Aaron Shafovaloff on D&C 19

[LifeOnaPlate]

Life,

You wrote:

Huh?

Are you a sola scriptura fellow? I think the crux of our disagreement may have something to do with that.

[SilverKnight]

I confess I simply don't understand what Shaf expects to happen following this topic to its logical conclusion:

SHAF: "As you can clearly see, LDS claim that endless torment in hell is an unbiblical concept, when it fact it is entirely biblical and the mormons are in error. The Bible tells us clearly that endless torment in hell is real even if these christian impostors claim otherwise."

PERSON: "Okay I got it. Thanks for clearing that up Shaf."

SHAF: "Where are you going?"

PERSON: "To join the LDS church."

Does Shaf really think that Eternal Damnation is some sort of theological advantage?

[mfbukowski]

I've looked on outer darkness as the absolute zero of agency, they've made their choices in such a way as to leave them with no choice left at that end and thus are essentiall frozen/stagnant/unchangeable. It is not a place of torment or punishment, but is exactly where they want to be...completely out of the influence of God.

Whether that means that they've ceased to exist or simply endure eternally unchanging with no progression or no degradation, it is certainly nowhere close to the idea of a hell as a place no one would choose to be.

Hats off for an amazing idea! Agency is actually increased by following law which is made (or accepted) for oneself (literally "self-determination")- just as God follows natural law- and reduced as we violate law for our own prideful "freedom", worshiping our own pride as a god until no agency is left.

Really great idea! Another dimension is that God is by nature changeable, and must be dynamic - it is a part of agency itself. I love it!

[Rob Bowman]

Life,

You asked:

Are you a sola scriptura fellow? I think the crux of our disagreement may have something to do with that.

Yes, indeed, I do hold to sola scriptura. But I don't see the relevance to the issue here.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I confess I simply don't understand what Shaf expects to happen following this topic to its logical conclusion:

SHAF: "As you can clearly see, LDS claim that endless torment in hell is an unbiblical concept, when it fact it is entirely biblical and the mormons are in error. The Bible tells us clearly that endless torment in hell is real even if these christian impostors claim otherwise."

PERSON: "Okay I got it. Thanks for clearing that up Shaf."

SHAF: "Where are you going?"

PERSON: "To join the LDS church."

Does Shaf really think that Eternal Damnation is some sort of theological advantage?

I don't get it either. This is one reason why I think Shaf helps more people into the church then out of it.

[SilverKnight]

I don't get it either. This is one reason why I think Shaf helps more people into the churc then out of it.

It's truly puzzling.

I remember awhile ago Shaf was railing on the three three kingdoms of glory model of heaven/salvation and claiming how cruel and inhumane it was.

[Rob Bowman]

SilverKnight,

Speaking for myself, I don't choose my doctrines for their "theological advantage," but accept those doctrines I am convinced God has revealed to be true. Indeed, I assume that some of the things God reveals will not fit my preconceived theological notions and may not be hot selling points in the religious marketplace (cf. Matt. 7:13-14; 2 Tim. 4:3-4).

I confess I simply don't understand what Shaf expects to happen following this topic to its logical conclusion:

SHAF: "As you can clearly see, LDS claim that endless torment in hell is an unbiblical concept, when it fact it is entirely biblical and the mormons are in error. The Bible tells us clearly that endless torment in hell is real even if these christian impostors claim otherwise."

PERSON: "Okay I got it. Thanks for clearing that up Shaf."

SHAF: "Where are you going?"

PERSON: "To join the LDS church."

Does Shaf really think that Eternal Damnation is some sort of theological advantage?

[volgadon]

Speaking for myself, I don't choose my doctrines for their "theological advantage," but accept those doctrines I am convinced God has revealed to be true. Indeed, I assume that some of the things God reveals will not fit my preconceived theological notions and may not be hot selling points in the religious marketplace (cf. Matt. 7:13-14; 2 Tim. 4:3-4).

I may disagree with many of your specific conclusions, but your attitude is entirely commendable.

[Joseph Antley]

I may disagree with many of your specific conclusions, but your attitude is entirely commendable.

I agree. Rob has been an extremely congenial poster here.

[SilverKnight]

SilverKnight,

Speaking for myself, I don't choose my doctrines for their "theological advantage," but accept those doctrines I am convinced God has revealed to be true.

No doubt, I'm sure it takes a lot of convincing to believe such barbarity.

Indeed, I assume that some of the things God reveals will not fit my preconceived theological notions and may not be hot selling points in the religious marketplace (cf. Matt. 7:13-14; 2 Tim. 4:3-4).

That's fine, just don't be surprised when no one visits your fruit stand.

[mfbukowski]

The condition of hell as opposed to a particular special location is generally how it's talked about in my experience. Many speak of hell existing for those still living...obviously not some location therefore.

