Is This Compatible With Bom?

[zerinus]

It's a shame you weren't there to set them straight at the time.

I couldn't agree more! They didn't know what they missed, did they!

Edited August 23, 2011 by zerinus

[Calm]

You are obviously confusing or misunderstanding something. That scripture says that their fate (and the nature of their sufferings) has not been revealed; but one thing HAS been revealed—that their spirit-bodies will not be “disorganized”. Whatever else might happen to them, that is the one thing that we know will not happen to them, because it has been revealed that it will not. Do you get it now? If you don’t, let me know, and I will try a bit harder to explain.

But does the scripture that you claim reveals it mean what you think it means?

For example, if we are thinking of the same scripture it speaks to the resurrection, which has nothing to do with Satan and those sons of perdition who followed him in the preexistence and thus will not partake of the resurrection.

Then there is the whole issue of what eternity and eternal actually mean. After all, before D&C 19 was revealed, it was believed that the scriptures taught that those who were damned would never have release from the eternal torment, the everlasting lake of fire, etc. and yet we now teach there is a end to such speaking on an individual basis (at least for those destined for the Telestial Kingdom).

Edited August 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

It's hard to be humble when you have so much more understanding than others (even Apostles and Prophets), isn't it?

I agree! So how do you think I am doing?

[zerinus]

But does the scripture that you claim reveals it mean what you think it means?

For example, if we are thinking of the same scripture it speaks to the resurrection, which has nothing to do with Satan and those sons of perdition who followed him in the preexistence and thus will not partake of the resurrection.

Yes.

Then there is the whole issue of what eternity and eternal actually mean. After all, before D&C 19 was revealed, it was believed that the scriptures taught that those who were damned would never have release from the eternal torment, the everlasting lake of fire, etc. and yet we now teach there is a end to such speaking on an individual basis.

Sorry, didn't follow that.

[jo1952]

Except that when the truth about something has been revealed, "philosophizing" about it becomes positively disadvantageous.

I would have to disagree. We are taught not only to study scripture, we are to do so by asking for guidance from the Holy Ghost, to ponder what we are reading, to think and reason these things out in our minds, etc. This process should not be confused with the kind of philosophy being generated by the Greeks, which was a concern to Paul, as their thoughts led them to question who or what God is, since they had not yet been taught the Gospel. This thread is clearly contemplating things which have not yet been clearly defined to us BY Father or His Beloved Son, Jesus Christ; thus it is distinctly different.

I believe the exercises in these types of threads help remind us to not place God into a pre-determined box limiting Him only to what has been revealed to the Prophets. Brigham Young fought that type of mindset and was fearful of it. If we limit our understanding to ONLY what the Prophets teach, then we close our minds to whatever else Father may deem we are ready to have revealed to us by the Power of the Holy Ghost; thus putting a limit on, or even preventing us from personally receiving any further revelation about the Kingdom of God.

It appears that the posters participating in these threads who are open to other possibilities have been clear in claiming that their thoughts and the possibilities of where their personal beliefs may be taking them, are NOT Church doctrine. However, this does not mean that there can be no truth in their thoughts. Joseph Smith was very clear that truth is everywhere, and taught that we should be seeking for it. I find these threads refreshing and stimulating if for no other reason than they help me to clarify in my own mind the nitty-gritty nuances of what our beliefs really look like.

Edited to add: even Betrand Russell would have known some truth. Why would you be afraid or embarrassed to cite another person who could possibly teach us something useful? Wouldn't that cut you off from receiving some tid bit of truth you might not otherwise be able to quantify?

Regards,

jo

Edited August 23, 2011 by jo1952

[Calm]

Yes.

So since they do not partake of the resurrection, is there any scriptural reason their spirits could not be disorganized in the way referenced by BY and JW?

Sorry, didn't follow that.

Read the first part of D&C 19.

Is there or is there not an end as we mortals understand it to the "eternal torment" of those destined for the Telestial Kingdom? Is this "eternal punishment" or is this not different from what was understood previously based on the scripture then available?

Edited August 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[Ares]

Keep to the topic folks. The topic is not "philosophizing" about doctrine or each others personalities.

If someone makes a declaration that something is or is not doctrinal back it up with actual doctrine and not just your opinion.

Thank you.

[zerinus]

So since they do not partake of the resurrection, is there any scriptural reason their spirits could not be disorganized in the way referenced by BY and JW?

The scriptures referred to were these:

Alma 42

:

9 Therefore, as

the soul could never die,

and the fall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal, that is, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord, it was expedient that mankind should be reclaimed from this spiritual death.

