Is This Compatible With Bom?

[Calm]

You missed my point.

And still am apparently.

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.)

And this role is fulfilled by what LDS call both h*** and spirit prison prior to the the final judgment.

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.)

Justice and mercy have been dealt with by the time the Judgment has come around, in my view, at least in the way you are apparently discussing it here. Once a debt has been paid, it is neither just nor merciful to continue punishment, is it?

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.)

I think there are some fundamental assumptions on both our sides about what is loving and what is not as well as what is just and what is merciful and especially about what moral agency entails that are getting in the way of us communicating our ideas to each other.

To me, your descriptions of the h*** you think I am talking about does not match what I am picturing. I am not sure how to make it clearer without knowing what assumptions are getting in the way.

God is not rewarding selfdestructive behaviour by consigning SOPs to Outer Darkness after the judgment (prior to which they must fully endure the torment of punishment for their actions both external and internal, he is simply allowing them to exist within the lifestyle they have chosen without removing the negative consequences to that lifestyle that naturally exist nor does he add positive consequences so that they find such an existence "rewarding". SOPs are willing to live with the consequences no matter how horrible not because those consequences are not also horrible to them but because the alternative (living with God) is more horrible still. SOPs are not capable of further sinning in Outer Darkness just as those in the Telestial Kingdom are not and both groups have fully paid and purged those sins from themselves in h***/spirit prison prior to being judged. What has not changed are the personality attributes that led to their choices. Since these attributes are not behaviours, the concept of reward and punishment does not apply to them. What does apply is whether or not it is appropriate for God to act on them to change those attributes is they do not want him too. An simple example would be if someone hated brussels sprouts or some other nutritious vegetable and had no desire to change. Is it loving for God to change that person into someone who loves his vegetables because it is overall better for the person in the long run to eat nutritious food and liking vegetables will not only lead him to more likely eat them, but enjoy doing it?

The fundamental question here is "Is it moral, just or merciful for God to force us to enjoy something that is good for us when it changes who we are at a fundamental level?" IOW, is it right for God to change us into other people because he knows that type of person will be better and happier than we are?

Or would this reduce us to basically automatons with interchangeable parts he can pull out and replace as he sees fit even if the end result are the most fantastic creations in the universe?

I think if you understood my assumptions that you would agree that it met the standards of the scriptures and was a logical extrapolation of God's known interactions with men, even if you didn't agree with my assumptions in the first place. I think I understand the assumptions underlying what little you have expressed here of your expectations of the qualities of h*** (even if I don't understand the assumptions that are getting in the way of our discussing my POV) and I find your position (or at least the one I think you have ) coherent and logical while disagreeing that we know enough to make the level of assumptions you are making to create that image. IOW, I see it as plausible and possibly correct, but not necessarily so.

Edited August 24, 2011 by calmoriah

[inquiringmind]

I find your position (or at least the one I think you have ) coherent and logical while disagreeing that we know enough to make the level of assumptions you are making to create that image. IOW, I see it as plausible and possibly correct, but not necessarily so.

Thank you.

I'll probably have to re-read your post several times before I understand your position, but I don't think the differences between good and evil, and happiness and missery, are comperable to the difference between brussel sprouts and water mellon.

I don't think the difference is relative, or subjective, or a matter of taste.

There is also 1 John 3:6 to consider.

It says that no one who choses evil has ever really known God.

The exact words are "no one who continues to sin has either seen Him or known Him."

I believe that's because God is so good, that to know Him is to love Him.

I don't believe any other choice is possible for those who have really seen and known Him.

Edited August 24, 2011 by inquiringmind

[Zakuska]

JUST WANTED TO ADD THESE TO SECOND THE OP

The New Testament in Modern Speech,

by Dr. R. F. Weymouth: Eternal: Greek: "aeonion," i.e., "of the ages." Etymologically this adjective, like others similarly formed, does not signify "during," but "belong to" the aeons or ages."

The Interpreter’s Dictionry of the Bible

(vol. IV, p. 643): Time: The O.T. and the N.T. are not acquainted with the conception of eternity as timelessness. The O.T. has not developed a special term for "eternity." The word

aion

originally meant "vital force," "life," then "age," "lifetime."

Elliot’s

Commentary on the Whole Bible

(Matt. 25:46(. Everlasting punishment--life eternal. The two adjectives represent the same Greek word,

aionios

—it must be admitted that the Greek word which is rendered "eternal" does not, in itself, involve endlessness, but rather, duration, whether through an age or succession of ages, and that it is therefore applied in the N.T. to periods of time that have had both a beginning and ending (Rom. 16:25).

