Aaron Shafovaloff on D&C 19

[Zakuska]

I find Josephus's Discourse To The Greeks Concerning Hades

fits the LDS understanding and is Germane to this thread.

http://www.ccel.org/...works/hades.htm

[Scott Lloyd]

I think he's getting that from the Gospel Principles manual which has hell as a subdivision of the Spirit Prison, but I could be wrong. Will go and check.

add-on: http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?hideNav=1&locale=0&sourceId=88a11f7962d43210VgnVCM100000176f620a____&vgnextoid=5158f4b13819d110VgnVCM1000003a94610aRCRD

Also, the "Guide to the Scriptures," a kind of Bible dictionary/topical guide hybrid published by the Church for its non-English editions of the scriptures, has this under the entry for "hell."

Latter-day revelation speaks of hell in at least two senses. First, it is the temporary abode in the spirit world for those who were disobedient in mortality. In this sense, hell has an end. The spirits there will be taught the gospel, and sometime following their repentance they will be resurrected to a degree of glory of which they are worthy. Those who will not repent, but are nevertheless not sons of perdition, will remain in hell throughout the Millennium. After these thousand years of torment, they will be resurrected to a telestial glory (D&C 76: 81-86; 88: 100-101).

Second, it is the permanent location of those who are not redeemed by the atonement of Jesus Christ. In this sense, hell is permanent. It is for those who are found

[mfbukowski]

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

No, it is you who are not following the context.

Blowing smoke doesn't help your case. The issue here is biblical inerrancy, not eternal damnation.

SilverKnight was the first to mention "theological advantage" while making the point that since we don't believe in biblical inerrancy, your entire line of argument is irrelevant to us theologically.

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?

Your response then just re-iterated your sola scriptura stance without actually responding to the issue SilverKnight raised.

You are ignoring the actual issue because there is no response for it. First, it is evident from the thread that you don't have a biblical argument, and secondly, even if you had a biblical argument and were 100% correct in that argument, it would still be irrelevant theologically since we believe in ongoing revelation.

So to re-iterate SilverKnight's point, why do you think eternal damnation is some kind of theological advantage?

Even if you can prove your point biblically, which you can't, it is irrelevant to our theology. Now do you understand the problem?

[Rob Bowman]

Life,

You wrote:

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

Your edit did not clarify your comment, but only succeeded in making it incoherent. To argue that Matthew presents a particular understanding of an issue is not to argue that the entire Bible is "univocal" on that issue, and to question that Matthew is "univocal" is rather strange. That is, you now seem to have "clarified" your comment by questioning whether Matthew presents a coherent position. I understand someone arguing that we can't assume that Matthew agrees with Leviticus or that Paul agrees with James. I don't understand someone arguing that we can't assume that Matthew agrees with Matthew. I would certainly put the burden of proof on anyone claiming that Matthew doesn't agree with himself.

I wrote:

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."

You replied:

Nope, no handbook. Not sure how a personal dig at me is relevant to the discussion, though.

My comment about the handbook was tongue-in-cheek. I don't see it as a "personal dig." My serious point is that several Mormons on this forum seem to jump at any excuse to level this "univocal" criticism at me, even when it isn't relevant.

[Rob Bowman]

mfb,

You wrote:

No, it is you who are not following the context.

Blowing smoke doesn't help your case. The issue here is biblical inerrancy, not eternal damnation.

SilverKnight was the first to mention "theological advantage" while making the point that since we don't believe in biblical inerrancy, your entire line of argument is irrelevant to us theologically.

This seems to be your revisionist interpretation of what SilverKnight said:

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'm sure SilverKnight will agree with your point, but it isn't the point he made in the quote above.

You wrote:

Your response then just re-iterated your sola scriptura stance without actually responding to the issue SilverKnight raised.

I did respond to the issue he raised. I said that I don't choose my doctrines with an eye on what would be theologically advantageous. That is a direct response to what he wrote.

You wrote:

You are ignoring the actual issue because there is no response for it. First, it is evident from the thread that you don't have a biblical argument, and secondly, even if you had a biblical argument and were 100% correct in that argument, it would still be irrelevant theologically since we believe in ongoing revelation.

This is silly. I do have a biblical argument; even Dan conceded that my interpretation of Matthew was correct. Now, you claim that what I argued in Matthew was "irrelevant theologically" because you "believe in ongoing revelation." Good for you. So, just to be clear, your claim is that what Matthew teaches about eternal punishment may be set aside in favor of your newer revelation. Right?