16 Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was

eternal as the life of the soul

should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul.

I am finding it hard to make the connection between these verses and what you are talking about. I don't see how the "resurrection" issue alters what is taught in these verses, that the soul or spirit could not "die" (physically), or be "disorganized".

Read the first part of D&C 19.

I believe I was the first to quote that scripture in this thread. I think I understand it as well as you do. What is your point?

Is there or is there not an end as we mortals understand it to the "eternal torment" of those destined for the Telestial Kingdom? Is this "eternal punishment" or is this not different from what was understood previously based on the scripture then available?

That is a different issue form the "disorganization" issue we are discussing here. If you want to talk about that separately, I am willing to discuss it with you. But let's not get the two topics mixed up.

[Calm]

The scriptures referred to were these:

Alma 42

:

9 Therefore, as

the soul could never die,

and the fall had brought upon all mankind a spiritual death as well as a temporal, that is, they were cut off from the presence of the Lord, it was expedient that mankind should be reclaimed from this spiritual death.

16 Now, repentance could not come unto men except there were a punishment, which also was

eternal as the life of the soul

should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul.

I don't see how the "resurrection" issue alters what is taught in these verses, that the soul or spirit could not "die" (physically), or be "disorganized".

Yet the scriptures that you quote speak of a "spiritual death" so it would seem there is some kind of death of the spirit out there.

Also the scripture you quotes states: "except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be" but we are taught in D&C 19 that this usage of "eternal" does not mean "forever and ever", but rather the punishment of God who is named Eternal and Endless so it seems strange to then turn around and insist on using the term "eternal" in this particular scripture as support for "forever and ever" when it comes to the state of the soul.

That is a different issue form the "disorganization" issue we are discussing here. If you want to talk about that separately, I am willing to discuss it with you. But let's not get the two topics mixed up.

It most definitely is not a separate topic as it goes to the heart of how we interpret scripture based on revelation and how that process can change in the face of new revelation.

It speaks directly to how perception of what scriptures mean can change with further revelation. That is the same topic as far as I am concerned. If the torment that is never quenched spoken of in Mark 9 for example doesn't mean that man must endure torment forever when speaking of the postresurrection destination of mankind (and we now know this through further revelation on the subject), then how can we be certain what "never" and "eternal" means in the scriptures speaking of the postresurrection nature of man especially when we've been informed the Lord is intentionally not telling us all there is to know about the postresurrection state of sons of perdition?

Edited August 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[Calm]

Another point:

Throughout the scriptures, sons of perdition (pre, during and postmortality) have quite a few (in my opinion speaking to quantity, not quality) unique conditions attached to various descriptions of their behaviours and state of being, destination etc. We only learned of the difference between their conditions and the condition of the rest of humanity through revelation (which was "additional revelation at some point in time). I see no reason to preclude the possibility of additional revelation adding to these unique conditions, possibly even one specifically addressing the condition of dissolution of body and spirit (either speaking of the person as a whole or speaking of all spiritual and physical elements of the person).

Couple this with God's pronouncement that no one knows their end.....

[zerinus]

Yet the scriptures that you quote speak of a "spiritual death" so it would seem there is some kind of death of the spirit out there.

Yes, other scriptures teach that by "spiritual death" is meant being cut off from the presence of God; but not being physically dissolved.

Also the scripture you quotes states: "except there were a punishment, which also was eternal as the life of the soul should be, affixed opposite to the plan of happiness, which was as eternal also as the life of the soul" but we are taught in D&C 19 that this usage of "eternal" does not mean "forever and ever", but rather the punishment of God who is named Eternal and Endless.

So are you suggesting that "the life of the soul" may not be eternal? That would be the logical conclusion to your assumptions. I think that the context of the whole of the scriptures suggests that you are on the wrong track here.

It most definitely is not a separate topic as it goes to the heart of how we interpret scripture based on revelation and how that process can change in the face of new revelation.

It speaks directly to how perception of what scriptures mean can change with further revelation. That is the same topic as far as I am concerned. If the torment that is never quenched spoken of in Mark 9 for example doesn't mean that man must endure torment forever when speaking of the postresurrection destination of mankind (and we now know this through further revelation on the subject), then how can we be certain what "never" and "eternal" means in the scriptures speaking of the postresurrection nature of man especially when we've been informed the Lord is intentionally not telling us all there is to know about the postresurrection state of sons of perdition?