Hasting’s

Dictionary of the New Testament

(Vol. I, p. 542, art.

Christ and the Gospels

): Eternity. There is no word either in the O.T. Hebrew or the N.T. Greek to express the abstract idea of eternity. (Vol. III, p. 369): Eternal, everlasting—nonetheless "eternal" is misleading, inasmuch as it has come in the English to connote the idea of "endlessly existing," and thus to be practically a synonym for "everlasting." But this is not an adequate rendering of

aionios

which varies in meaning with the variations of the noun

aion

from which it comes. (p. 370):

The

chronoios aioniois

moreover, are not to be thought of as stretching backward everlastingly, as it is proved by the

pro chronon aionion

of II Tim. 1:9; Titus. 1:2. (Note:

pro chronon aionion

means "BEFORE times eonian." Since this Scripture tells us that there was time "before" eonian, eionian cannot possibly mean eternal, for nothing can be "before" eternity.)

The large Catholic Bible dictionary,

The Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Bible

(p. 693): ETERNITY: The Bible hardly speaks of eternity in the philosophical sense of infinite duration without beginning or end. The Hebrew word

olam

, which is used alone (Ps. 61:8; etc.) or with various prepositions (Gen. 3:22; etc.) in contexts where it is traditionally translated as ‘forever,’ means in itself no more than ‘for an indefinitely long period." Thus

me olam

does not mean ‘from eternity’ but ‘of old’

Gen. 6:4; etc.). In the N.T.

aion

is used as the equivalent of

olam. (Note: even the Catholic translators of

The Jerusalem Bible

and

The New American Bible

have failed to heed the scholarship of their own Catholic authorities.)

Dr. R. F. Weymouth, a translator who was adept in Greek, states in

The New Testament in Modern Speech

(p. 657), Eternal, Greek

aeonion

, i.e., of the ages: Etymologically this adjective, like others similarly formed does not signify, "during" but "belonging to" the aeons or ages.

Dr. Marvin Vincent,

Word Studies of the New Testament

(Vol. IV, p. 59). The adjective

aionios

in like manner carries the idea of time. Neither the noun nor the adjective in themselves carries the sense of "endless" or "everlasting.’

Anionios

means enduring through or pertaining to a period of time.

Dr. F. W. Farrar, author of

The Life of Christ and The Life and Word of St. Paul,

as well as books about Greek grammar and syntax, writes in

The Eternal Hope

(p. 198), "That the adjective is applied to some things which are ‘endless’ does not, of course, for one moment prove that the word itself meant ‘endless;’ and to introduce this rendering into many passages would be utterly impossible and absurd."

[inquiringmind]

Thank you.

[inquiringmind]

The idea, IIRC, is that all order and life and light (ie. energy) come from God.

Does it say that somewhere in the standard works?

[zerinus]

Does it say that somewhere in the standard works?

The standard works teach that God is the source of all truth and light. He is also the source of all life. But is says nothing about "energy".

[inquiringmind]

The standard works teach that God is the source of all truth and light. He is also the source of all life. But is says nothing about "energy".

Where does it say He's the source of all life (and what does it mean by "life"--is it only speaking of physical life)?

[Calm]

The standard works teach that God is the source of all truth and light. He is also the source of all life. But is says nothing about "energy".

So you don't believe that light (which is a form of radiation) is a form of energy?

[Calm]

Where does it say He's the source of all life (and what does it mean by "life"--is it only speaking of physical life)?

http://institute.lds...n-200-g-i-g.asp

(G-3) Christ Is the Lawgiver

Christ, as the Firstborn, was preeminent among the members of the Father’s family. He created this earth under the direction of the Father (see Moses 1:27–32 ) and was given authority to be God over it. Acting through the power and authority given Him by His Father, the Savior controls, directs, and governs the affairs of this earth. As God over this earth, Christ ordained laws, according to the will of the Father, for the benefit and progression of the whole human family. He is our lawgiver (see D&C 38:22 ;64:13 ). Christ taught the Nephites, saying, “I am the law” ( 3 Nephi 15:9 ), meaning that He is the embodiment and the source of all law to mankind. He is not only the source of law and commandments given to mankind, but He provides the law, or organizing power, for the whole universe. This doctrine is taught more clearly in the Doctrine and Covenants than in any of the other standard works. He declared to His disciples that He was “the way, the truth, and the life” ( John 14:6 ). The Doctrine and Covenants teaches that the Resurrection is only part of what this title means. Jesus is “the life” in a much more profound and all-inclusive way. A careful study of Doctrine and Covenants 88:6–13 yields the following insights about Christ as the source of law and light and life:

Christ is the source of an infinite, radiant stream of energy called “the light of Christ” ( v. 7 ) which comes “from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space” ( v. 12 ).