I suppose some imagine spirit prison as some sort of school or detention center where the more 'dangerous' or less advanced spiritually inhabitants are separated from the rest, but the spirit world is often discussed as being all around us and this makes sense to me since they are still needing to learn from their mortal experience, that they are not completely removed from this sphere but can observe others if necessary, for their understanding on the consequences of their actions for example.

I would be curious to know where other LDS believe the spirits of the dead are at this moment in a 'physical' sense and if they see any separation existing in any way besides the mind/spirit. I see spirits of less development of being incapable of perceiving and enduring more godly things so that the veil is kept in place to a great extent until spirits are purified enough to endure God's presence.

Of course, this is speculation, but it demonstrates that LDS belief does not require a physical location of a hell in order to be consistent or coherent.

I think the other side is quite similar to this side of the veil, but of course there we know there is an afterlife and that our choices have eternal consequences- I am definitely on the "state of mind" side of the argument, and am convinced there are people on this side who are as much "in hell" as they will be there.

It has always been interesting to me that LDS have this - to me- kind of strange notion about the word "damn" being somewhat synonymous with "dam" as in the idea that "damnation" means that one's progression is halted or "dammed" as a river might be.

I think the notion is correct, but certainly the usage is a little odd. But it definitely is evidence for the views expressed in this thread as totally "mainstream" LDS.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Well, you've argued that official doctrine is irrelevant and that you're just going to engage folk LDS religion. This variability is what you get. You might save yourself a lot of time and trouble by just abandoning this silly quest.

It's pretty clear that Shaf is often more intent on finding problems with Mormonism than with resolving problems in his own belief system. As such, it's appropriate to again call attention to my signature line from C.S. Lewis.

[maklelan]

Dan,

You replied:

As I

[LifeOnaPlate]

Life,

You asked:

Yes, indeed, I do hold to sola scriptura. But I don't see the relevance to the issue here.

You seem to think the Bible is univocal on the issue of Hell, at least as far as Matthew in the New Testament is concerned, right? I see that as a side-effect of holding to sola scriptura. That's why I think it's directly relevant. As Mak is pointing out, claiming that the "Bible" says such-and-such-one-perspective on hell is inaccurate, and undercuts Aaron's polemic argument against the Church.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I confess I simply don't understand what Shaf expects to happen following this topic to its logical conclusion:

SHAF: "As you can clearly see, LDS claim that endless torment in hell is an unbiblical concept, when it fact it is entirely biblical and the mormons are in error. The Bible tells us clearly that endless torment in hell is real even if these christian impostors claim otherwise."

PERSON: "Okay I got it. Thanks for clearing that up Shaf."

SHAF: "Where are you going?"

PERSON: "To join the LDS church."

Does Shaf really think that Eternal Damnation is some sort of theological advantage?

I would love to see Shaf standing near the Manti pageant in a t-shirt that says "Ask me about vessels of wrath!"

[SilverKnight]

I would love to see Shaf standing near the Manti pageant in a t-shirt that says "Ask me about vessels of wrath!"

The world Shaf lives in is a strange place.

And the things he gets outraged over become downright comedic.

Didn't he recently tear off into an apoplectic fit because you insulted the noble profession of street-preaching?

[LifeOnaPlate]

The world Shaf lives in is a strange place.

And the things he gets outraged over become downright comedic.

Didn't he recently tear off into an apoplectic fit because you insulted the noble profession of street-preaching?

I don't remember. I've had conversations with Shaf elsewhere online and he seems to be an amicable fellow there for the most part. It is a strong distinction from the impression I got of him at the Manti pageant.

[Rob Bowman]

Life,

You wrote:

You seem to think the Bible is univocal on the issue of Hell, at least as far as the New Testament is concerned. I see that as a side-effect of holding to sola scriptura. That's why I think it's directly relevant.

Did you even read my post? Right at the very beginning, I told Dan:

"In this post, I will focus on what Jesus says about eternal punishment in the Gospel of Matthew. I do so for two reasons. First, the biblical texts most relevant to your core biblically oriented criticisms of Aaron

[Rob Bowman]

Volgadon,

Thanks for saying that. I appreciate it!

I may disagree with many of your specific conclusions, but your attitude is entirely commendable.

[mfbukowski]

Speaking for myself, I don't choose my doctrines for their "theological advantage," but accept those doctrines I am convinced God has revealed to be true.

Uh, same here. We just have more revelation. Not a great argument.

Yes, indeed, I do hold to sola scriptura. But I don't see the relevance to the issue here.

Are you seeing it yet?

[Rob Bowman]

Dan,

You wrote:

You cite "Jesus' usage" as if Matthew represents Jesus' usage and the others do not.

Groan. There was no such implication.