Following that logic, we couldn't be certain of the truth of any doctrine. I don't think God intended us to be so uncertain about things. He hasn't left us entirely without help. He has given us of His Spirit, to ensure we are not confused or misled, or believe in incorrect doctrines.

[Calm]

Following that logic, we couldn't be certain of the truth of any doctrine. I don't think God intended us to be so uncertain about things. He hasn't left us entirely without help. He has given us of His Spirit, to ensure we are not confused or misled, or believe in incorrect doctrines.

Perhaps. Or OTOH he expects us to follow to the best of our ability and faith what law or word he has given us while being open to "all that will be revealed" as well, thus allowing us certainty without creating the equivalent of creeds which bound what knowledge we are willing to accept from the Lord.

However, what I see is the fundamental difference between our positions on this particular topic is that you apparently believe the scripture is definite enough in this particular case that you can say "this is the complete doctrine" on this one specific narrow topic while I do not see such definiteness due to other scriptures teaching us that "spiritual death" is used in multiple ways, "eternal" and "endless" and thus "never" are used in multiple ways, and even "spirit" and "soul" have been used in multiple ways so in this particular instance, coupled with the statement that no man knows the end save a partaker in that end, all of which yield in this particular instance enough ambiguity to allow me to accept the possibility that a prophet and apostle of the Lord were correct in their speculations of the potential destination of this unique population.

Edited August 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

Another point:

Throughout the scriptures, sons of perdition (pre, during and postmortality) have quite a few (in my opinion speaking to quantity, not quality) unique conditions attached to various descriptions of their behaviours and state of being, destination etc. We only learned of the difference between their conditions and the condition of the rest of humanity through revelation (which was "additional revelation at some point in time). I see no reason to preclude the possibility of additional revelation adding to these unique conditions, possibly even one specifically addressing the condition of dissolution of body and spirit (either speaking of the person as a whole or speaking of all spiritual and physical elements of the person).

Your statement is too general to allow specific conclusions. The "dissolution of the spirit" is a doctrine that cannot be supported by any scriptural passage, and militates against many others beyond the ones I have cited. It can be safely ruled out as an incorrect doctrine.

Couple this with God's pronouncement that no one knows their end.....

Which I have already addressed.

[Calm]

Your statement is too general to allow specific conclusions.

Exactly. Do I really need to point out that I am not the one calling for specific conclusions here?

The "dissolution of the spirit" is a doctrine that cannot be supported by any scriptural passage, and militates against many others beyond the ones I have cited.

I have no problem saying the "dissolution of the spirit" is not supported by any scriptural passage. I think those who believe in it as a possibility believed it due to logical speculation about what they perceived was a gap in revealed knowledge as well as perhaps a kind spot in their heart influencing their desire than none suffer for all time (in the traditional sense of the phrase). From what I remember it is not taught as something from the scriptures, but something that might be which tells me that President Young and Apostle Widstoe were less definite that the scriptures were complete and unambiguous in their teachings on this topic as you are appearing to claim.

It can be safely ruled out as an incorrect doctrine.

So you keep saying.....

Edited August 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

Perhaps. Or OTOH he expects us to follow to the best of our ability and faith what law or word he has given us while being open to "all that will be revealed" as well, thus allowing us certainty without creating the equivalent of creeds which bound what knowledge we are willing to accept from the Lord.

He has also given us the assurance that by following His Spirit, we need not be deceived by an incorrect doctrine, regardless of where it might have come from; and I have determined that that is a false doctrine which I need not follow nor accept. And I am willing to say so.

However, what I see is the fundamental difference between our positions on this particular topic is that you apparently believe the scripture is definite enough in this particular case that you can say "this is the complete doctrine" on this one specific narrow topic . . .

Not "scripture" alone; but how the Spirit of the Lord allows me to understand that scripture.

. . . while I do not see such definiteness due to other scriptures teaching us that "spiritual death" is used in multiple ways, . . .

"Spiritual death" is not used in "multiple ways". It is used in scripture in only one way.

. . . "eternal" and "endless" and thus "never" are used in multiple ways, and even "spirit" and "soul" have been used in multiple ways so in this particular instance, . . .

But still we have enough revelation to enable us to know how not to misunderstand them or apply them incorrectly.

. . . coupled with the statement that no man knows the end save a partaker in that end, . . .

I can see that you keep repeating that in a totally illogical way. The fact that God has not told us everything that will happen to them, does not override what God has told us will NOT happen to them.