You wrote:

So to re-iterate SilverKnight's point, why do you think eternal damnation is some kind of theological advantage?

Good grief.

You wrote:

Even if you can prove your point biblically, which you can't, it is irrelevant to our theology. Now do you understand the problem?

I understand your problem: You refuse to accept the teaching of those portions of the Bible that disagree with your theology, claiming that your modern revelations trump whatever is in the Bible that doesn't agree with them. Yep, I got it.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Your edit did not clarify your comment, but only succeeded in making it incoherent.

I disagree. In my edited comment I noted I was referring to Shaf in terms of univocality. As for you, I clarified as follows above: 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?

[SilverKnight]

I'm sure SilverKnight will agree with your point, but it isn't the point he made in the quote above.

I really don't have too much invested in any of this.

I was merely pointing out that Aaron Shaf could perhaps pick better soapbox topics for his moronic little curbside crusades.

Touting the theological superiority of "Biblical Eternal Hell" over the "Mormon Temporary Hell" seems to be an exercise in irony.

[Rob Bowman]

Life,

Sorry, I respond to the posts that I see. Let me reply to your newest clarification. Aaron does believe that the Bible can be read univocally. So do I, as long as that is properly understood. But my argument against Dan's post was focused on Matthew alone, and I expressly framed the issue so that the matter of univocality would not come up.

Now, your question (below) presupposes that I agree with you that the other books in the canon besides Matthew teach a contrary doctrine about the final punishment of the wicked. I don't agree with that premise. I am not aware of any book of the Bible that denies eternal punishment for the wicked.

I disagree. In my edited comment I noted I was referring to Shaf in terms of univocality. As for you, I clarified as follows above: 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]

Life,

Sorry, I respond to the posts that I see. Let me reply to your newest clarification. Aaron does believe that the Bible can be read univocally. So do I, as long as that is properly understood. But my argument against Dan's post was focused on Matthew alone, and I expressly framed the issue so that the matter of univocality would not come up.

Now, your question (below) presupposes that I agree with you that the other books in the canon besides Matthew teach a contrary doctrine about the final punishment of the wicked. I don't agree with that premise. I am not aware of any book of the Bible that denies eternal punishment for the wicked.

Speaking of incoherence.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Touting the theological superiority of "Biblical Eternal Hell" over the "Mormon Temporary Hell" seems to be an exercise in irony.

Shaf generally knows better. He's not likely in the least to bring up TULIP with a Mormon on the street.

[SilverKnight]

Shaf generally knows better. He's not likely in the least to bring up TULIP with a Mormon on the street.

Maybe we should mount a counter-crusade since he is hiding the awful truth of Calvinism.

[maklelan]

In a previous response to comments Aaron made on CARM, I made a snide remark about his telling me I had permission to post his comment here. He says he did not intend it to be patronizing, so I offer an apology. I've edited that post and hope he can forgive me for jumping to conclusions.

[Confidential Informant]

This may or may not have any relevance here but I made a post about D&C 19 several years ago. I'm repeating that post here, edited to remove the parts that dealt with the context in which that post was made:

In D&C 19, the Lord purports to clairfy what is meant by "eternal punishment" and the message is definitely a "universalist" message.

After revealing this "mystery" (the section says the apostles were also made aware of, see v. , the Lord then tell's Joseph that this teaching is not to be disseminated because it is, apparently, wisdom in the Lord that people not know that everyone will eventually be saved because if they knew that they wouldn't repent. See v. 21-22.

The other night, however, I discovered that D&C 19 has some unexpected roots in ancient Christian teachings. I was watching a program on TLC entitled "Banned from the Bible" in which the various apocryphal works were being disccussed.

One of the works discussed was the book "The Apocalypse of Peter." Dominic Crossan was discussion one of the reasons why that book was likely left out, even though it was highly regarded at one time, was it's treatment of the fate of the damned.

In that work, Peter is looking down from heaven and he sees the souls of the damned in Hell and, apparently, he feels bad for them. A dialogue with the Lord ensues in which Peter is basically told the big "secret" which is that if the folks in heaven decided to take pity on the folks in Hell, then the folks in Hell be released.