You wrote:

You said that Matt 18:8-9 means "in Jesus' usage the fire of Gehenna is eternal," but my whole point is that the usage is inconsistent. You tried to mitigate that fact by only citing Matthew:

No. I explained my purpose in citing only Matthew, and it was not to mitigate any alleged inconsistency between Matthew and the other Synoptics.

You wrote:

You claimed that this would undermine my assertion that you read the Bible univocally, which can only mean you recognize the usage is not consistent outside of Matthew. You're omitting other occurrences of the word that constitute "Jesus' usage" that aren't quite so consistent, like Luke.

No. In restricting myself to one Gospel in order to avoid the criticism that I was reading the Bible univocally, I was not conceding or implying that the other Gospels have a contrary doctrine. You're reading something into my prefatory comment that simply wasn't and isn't there.

There is no usage of Gehenna in Luke that is inconsistent with Matthew's usage. Luke uses Gehenna only once (Luke 12:5), and that occurrence says nothing incompatible with Matthew's usage. Furthermore, we need to be clear in avoiding the word-concept fallacy. Different biblical authors might use the same word with different meanings and yet not teach contrary doctrines. If by taking the Bible "univocally" you mean that every biblical writing is assumed to use a word with the same uniform meaning, I absolutely reject such "univocal" reading of the Bible, and so does every other evangelical scholar on the planet. If Hades means something different in Luke 16:23 than it does in other NT writings, for example, that poses no problem to an evangelical view of Scripture. There would only be a problem if Luke 16:23 taught a doctrine that conflicted with a doctrine in another part of the Bible. This is not the case, so far as I can see.

You wrote:

Aaron's assertion that "the Bible" teaches a specific and consistent concept of hell is completely and totally uninformed. His assertion that the LDS concept conflicts with his misunderstanding of the biblical concept is consequently useless.... I'll grant that you showed the concept is associated with eternal fire. Aaron's presentation is still uninformed in that regard, though, and his other points are still mistaken.... My whole point is to show that the usage is too inconsistent to say that "the Bible" has a single and uniform perspective on hell. What you've managed to show is that Matthew seems to have a consistent perspective on it. I'll give you that. You were right and I was wrong. Now, Aaron's argument is still problematic, since it depends on a uniform presentation from Genesis to Revelation. Can you support that, or do you recognize that there is no single and uniform concept of hell in the Bible?

My purpose in responding to you in this thread was not to defend Aaron's paper but to respond to a specific claim you had made. You now agree I was right on the point that I made. Now, as to Aaron's statement to which you take exception, let me put it this way. I don't claim that every book of the Bible teaches a full-blown doctrine of eternal punishment for the wicked. Many of the books of the Bible say nothing about the subject at all. My view, and I'm sure Aaron's as well, is that when the Bible does address the issue, its teachings are consistent on the matter. More specifically, I would maintain that several NT authors do teach eternal punishment for the wicked (Matthew, Paul, and the author of Revelation are especially clear on this point) and that no NT author teaches to the contrary. And again, the Hebrew and Greek words that the KJV translates "hell" may well have different meanings in different contexts, but this is not the same thing as claiming that the texts in which those linguistic elements are imbedded teach contradictory eschatologies.

You wrote:

I don't find anything inconsistent with my methodologies. I am unclear at time due to my having to shoot these posts off quickly while my daughter plays the "turn off daddy's computer" game, and I apologize for that, but I find nothing inconsistent.

She sounds like fun. You go, girl!

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

In response to a Mormon who asked if Aaron thought the doctrine of eternal punishment was a "theological advantage," I replied:

"Speaking for myself, I don't choose my doctrines for their 'theological advantage,' but accept those doctrines I am convinced God has revealed to be true."

You replied:

Uh, same here. We just have more revelation. Not a great argument.

I think you missed the context of my remark. See above.

I wrote:

"Yes, indeed, I do hold to sola scriptura. But I don't see the relevance to the issue here."

You asked:

Are you seeing it yet?

Nope.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Did you even read my post? Right at the very beginning, I told Dan:

Looks like my edit came too late, you'll notice that three minutes before your response I edited my own to clarify.

[LifeOnaPlate]

It's beginning to look as though there's a handbook out there somewhere on how to respond to evangelicals that instructs, "No matter what the evangelical says, whether it is relevant or not, criticize his argument by accusing him of thinking that the Bible is univocal." Judging from other posts, probably immediately following this instruction there is also something to this effect: "If the evangelical cites only one book of the Bible to support his view, and if the 'univocal criticism' doesn't seem to be working, accuse him of ignoring the rest of the Bible."

Nope, no handbook. Not sure how a personal dig at me is relevant to the discussion, though. From a stance of sola scriptura, as well, how do you explain your argument that Mathhew is consistent in depicting hell in a certain way but the other books in the canon are different? How does an inerrantist view of scripture account for this?

[LifeOnaPlate]

Thanks for saying that. I appreciate it!

...