. . . all of which yield in this particular instance enough ambiguity to allow me to accept the possibility that a prophet and apostle of the Lord were correct in their speculations of the potential destination of this unique population.

The ambiguity does not override the certainty. There is an ambiguity about their fate, as well as a certainty. You are trying to blur the distinction between the two, so that the certainty fades into the ambiguity. I am not going to let you get away with that.

Edited August 23, 2011 by zerinus

[zerinus]

Exactly. Do I really need to point out that I am not the one calling for specific conclusions here?

I said that with regard to your statement, not with regard to the scriptures which allow us to draw definitive conclusions from them.

I have no problem saying the "dissolution of the spirit" is not supported by any scriptural passage. . .

And I am saying that the Scriptures positively mandates against the "dissolution of the spirit," not just "not support it".

So you keep saying.....

I am indeed.

Edited August 23, 2011 by zerinus

[Calm]

PS: Can you think of a more exquisite torment for the egocentric personality that a son of perdition must be than to know one's ultimate fate is to be resolved back into the eternal particles of whatever it was you originally came from?

Just to make things even more confusing for you, inquiring mind, I think I will add my own personal speculation---not explicitly or even very implicitly founded on scriptures, but also not precluded by any I believe---on the final state of sons of perdition as this conversation has helped me to come up with more concise ways of describing it as well as interesting (at least to me) other possibilities like the above PS.

Personally, I don't believe that the soul will be dissolved as I believe that the scriptures and modern prophets have described an afterlife where people 'get what they really want', which may end up being that they'll choose a distasteful outcome because the alternative is more distasteful for them. I view sons of perdition as the ultimate ego-centric and selfish individuals, self centered to the point that they refuse all good because that implies to them a giving up of their perceived independence to God....the whole reign in h*** rather than serve in heaven mentality. I don't see those who have such extreme pride that they would sacrifice eternal happiness because they see that as the only option that will satisfy their need to control, to be 'unique' (one can't be 'unique' in this view is one becomes "one with the Father" or shares in His glory rather than receiving it all for oneself, one isn't in control if one gets that control due to his inferior position to the Father and Christ--the implications of inheritance of glory and power, etc) would be the types of individual who would choose dissolution over some other situation. And while the complete spiritual death/separation from God and the complete lack of the Light of the Father and Son might be taken to mean also a complete absent of energy, I think there is likely another source of energy that may not allow for progress, but could result in the maintenance of the being in a particular state of existence. This source of energy would allow for continuation of individuality, but only in a stagnant state (so rather than dissolution of the soul, think of it as solidification of the soul). I came across a term for this yesterday: "spiritual paralysis" and this is what I think is likely the ultimate state of those who reject God. I think this likely because of the teaching that following God is what gives us true freedom, seeking out sin actually limits agency and choice. I see someone making so many choices that end up relinquishing opportunities for growth, that eventually they place themselves in a situation where there are no options for 'movement' or choice left.

Think of eternal life as a gigantic cave with an infinite number of branching tunnels, some going on forever, some other branches leading ultimately to dead ends. Those who chose to reject God to the extreme of the sons of perdition continually chose the tunnels that narrow down or have fewer branches off of it because the other tunnels they could choose are more brightly lit by God's 'presence' than what they choose, leading them to eventually get to a point where they are so tightly bound by the strata of their past decision that they are too locked in to move forward and too proud to admit they were wrong and move backward. Thus paralysis.

Another analogy is that of someone who refuses to be educated, to learn something from someone else because that would mean they were in someone else's debt or admitting they were inferior in some fashion, if only knowledge. By refusing to go to school or training, it is obvious that person would have much fewer realistic options of employment or even ability to enjoy certain aspects of life beyond a basic level (for example, learning music cannot only help us to become musicians, we will then experience music in a new way). Since one cannot avoid interacting with others, the only way to not be dependent in some fashion on others is to become a complete hermit, isolating oneself from all other human invention, art, etc. One's world is narrowed to only oneself and those products of oneself, but for the truly self-centered person, perhaps that state results in the purest 'happiness' they are capable of experiencing. They are satisfied, if not joyful or happy in any way the rest of us conceive of happiness.

There was this movie I saw in high school called the Madwoman of Chaillot ( http://en.wikipedia...._Chaillot_(film) ). In the end of it, the villains are not condemned by anything but their own greed in that when they are told that they will find their desire at the bottom of a mysterious staircase, the implication is that their greed is so strong that they will continue to climb down forever, never stopping to even consider giving up on their search and turning around. The "madwoman" does end up locking the door, IIRC, but my perception was that it was to prevent others from seeking the doomed men out in order to save them rather than any possibility that they would turn around and come back on their own to the surface (or it may have been just an ultimately futile attempt to 'lock' them out of her mind).

