who suffered in the depths of hell for us all) for rescue and deliverance.

While the LDS doctrine of hell is a bit more "compassionate-" One only suffers pretty miserable for maybe 1000 years or so, then gets some kingdom of glory, it still pretty horrible. And for the rest of Christianity, well hell fire and brimstone forever seems extreme don't ya think? 

And personally, I find a God being that threatened some sort of horrific punishment, short term or long term while at the same time requiring us to forget all we supposedly learned and agreed to before hand (I don't recall that do you really?) absolutely abhorrent and repulsive. Such a being should be rejected for the monster it seems to be. It is like going the 150 hours of college to qualify to sit for the CPA exam. Then after 5 years of education when I go to take the test, the proctor waves a magic wand and says "forget all you learned and go take the test. And if you don't get it right, sucks to be you, but you will suffer for it. Sorry. Even though you don't remember you agreed to it. And yea you agreed without sufficient knowledge to know what agreeing to it meant. But hey, have a happy life!" 

What utter nonsense really. Yet this is in essence what you think it God's truth. 

 

5 hours ago, teddyaware said:

 

 

The abolishment of hell would mean the end of existence for hell is an essential and indispensable manifestation of the law of diametric opposition in all things, and as father Lehi so eloquently testified, without opposition in all things nothing could exist. Without hell no one could be saved, for there would be nothing to be saved from and life would be totally meaningless. And lest we forget, with full foreknowledge we all joyfully signed up for this experience in the fallen state knowing that it was the right thing to do.

 

The idea that there has to be opposition in al things is also nonsense. But that is a topic for another day.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

God didn’t create hell.

The scriptures respectfully disagree:

“And I said unto them that it was a representation of that awful hell, which the angel said unto me was prepared for the wicked.”

“…and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy are the devil and his angels; and they shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end.”

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Fundamentally, hell is the inescapable natural consequence of one having to live within his own tormented conscience due his failure to comply with the eternal laws that alone are able to reconcile repentant souls to the God of truth and justice. In truth, hell is a naturally occurring spiritual condition that needs to exist as an essential manifestation of the immutable law of opposition in all things.

That is a modern negotiation with scripture to try to make hell more palatable but the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants suggest it is a place God prepared. It can be both but the idea that it is primarily a state of mind isn’t scripturally supported.

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

Indeed, the existence of hell is powerful evidence of God’s infinite and eternal love for each of his spirit children, for it’s by the means of the torment of conscience for rebellion that recalcitrant human souls are finally able to awaken from the sleep of death and reach out in faith to the Savior (who suffered in the depths of hell for us all) for rescue and deliverance. The abolishment of hell would mean the end of existence for hell is an essential and indispensable manifestation of the law of diametric opposition in all things, and as father Lehi so eloquently testified, without opposition in all things nothing could exist. Without hell no one could be saved, for there would be nothing to be saved from and life would be totally meaningless. And lest we forget, with full foreknowledge we all joyfully signed up for this experience in the fallen state knowing that it was the right thing to do.

Wait, hold on. First you said God didn’t create hell and it is just a natural consequence of fundamental laws of the Universe that even God cannot change. Now you are saying that the existence of hell is evidence of God’s love for us.

What? How? Whuh?

So God couldn’t change it even if they wanted to but we should also see its existence as proof of God’s love? So you want to give God credit for something God didn’t do? Why?

PICK A LANE!

I find Lehi’s reasoning eloquent but also naive and pretty nonsensical. Lehi doesn’t define at all what “all things” mean and that vagueness makes it useless for figuring out anything. There must be an opposition to what? All moral acts? All physical acts? All emotions? All reason? All the natural forces of the Universe? Opposition to God?

So when I wrote an email this morning to a friend who just lost his dream job due to something incredibly unfair why did I not feel or experience any opposition to that act? What was supposed to be opposing it? And since there was no opposition does it not count as a moral decision?

If I joyfully signed up for this I am an idiot. Then again if it turns out there is some spirit being inhabiting my body that leaves at death I am less and less convinced that entity is me. With memory lost and the fundamental differences in nature I think when I die I die and am gone. That entity might go on but I doubt it is me even if it somehow carries my memories. Also I question the validity of enforcing a contract that one party has no knowledge of. Seems a little unfair. 

6 hours ago, teddyaware said:

By his own experience, Alma powerfully testifies how the state of hell is able to awaken souls to the wonders of God’s redeeming love…

13 Yea, I did remember all my sins and iniquities, for which I was tormented with the pains of hell; yea, I saw that I had rebelled against my God, and that I had not kept his holy commandments.

14 Yea, and I had murdered many of his children, or rather led them away unto destruction; yea, and in fine so great had been my iniquities, that the very thought of coming into the presence of my God did rack my soul with inexpressible horror.