Christ is the light and power that fills the sun, moon, stars, and earth (see vv. 7–10 ).

This light of Christ is not only in all things but is the source of life for all things (see v. 13 ).

Somehow, this energy source which emanates from God and is named after Jesus Christ is also “the law by which all things are governed” ( v. 13 ).

In other words, if somehow the light of Christ were to be extinguished, there would be no law, no order, no organization, and no life in the universe. Everything would collapse into universal chaos. According to the book of Hebrews, Christ “uphold all things by the word of his power” ( 1:3 ). For this reason we look to Him for guidance: He is not only the source of law, He is the law.

The Prophet Joseph Smith taught the same thing when he said, “God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself” ( Teachings, p. 354).

Is this sufficient or would you like more? I just checked out the first likely candidate.

Personal interpretation: I am undecided between viewing "the Light of Christ" as being defined as something which Christ has control over (one could say that the government is the source of currency, for example, without meaning that currency is emanates directly from the government, but rather produces or controls it) or whether God, through Christ is actual the source the light radiates from. I tend to lean toward the first.

Edited August 24, 2011 by calmoriah

[inquiringmind]

http://institute.lds...n-200-g-i-g.asp

Is this sufficient or would you like more? I just checked out the first likely candidate.

I'm still unclear on whether it's speaking of physical (biological) life, or all life (especially if man is co-eternal with God, and we all existed as intelligences from all eternity.)

Are "intelligences" alive?

[LeSellers]

I'm still unclear on whether it's speaking of physical (biological) life, or all life (especially if man is co-eternal with God, and we all existed as intelligences from all eternity.)

Applying other revelations and scriptures to this question, the answer is "biological" life, i.e., temporal or physical llife.

Are "intelligences" alive?

Indeed, yes. But there is no explicit scripture on this. The fact that intelligences are male and female and exist as individuals, progress from relatively unknowing beings to the point where they can be, individually, organized as spirit children of heavenly Parents, all point to their being living beings.

Lehi

[Calm]

I'm still unclear on whether it's speaking of physical (biological) life, or all life (especially if man is co-eternal with God, and we all existed as intelligences from all eternity.)

Are "intelligences" alive?

I'm afraid that the scriptures don't analyze the idea to the level nor have I heard any church leaders (or anyone for that matter) do so. One can make assumptions, but they would be based on whether one interprets the scriptures to mean that God the Father had a Father like Christ has or God the Father is the first of the Fathers so to speak (which position is held by some LDS I know) or whether one interprets God being the God of all referring to this universe alone or to all universes existing in any sense of the word 'exist' or something else (this position is much more varied than the previous one in my experience) so it would take rather a lot of explanation to explore all permutations and would likely be more confusing than illuminating (pun intended).

[inquiringmind]

progress from relatively unknowing beings

"Relatively unknowing beings"?

If they were unaware (or not fully aware) of their own existence, would they really be "alive" in any meaningful sense of the word?

Also, where does it say that they ""progressed" to become spirit children of Heavenly Father.

That would seem to imply that they had agency, and made choices before God organized them, but doesn't the Book of Moses say that God gave them their agency?

How could dis-organized intelligences have any agency of their own if God gave them their agency?

Edited August 24, 2011 by inquiringmind

[Calm]

"relatively unknowing beings"?

If they were unaware (or not fully aware) of their own existence, would they really be "alive" in any meaningful sense of the word?

Are infants fully aware of their own existence?

[zerinus]

Where does it say He's the source of all life . . .

John 1

:

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4

In him was life; and the life was the light of men

.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

D&C 93

:

8 Therefore, in the beginning the Word was, for he was the Word, even the messenger of salvation—

9 The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and

in him was the life of men and the light of men

.

D&C 88

:

12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—

13 The

light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things,

which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

. . . (and what does it mean by "life"--is it only speaking of physical life)?