I see this as a good analogy for what is a possible outcome for those who turn their back on God, they may perceive themselves as moving toward a desirable goal and thus have their 'heart's desire', but those looking from the outside will realize their perception of movement, choice, or even power is one of illusion.

ad-on: forgot one point...

While my vision is that dissolution is not a state a person of pure personal pride would desire, I have to admit having heard some speak of their preference of an afterlife with no God in it even if this means they completely cease to be in any meaningful fashion, I may be completely off target...some may prefer dissolution to existing in a universe that they know God also exists in.

PS: the length of this post should demonstrate why I was so proud of the 'preciseness' of those few 'oneliners' I made elsewhere on this board.

Edited August 23, 2011 by calmoriah

[inquiringmind]

Just to make things even more confusing for you, inquiring mind, I think I will add my own personal speculation

Thank you calmoriah, but I believe that theory is flawed from two points of view.

Justice, and Love (or mercy.)

Let's take Justice first (as I suspect zerinus will agree with me here.)

From the point of view of justice, you said "They are satisfied, if not joyful or happy in any way the rest of us conceive of happiness," so these sop's are paying a price that can only be seen by the more enlightened.

They themselves get "the purest 'happiness' they are capable of experiencing."

It's almost the oposite of what doctrine and covenants says.

None of them know their end, only those who aren't partakers thereof.

That hardly seems like justice.

From the point of view of love, they're wriiten off and forgotten.

Allowed to make the wrong, irrevokable choice that God presumably knew they'd make before they were ever created (or organized as His spirit children.)

Why were they not just left as unorganized intelligences?

You said "Personally, I don't believe that the soul will be dissolved as I believe that the scriptures and modern prophets have described an afterlife where people 'get what they really want'," but do they get what they really want, or only the illusion of getting what they think they want?

It may be a virtue for a loving parent to let children learn from their mistakes, but to let them make irrevokable mistakes they never learn from seems more like indifference than love.

That's why I think this particular line of speculation fails to give due regard to God's love or justice.

The Brigham Young and John Widtsoe speculation offers a God who's neither indifferently unloving, or permisisively unjust to the sop's--a God who's punishment is real and purposeful--and my question here remains the same.

Were their views heretical, or are they reconciliable to Mormon scripture?

Edited August 23, 2011 by inquiringmind

[Calm]

From the point of view of justice, you said "They are satisfied, if not joyful or happy in any way the rest of us conceive of happiness," so these sop's are paying a price that can only be seen by the more enlightened.

This would be postjudgment, so they would have paid the debt for their actions as had those in the Telestial Kingdom (save for the choice of separating themselves forever from God and that choice is its own punishment, imo)...though because those who ended up in the TK at least were willing to accept God as Sovereign they end up in a kingdom of glory while sons of perdition are damned to outer darkness, whatever that is. The ultimate end of anyone in my opinion is not so much of a punishment or reward for past actions as a ongoing choice of lifestyle so to speak.

They themselves get "the purest 'happiness' they are capable of experiencing."

Think of it as a masochist who desires to suffer. I should perhaps have used the phrase "they get the desire of their hearts just like the rest of us", the difference being we likely would find it incomprehensible how they can actually desire being in that state. I agree that "wickedness is never happiness" in the true definition of the word, I don't believe sons of perdition are capable of actual happiness since they reject the source of joy. Any capacity for happiness they might have once felt is long gone once they've reduced themselves to such a narrow existence. Such an end is simply what they want, not something that actually gives them joy or happiness or 'lifts their spirit' in anyway. They are miserable in their existence, but since it is a misery that they chose, it is acceptable and even desirable to them.

None of them know their end, only those who aren't partakers thereof.

Not quite. You added a "not" in there: "

Neither was it revealed, neither is, neither will be revealed unto man, except to them who are made partakers thereof"

From the point of view of love, they're wriiten off and forgotten.

Don't see it that way myself. God knows exactly who they are and they have been given what they want most no matter what the cost to God who knows what they were and could have been (remember that at least for sons of perdition in mortality, they had to have spiritually progressed to a pretty magnificent state before turning it all to dust by rejecting the Lord who had brought them so far and given them so much) as well as what they ended up being, separation from God (and thus all who choose to become one with him or even just accept him as Sovereign). He allows them to become the ultimate hermits that they desire to be, thus fulfilling the one ambition of theirs that can be filled without harming others. As to forgotten...not knowing what is the end, does not mean forgotten to my view and this lack of revelation may only be in force until the Judgment where those who become one with God share in all that he has, including I would assume his knowledge.