Quote

And unto them, the godly, shall the almighty and immortal God grant another boon, when they shall ask it of him. He shall grant them to save men out of the fierce fire and the eternal gnashing of teeth: and this will he do, for he will gather them again out of the everlasting flame and remove them else whither, sending them for the sake of his people unto another life eternal and immortal, in the Elysian plain where are the long waves of the Acherusian lake exhaustless and deep bosomed;

The Lord, however wants that fact kept a secret because if it got out, it would cause people to not repent.

Quote

Next: ' The Father hath committed all judgement unto the Son.' The destiny of sinners -their eternal doom- is more than Peter can endure: he appeals to Christ to have pity on them.

And my Lord answered me and said to me: 'Hast thou understood that which I said unto thee before? It is permitted unto thee to know that concerning which thou askest: but thou must not tell that which thou hearest unto the sinners lest they transgress the more, and sin.'

It appears that this document was not found until 1880, which is a long time after Joseph Smith had passed. I don't know what it all means except that I find it interesting that what D&C 19 teaches has authentic roots in ancient Christianity, which would seem to undermine, at least, the argument that Smith had invented this teaching as an excuse for his own methods.

C.I.

[mfbukowski]

It appears that this document was not found until 1880, which is a long time after Joseph Smith had passed. I don't know what it all means except that I find it interesting that what D&C 19 teaches has authentic roots in ancient Christianity, which would seem to undermine, at least, the argument that Smith had invented this teaching as an excuse for his own methods.

Which is what I was driving at earlier: sola scriptura is ultimately irrelevant.

But I'm glad that Mr Bowman has a testimony of something which cannot be proven.

[The King's Servant]

For Christians, Hell is eternal separation from God, and those who reject the free gift of salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ are consigned to Hell. The final destination of the unsaved is the Lake of Fire, which is seen as a firey place prepared for the Devil and his angels, and into which will be thrown those not found in the Book of Life - which as I've said, will be all those who reject the Gospel of Jesus, which is, "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (that would be the Jesus of the Bible), and you will be saved."

Anything further, would be sheer speculation. Jesus spoke of hell more often than He did of heaven - which in itself, is a warning to those who believe they can save themselves by their own works or efforts.

By the way, Aaron knows his doctrine quite well, and his article is excellent.

[LifeOnaPlate]

By the way, Aaron knows his doctrine quite well, and his article is excellent.

As long as we're arguing in this manner I might as well just throw in a cancellation:

By the way, Aaron does not know his doctrine quite well, and his article is not excellent.

[volgadon]

Volgadon,

Thanks for saying that. I appreciate it!

I think that is the integrity that any true believer should have. Popularity should not replace truth. We may disagree on what that truth is, but we agree on the principle.

[volgadon]

As long as we're arguing in this manner I might as well just throw in a cancellation:

By the way, Aaron does not know his doctrine quite well, and his article is not excellent.

He is probably thinking of a different Aaron and a different article.

[LifeOnaPlate]

He is probably thinking of a different Aaron and a different article.

oops!

[Vance]

For Christians, Hell is eternal separation from God, and those who reject the free gift of salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ are consigned to Hell. The final destination of the unsaved is the Lake of Fire, which is seen as a firey place prepared for the Devil and his angels, and into which will be thrown those not found in the Book of Life - which as I've said, will be all those who reject the Gospel of Jesus, which is, "believe in the Lord Jesus Christ (that would be the Jesus of the Bible), and you will be saved."

Did Jesus experience "hell" for those that He "saved" from "hell"?

[SilverKnight]

For Christians, Hell is eternal separation from God, and those who reject the free gift of salvation offered by God in Jesus Christ are consigned to Hell. The final destination of the unsaved is the Lake of Fire, which is seen as a firey place prepared for the Devil and his angels, and into which will be thrown those not found in the Book of Life -

Anything further, would be sheer speculation. Jesus spoke of hell more often than He did of heaven - which in itself, is a warning to those who believe they can save themselves by their own works or efforts.

And you wonder why people are leaving organized religion in droves.

[Rob Bowman]

C.I.,

I don't see how the doctrine of the Apocalypse of Peter in any way supports the explanation of "eternal punishment" in D&C 19. Granted, the Apocalypse of Peter has its own interesting eschatology with a twist (in the Ethipic version) for avoiding eternal punishment for the wicked, but it doesn't support Joseph's creative explanation of the expression "eternal punishment."