It means all life, physical and spiritual.

[inquiringmind]

Are infants fully aware of their own existence?

Maybe their spirits are.

John the Baptist lept at the sound of Mary's voice when he was still in the womb.

[inquiringmind]

I apologize for the double post.

Edited August 24, 2011 by inquiringmind

[zerinus]

So you don't believe that light (which is a form of radiation) is a form of energy?

The "light" referred to in those scriptures is spiritual light, which does not translate into Newtonian "energy".

[Calm]

The "light" referred to in those scriptures is spiritual light, which does not translate into Newtonian "energy".

That is one way of interpreting it (though I find the usage of "Newtonian" with radiant energy to be somewhat problematic in its limitations), but then ignores the scriptural doctrine that spirit is a form of refined matter. See also the institute manual I linked to for the Mind. ( for 'inquiring mind') Edited August 24, 2011 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

"Relatively unknowing beings"?

If they were unaware (or not fully aware) of their own existence, would they really be "alive" in any meaningful sense of the word?

Also, where does it say that they ""progressed" to become spirit children of Heavenly Father.

That would seem to imply that they had agency, and made choices before God organized them, but doesn't the Book of Moses say that God gave them their agency?

How could dis-organized intelligences have any agency of their own if God gave them their agency?

Maybe their spirits are.

John the Baptist lept at the sound of Mary's voice when he was still in the womb.

Well said. You are showing better insight into LDS doctrine than many Mormons appear to have.

[inquiringmind]

John 1

:

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

4

In him was life; and the life was the light of men

.

5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.

D&C 93

:

8 Therefore, in the beginning the Word was, for he was the Word, even the messenger of salvation—

9 The light and the Redeemer of the world; the Spirit of truth, who came into the world, because the world was made by him, and

in him was the life of men and the light of men

.

D&C 88

:

12 Which light proceedeth forth from the presence of God to fill the immensity of space—

13 The

light which is in all things, which giveth life to all things,

which is the law by which all things are governed, even the power of God who sitteth upon his throne, who is in the bosom of eternity, who is in the midst of all things.

It means all life, physical and spiritual.

Doesn't that tend to support a point calmoriah attempted to make earlier in this thread?

Probably someone who has observed the decomposition of bodies after physical death and interpolated spiritual death (ie. separation from God) to be something along the same lines since we are taught that spirit is a sort of refined matter.

The idea, IIRC, is that all order and life and light (ie. energy) come from God. If one completely cuts oneself off from God, one logically cuts oneself off from the source of order and life and energy, this leaving one with essentially only disorder, iow without an outside force of order inhibiting it, entropy becomes the 'natural' state of an object/being.

I am not saying this is correct, just that this position is a logical result of scriptural doctrine depending on how one chooses to interpret certain ambiguous statements.

As a possible approach, one could assume that the bonding of the spirit body to the physical body (which only applies to those who have lived mortal lives and thus been resurrected, not to Satan and those who followed him after his rebellion---as far as I know those who did not go through mortality have no 'promise' that there will be no separation of their elements on any level) only is relevant in the sense of the spiritual elements being fused with the physical elements that the resurrected form is made of and not the entire form, much like our physical body is composed of eternal physical elements that will never cease to exist in a sense, but the human body itself can still be decomposed into its individual components and is the natural end product when death occurs.

How could life and order exist apart from God (or in a dimension totally cut off from God)?

Edited August 24, 2011 by inquiringmind

[zerinus]

I apologize for the double post.

The pages are taking a long time to load after posting a new message, giving the impression that the message has not been posted, when it has been. To avoid duplicate posts, first check to see if the message has not already been posted (by opening a new tab and looking at the thread), before reposting the same message again.

Edited August 24, 2011 by zerinus

[zerinus]

That is one way of interpreting it (though I find the usage of "Newtonian" with radiant energy to be somewhat problematic in its limitations), but then ignores the scriptural doctrine that spirit is a form of refined matter. See also the institute manual I linked to for the Mind. ( for 'inquiring mind')

"Refined matter" does not mean made of the atoms and molecules of the natural world. Also, I always prefer to go to the primary source of LDS doctrine, which are the standard works; rather than to secondary sources, such as the Institute manual. I do not trust the manual nearly as much.

[zerinus]

Doesn't that tend to support a point calmoriah attempted to make earlier in this thread?

Which point was that?

[zerinus]

Deleted

Edited August 24, 2011 by zerinus