Allowed to make the wrong, irrevokable choice that God presumably knew they'd make before they were ever created (or organized as His spirit children.)

That's the problem with allowing for moral agency. While it seems harsh and unloving, can we truly be moral agents if we are not allowed to choose to completely reject God along with the rest of our choices? If God is always there with a safety net, how do we know at what point who we really are and at what point God had 'altered' us? And if that choice is the true choice of their heart, how is it a wrong choice for them even if it isn't one that God would like them to have made? And for those who have that sort of self-centered, egotistical pride, what thing would be more offensive (and thus unloving) to them than knowing that someone else has altered them on some fundamental level, changed who they really were by preventing them from making such a choice (the only real way to prevent someone from making that type of choice in their hearts is to change their hearts and thus the individual).

As to the foreknowledge of God, the idea that he knowingly organized individuals who were doomed to this type of existence, I am undecided on exactly what the foreknowledge of God means. It could mean he knows from the beginning all the potential ends, but not the specific one, for example. Or it could mean that he knows those who will choose perdition and those who will choose some level of acceptance of Christ and the Father in their lives. Would it be justice or love to not allow someone the chance to choose their own path for any reason? Or is it the ultimate sacrifice of love to allow your children full access to all options even while knowing ahead of time that some will choose to hate and despise you and spit on all that you have done for them?

Why were they not just left as unorganized intelligences?

I think this is so problematic to us because God is capable of the ultimate act of sacrifice and love---giving up his own children because that is what they ask of him and we are not yet to that point, selfishly choosing to protect them from themselves because we don't want to suffer the pain of losing them or watching them suffer....even if that's what they really, really want to do.

The concept that someone would actually choose to live an existence that seems pointless and horrible to ourselves is hard to overcome, I can only approach it on a 'clinical' level myself. I cannot imagine a greater horror in my life at this point than losing my children and if one adds to that they choose to live in a state of meaningless pain, I find the very thought unbearable. I don't know how parents of children who are drug addicts, who chose to be murderers and rapists or even those who are in abusive relationships manage to not give themselves up to despair.

You said "Personally, I don't believe that the soul will be dissolved as I believe that the scriptures and modern prophets have described an afterlife where people 'get what they really want'," but do they get what they really want, or only the illusion of getting what they think they want?

I believe they actually get what they want. It may seem like an illusion to us who have made different choices. Perhaps thinking of it as each person seeking out the level they are most at home in, or are comfortable in...a person who has created a heaven on earth for herself and her family will feel most at home in my opinion in the Celestial Kingdom while those who cultivated a personality that feels most at home with addicts or murderers will end up in an environment that surrounds him with such (though such will be purified of sin no matter how vile they got)...and a person who only really feels comfortable with himself because he has made himself the only meaningful thing in his world will get to be with himself the rest of his existence.

It may be a virtue for a loving parent to let children learn from their mistakes, but to let them make irrevokable mistakes they never learn from seems more like indifference than love.

I would definitely agree with this, but what I would point out is that come final judgment we will have learned all that is necessary for us to know to determine what is our place of final destination so they have had a full chance to learn and still they have chosen to this existence. Remember sons of perdition are those who have experienced the highest levels of spirituality in the pre-existence and mortality and after having experienced that fully, turned their backs upon it. Only those who have fully known God, Christ and the Spirit can reject them at this level....the analogy is of looking on the noonday sun and denying that there is any light, while knowing full well there is. IOW, it is with full knowledge and understanding that they make the choice that leads to that destination and still they chose to leave the light for the darkness because that is what they prefer.

That's why I think this particular line of speculation fails to give due regard to God's love or justice.

If my reasoning is wrong, then it definitely would fail. I am certainly open to that idea.

The Brigham Young and John Widtsoe speculation offers a God who's neither indifferently unloving, or permisisively unjust to the sop's--a God who's punishment is real and purposeful--and my question here remains the same.

Were their views heretical, or are they reconciliable to Mormon scripture?

I don't see their views as heretical, just probably not mainstream. I believe they are reconcilable to scripture as we know it at this point in time, I think both men knew the scriptures well enough to figure out when something was not. I think this should be obvious to anyone who studies their writings and sermons over the years.

[inquiringmind]

Not quite. You added a "not" in there: "

You missed my point.