This may or may not have any relevance here but I made a post about D&C 19 several years ago. I'm repeating that post here, edited to remove the parts that dealt with the context in which that post was made:

In D&C 19, the Lord purports to clairfy what is meant by "eternal punishment" and the message is definitely a "universalist" message.

After revealing this "mystery" (the section says the apostles were also made aware of, see v. , the Lord then tell's Joseph that this teaching is not to be disseminated because it is, apparently, wisdom in the Lord that people not know that everyone will eventually be saved because if they knew that they wouldn't repent. See v. 21-22.

The other night, however, I discovered that D&C 19 has some unexpected roots in ancient Christian teachings. I was watching a program on TLC entitled "Banned from the Bible" in which the various apocryphal works were being disccussed.

One of the works discussed was the book "The Apocalypse of Peter." Dominic Crossan was discussion one of the reasons why that book was likely left out, even though it was highly regarded at one time, was it's treatment of the fate of the damned.

In that work, Peter is looking down from heaven and he sees the souls of the damned in Hell and, apparently, he feels bad for them. A dialogue with the Lord ensues in which Peter is basically told the big "secret" which is that if the folks in heaven decided to take pity on the folks in Hell, then the folks in Hell be released.

The Lord, however wants that fact kept a secret because if it got out, it would cause people to not repent.

It appears that this document was not found until 1880, which is a long time after Joseph Smith had passed. I don't know what it all means except that I find it interesting that what D&C 19 teaches has authentic roots in ancient Christianity, which would seem to undermine, at least, the argument that Smith had invented this teaching as an excuse for his own methods.

C.I.

[Nemesis]

In a previous response to comments Aaron made on CARM, I made a snide remark about his telling me I had permission to post his comment here. He says he did not intend it to be patronizing, so I offer an apology. I've edited that post and hope he can forgive me for jumping to conclusions.

You know the day Aaron is willing to actually have a discussion and not spend every thread as an opportunity to preach at us and ignore what others are saying, he would have a place here on this board. Let me know if the day ever comes.

Nemesis

[Confidential Informant]

I don't see how the doctrine of the Apocalypse of Peter in any way supports the explanation of "eternal punishment" in D&C 19.

I'm shocked. SHOCKED, I tell you!

What, exactly, is Joseph's explanation of "eternal punishment" except to note that it has an end?

In D&C 19:* is says:

8 Wherefore, I will explain unto you this mystery, for it is meet unto you to know even as mine apostles.

This implies that the knowledge that was about to be imparted to Joseph was the same knowledge that the Savior had imparted to his original Apostles.

What do we find in the Apocalypse of Peter?

We find Peter receiving information that was apparently a "mystery".

And what is the mystery? That the "eternal punishment" of the sinners actually has an end.

And then what does the Lord tell Peter?

"My Father will give unto them all the life, the glory, and the kingdom that passeth not away, ... It is because of them that have believed in me that I am come. It is also because of them that have believed in me, that, at their word, I shall have pity on men... "

Thus, sinners will finally be saved by the prayers of those in heaven.

Peter then orders his son Clement not to speak of this revelation since God had told Peter to keep it secret:

[and God said]"... thou must not tell that which thou hearest unto the sinners lest they transgress the more, and sin."

Call me a moron but this seems to support Joseph's assertions in D&C 19 pretty well, especially in light of v. 7. It's certainly not a "traditional" version of the fate of the sinners that I've seen and heared taught by you "orthodox" Christians.

Then again, perhaps my years of education were wasted and I'm really the ignoramus you seem to think me.

C.I.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm shocked. SHOCKED, I tell you!

What, exactly, is Joseph's explanation of "eternal punishment" except to note that it has an end?

In D&C 19:* is says:

This implies that the knowledge that was about to be imparted to Joseph was the same knowledge that the Savior had imparted to his original Apostles.

What do we find in the Apocalypse of Peter?

We find Peter receiving information that was apparently a "mystery".

And what is the mystery? That the "eternal punishment" of the sinners actually has an end.

And then what does the Lord tell Peter?

Call me a moron but this seems to support Joseph's assertions in D&C 19 pretty well, especially in light of v. 7. It's certainly not a "traditional" version of the fate of the sinners that I've seen and heared taught by you "orthodox" Christians.

Then again, perhaps my years of education were wasted and I'm really the ignoramus you seem to think me.

C.I.

Well I thought that it was clear. I was and am still confused by Rob's assertion.