15 Oh, thought I, that I could be banished and become extinct both soul and body, that I might not be brought to stand in the presence of my God, to be judged of my deeds.

16 And now, for three days and for three nights was I racked, even with the pains of a damned soul.

17 And it came to pass that as I was thus racked with torment, while I was harrowed up by the memory of my many sins, behold, I remembered also to have heard my father prophesy unto the people concerning the coming of one Jesus Christ, a Son of God, to atone for the sins of the world.

18 Now, as my mind caught hold upon this thought, I cried within my heart: O Jesus, thou Son of God, have mercy on me, who am in the gall of bitterness, and am encircled about by the everlasting chains of death.

19 And now, behold, when I thought this, I could remember my pains no more; yea, I was harrowed up by the memory of my sins no more.

20 And oh, what joy, and what marvelous light I did behold; yea, my soul was filled with joy as exceeding as was my pain!

21 Yea, I say unto you, my son, that there could be nothing so exquisite and so bitter as were my pains. Yea, and again I say unto you, my son, that on the other hand, there can be nothing so exquisite and sweet as was my joy. (Alma 36)

It does make people arguing that Spirit Prison is somehow a place of learning or waiting seem a bit silly. Sure sounds like ongoing torment.

I do find this whole idea disturbing. Apparently on death you suddenly know exactly how vile virtually everything you have done in life is. Then you immediately feel guilt that you didn’t feel before or at least not with the same acuteness you did in life and get to suffer by a standard you didn’t know existed and in some cases didn’t know about at all. Yikes! And this is happening to the bulk of humanity because they never got the gospel.

Also does this mean that those with emotional conditions or disabilities who feel intense guilt about everything are actually what we should aspire to be? Are they the ones that see reality more clearly than the rest of us who are oblivious to how horrible we all are?

And Alma got this realization in life and most people won’t so that doesn’t seem like it is much of an applicable message. It is a kind of cautionary tale in a “The Christmas Carol” sense but it isn’t going to happen to most humans and the only people getting this warning through the text are the ones least likely to actually need it.

Also as soon as he turned to Jesus everything turned to joy and happiness. That was easy. I have tried to do some repenting in my life and it doesn’t work like that. What is this story supposed to be teaching?

Edited Wednesday at 08:00 PM by The Nehor

[Calm]

53 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

This whole sequence is filled with so many baked in presuppositions required for this to work that it is virtually meaningless.

It is a religious framework, not a scientific one.  It uses religious logic.

[The Nehor]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

It is a religious framework, not a scientific one.  It uses religious logic.

I don’t think it works theologically or philosophically either.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t think it works theologically or philosophically either.

It doesn’t make sense for me either, but I wonder if it is the mindset and underlying assumptions that make it not work (unless one first assumes it is true) and they are actually talking about something that doesn’t occur to us they are talking about.  I wonder if it’s something closer to yin and yang opposition which is complementary than our view of good and evil, in constant combat to eliminate the other.  Not saying it is saying sins are necessary to balance not sinning, I am speaking directly to what is meant by opposition in all things in another verse where this logical progression gets grounded perhaps.  Or maybe something else ties those together.    
 

Opposition in all things leading to this idea doesn’t seem to be the type of opposition we usually think about when speaking of good and evil, law vs no law, etc

“Wherefore, all things must needs be a compound in one…”

Had anyone heard a talk on “all things must needs be a compound in one” and know how this is typically understood?  Is this understood to apply to when there is no opposition or something else?

There is the ancient view that has creation by differentiating chaos, life comes by imposing order, separation into opposites of types (land from water, light from dark for example).

Whenever I read this, I feel we are missing some major unspoken premises they brought to this explanation.

Maybe “opposition” here is more closely tied to separation than conflict or resistance.

The first definition for opposition in the 1828 dictionary is more literal and about location in relation to each other, more facing each other, rather than conflict.  Spatial opposition…

https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/Opposition

Edited yesterday at 01:01 AM by Calm

[Calm]

So far this is the only reference (the top dozen; added:  looks like the only one google can come up with) that does more than just quote the phrase and it’s from 1980:

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1980/10/the-bond-of-charity?lang=eng

Quote

Relief Society will help us sort out truth from error in our modern world, of what Lehi called a compound of good and evil.

But is this just an assumption (reasonable one)?  Is “compound” here meaning more chaos/undifferentiation vs order or something else.

Edited yesterday at 01:15 AM by Calm

[Teancum]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

It is a religious framework, not a scientific one.  It uses religious logic.

Religious logic? What is religious logic?

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Teancum said:

Religious logic? What is religious logic?

Logic that works with the world view of the particular belief system.  
 

For example, if one believes the world was created by the Divine separating the elements, creating order from chaos as do a number of ancient cultures, opposition in all things (not conflict, but contrast) could make sense.  Contrast is what allows actual choice.

Edited yesterday at 08:15 PM by Calm