I wasn't adding the "not," I was suggesting that you were.

Your version of post judgement h*** (like the C.S. Lewis version of h***) is barred from the inside because it's comfortable.

A h*** that's so unbearable that it cannot be "barred from the inside," forces the occupants to see themselves as they are, and continues long after they've come to reconsider their lifestyle choice would satisfy the demands of justice (and love/mercy if it actually results in change.)

But a comfortable h*** doesn't satisfy the demands of justice or mercy, because it's "h***" only to those who are outside looking in (and results in no change.)

That's the oposite of what D&C says:

Neither was it revealed, neither is, neither will be revealed unto man, except to them who are ("not") made partakers thereof.

P.S. As for sexual masochists, they don't enjoy pain itself (i.e. as in stubbng their toes or hitting their thumbs with a hammer.)

They enjoy pain in a context they associate with sexual stimulation (i.e. a pleasurable sensation.)

A parent who continued to knowingly punish a masochistic child in a way that they found sexually stimulating would be rewarding that child's bad behavior (and this would hardly be loving or just.)

"

Edited August 23, 2011 by inquiringmind

[Ahab]

Really?

So what about the idea that they existed as "intelligences" before they had spirit bodies?

Is that "a false precept which makes about as much sense as the idea that our Father somehow exists without any substance or parts or passions""?

Some people have some mistaken ideas about that concept because what has been revealed on that concept is not crystal clear and is open to personal interpretation. Try accepting that fact, to start with.

First, look for what has been revealed on that issue while trying to keep clear in your mind what God is saying and what YOU think God means, realizing that what you think God means may not be what he really means.

With that said, I'll now tell you that I feel sure what God meant in regards to that concept is that we existed as a part of him even before we were born, and I'm talking about our birth in heaven rather than here on this Earth.

We didn't come from out of nowhere, and the sense in which we existed eternally was as a part of our heavenly parents who originally gave birth to us.

Birth is not the beginning of life. Birth is the perpetuation of a species.

Edited August 23, 2011 by Ahab

[inquiringmind]

Some people have some mistaken ideas about that concept because what has been revealed on that concept is not crystal clear and is open to personal interpretation. Try accepting that fact, to start with.

First, look for what has been revealed on that issue while trying to keep clear in your mind what God is saying and what YOU think God means, realizing that what you think God means may not be what he really means.

With that said, I'll now tell you that I feel sure what God meant in regards to that concept is that we existed as a part of him even before we were born, and I'm talking about our birth in heaven rather than here on this Earth...

Then our individual, personal existence began when God created us (out of Himself.)

That makes sense to me.

(But if that's true, I would hope JS was wrong when he said that everything that has a beginning has to have an end.)

What makes no sense to me is that God would create individuals He foreknew would have to be tormented forever.

And even if they pre-existed as disorganized intelligences (incapable of experiencing joy or sorrow), those who end up in eternal torment would have been better off if they had been left alone.

Why would a God of love, who foresees all, not have left them as He found them?

[Ares]

It looks like one of my posts here has been deleted. Is this some kind of censorship or what?

Yes it is censorship - I'm censoring personal comments about other posters including those made about you to keep discussions in line with board rules. I make every effort to keep posts with actual content but if the ratio of content to personal remarks is thin sometimes they get canned too.

If you and other posters cannot confine your comments to the topic at hand and refrain from personal jabs the next step beyond censorship will be removing you from the thread.

-Ares

[jo1952]

Ahab said:

With that said, I'll now tell you that I feel sure what God meant in regards to that concept is that we existed as a part of him even before we were born, and I'm talking about our birth in heaven rather than here on this Earth...

to which you replied:

Then our individual, personal existence began when God created us (out of Himself.)

That makes sense to me.

This is what the evolvement of one of the earlier versions of the Trinity dogma started out as, as described by Tertullian in his writings. IOW, for example, He believed that Jesus came into separate existence from Father through the power of Father's reasoning/intelligence. Thus, Tertullian reconciled the teaching that Jesus had always existed (though not in the embodiment and form as the Son) because Father's "reasoning" always existed within the Father.

The LDS belief is that we are all eternal - though the "form" we exist in changes as we progress through eternity. We are first co-existent intelligences with Father. Our intelligence is then organized by Father, and we are "born" as spirits. This “creation” of our spirits merely changes our form of existence. Our spirits eventually are placed into a created physical body; which physical creation process was established by Jesus when He formed Adam's physical body from the dust of the earth and took a rib from the then physical body of Adam which was used to create Eve's physical body. Jesus did NOT create our spirits. He created the physical tabernacle which our spirit dwells in.

I wonder if this is where Tertullian adopted his original thought process concerning "intelligence" - that this particular word was a portion of the truth which was believed by the Apostles and still remained; but in using it, Tertullian and others changed its original intent of how it was to be understood.

(But if that's true, I would hope JS was wrong when he said that everything that has a beginning has to have an end.)

IMO, Joseph may have been speaking about mortality, though I would appreciate a CFR so I can see his comment in context, as I may be incorrect. It is our physical body that has a beginning; so it must have an end. The earth is a creation; it had a beginning and must also have an end. Thus, anything created (in the physical) has a beginning and also an end. Therefore, this would NOT include anything that has co-existed with Father in the spiritual realm; for anything co-existent would be eternal; i.e., without beginning and without end; though the "form" of that existence is subject to change.

What makes no sense to me is that God would create individuals He foreknew would have to be tormented forever.

And even if they pre-existed as disorganized intelligences (incapable of experiencing joy or sorrow), those who end up in eternal torment would have been better off if they had been left alone.

Why would a God of love, who foresees all, not have left them as He found them?

Let me begin by saying that I do not think He "created" our personality, which you also appear to believe. His purpose in organizing our intelligence is so that we can progress to another state of being in order to be able to become all that we can become; to be able to enjoy and experience more than we can in only an “intelligence” state of being. Whatever our personality is, our "ID" - the thing which is unique and gives each of us our own identity, has always been; it is part of our pre-existing being. In order to keep the "playing field" fair, it was imperative that Father made sure we have our own free agency. I don't believe He will mess with the intelligence of our being.

It doesn't make sense to me either that He would commit us to any kind of permanent torment. This is one of the reasons I find that it is entirely possible that if our will is so prideful and so dominating that we cannot accept the "light" and progression which He is offering to us, that He has set up conditions wherein we can be purged of whatever evil tendencies we brought along with us which is part of who we are. If those desires and tendencies cannot be purged, even by spending time in the pit of fire and brimstone, then in mercy, He may indeed then remove us from that torment, and disorganize us back into our original state of intelligence. I don't think God is going to make anyone suffer permanently. As I have continued to ponder this OP, I have reached the opinion that the pain and suffering would be ended at the moment someone is disorganized. However, for them to have another chance at being able to enjoy all the Father has to offer, I have not been able to imagine if, after being disorganized, they would not have a memory or awareness of what they had been through. If they don’t maintain something from that experience (though not continue the pain of it), then how could their circumstances be any different when or if given another chance? Would their personality still prevent them being able to progress to a different turn out? ……..

There is so much that is not known. Even trying to follow through on these simpler thoughts; trying to see what things will ultimately look like even in some small way, makes my head hurt. I think it is sufficient to say that we are all going to be surprised and amazed once the veil is removed from our eyes and we re-enter the spiritual realm of our existence and leave the physical world as well as our body of flesh behind.

Best regards,

jo

[inquiringmind]

Thank you Jo.

IMO, Joseph may have been speaking about mortality, though I would appreciate a CFR so I can see his comment in context,

I think all the quotes to this effect come from the King Follet Sermon, and I get the impression that his exact words were recorded differently by different scribes.

I sometimes see him saying "everything that has a beginning has to have an end," and sometimes "everything that has a beginning may have an end,"

(I understand the words of this sermon were recorded in shorthand by four different scribes, does anyone know if there is some discrepancy here?)

P.S. Whatever he was saying, I think it was his own personal opinion, and I don't think it's logically (or philosophically) correct to say that whatever had a beggining must have an end (if it's sustained by an eternal Being.)

Whatever our personality is, our "ID" - the thing which is unique and gives each of us our own identity, has always been;

I'm not sure that's true.

As I have continued to ponder this OP, I have reached the opinion that the pain and suffering would be ended at the moment someone is disorganized. However, for them to have another chance at being able to enjoy all the Father has to offer, I have not been able to imagine if, after being disorganized, they would not have a memory or awareness of what they had been through. If they don’t maintain something from that experience (though not continue the pain of it), then how could their circumstances be any different when or if given another chance? Would their personality still prevent them being able to progress to a different turn out? ……..

If our personalities are created by our individual choices and experiences, perhaps being returned to intelligence (and losing their memories and much of their personal ID's) would allow them to develop differently, and create personalities that wouldn't get in the way of their progression.

Edited August 24, 2011 by inquiringmind