h*** Barred From The Inside?

[inquiringmind]

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.

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.

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.

(The "not" I put in parenthasis is what I respectfully submit your theory adds to the text.)

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

[thesometimesaint]

inquiringmind:

He.. is not a pleasant place. But there are some that will not have any other place.

[inquiringmind]

inquiringmind:

He.. is not a pleasant place. But there are some that will not have any other place.

If that's true, would they not be insane?

If evil is destructive, irrational, and unprofitable (if good is better than evil, and if happiness more to be desired than pain), isn't there a logical incongruity in saying that a fully enlightened, fully informed, sane, free moral agent could "freeely" chose evil (especially if such a choice involves inflicting conscious, unending torment upon themselves)?

If the post-judgement h*** is as bad as those who end up there deserve it to be (the way they are when they get there), would it not be insane for them to knowingly, freely, chose to lock themselves inside?

What is "Agency" if it allows such "insane," irrational (seemingly arbitrary) choices?

It's because of questions like this (and a lot of Christians are asking them) that I find the following blog (and Apostle Widtsoe's comments--see thread on "Is This Compatible with BOM") interesting.

http://notoriousbigg...iversalism.html

Edited August 23, 2011 by inquiringmind

[LeSellers]

If that's true, would they not be insane?

You and I have had this conversation before.

To you, yes, it is insane, and I agree. However, we are not the ones who judge what is best for an individual. Only he can decide that, and he must do it from his insanity.

I am puzzled, though, as to why you seem to be focused on Outer Darkness. God has not revealed it to us, except to say that the tiny bit of knowledge we do have is all we're going to get. It's incomplete, and it does not give us any reasonable stage to build on.

If evil is destructive, irrational, and unprofitable (if good is better than evil, and if happiness more to be desired than pain), isn't there a logical incongruity in saying a fully enlightened, fully informed, sane, free moral agent could "freeely" chose evil?

Everything in this matter is relative. President Bush 41 was famous for saying that, since he was the president, he would not eat broccoli any more. Broccoli provides nutrients that are not readily available in other foods, and rejecting it is, from a nutritional standpoint, “insane”. But he chose it nonetheless. He seems to want a broccoli-free diet in preference to good health. When Barack O’bama told us to “eat our peas,” he revealed something about himself: he doesn’t like peas. I think he’s nuts (for more than this reason): peas are wonderful (I like broccoli, too). I doubt we’ll be seeing peas on his dinner plate: he’s president, too. Is that rational? I can’t see how. People make all sorts of bad choices.

I think the best example is a drug addict. Intellectually, they must know that their addictions are literally killing them. But they prefer the next fix to living. They are free agents, or were, until they surrendered their agency to the drugs. It is probably the same thing for the sons of Perdition. They have surrendered their agency to their drug-of-choice: Satan.

If the post-judgement h*** is as bad as those who end up there deserve it to be (the way they are when they get there), would it not be insane for them to knowingly, freely, chose to lock themselves inside?

What is "Agency" if it allows such "insane," irrational choices?

Agency, as others have pointed out, would not be agency if it did not allow insane choices. Were we restricted to “sane” choices, they would not be choices at all.

Lehi

Edited August 23, 2011 by LeSellers

[CV75]

If that's true, would they not be insane?

If evil is destructive, irrational, and unprofitable (if good is better than evil, and if happiness more to be desired than pain), isn't there a logical incongruity in saying that a fully enlightened, fully informed, sane, free moral agent could "freeely" chose evil (especially if such a choice involves inflicting conscious, unending torment upon themselves)?

If the post-judgement h*** is as bad as those who end up there deserve it to be (the way they are when they get there), would it not be insane for them to knowingly, freely, chose to lock themselves inside?

What is "Agency" if it allows such "insane," irrational (seemingly arbitrary) choices?

It's because of questions like this (and a lot of Christians are asking them) that I find the following blog (and Apostle Widtsoe's comments--see thread on "Is This Compatible with BOM") interesting.

http://notoriousbigg...iversalism.html

Hiding and locking oneself inside is a normal reaction to justified shame, fear, etc. Alma the younger described this well (alma 36:15).

The term “hell” can be used for many things (physical and spiritual death, punishing conscience, seared conscience, spirit world, spirit prison, a lesser glory, perdition, etc.). Every person experiences h*** as the consequence of his agency and in that sense (with the exception of physical death and a fallen world which are imposed upon us all) it is without reservation, when all is said and done, that he preferred not to do all that was required to receive the full mercy and grace of Christ (D&C 88:32).

Mormon 9:4 states that “ye would be more miserable to dwell with a holy and just God, under a consciousness of your filthiness before him, than ye would to dwell with the damned souls in h***.” This is interesting because we will all stand before Christ at the Judgment, and this will be the reaction of those who enter this kind of h***. It is also interesting in that dwelling with a God in an unholy condition is evidently construed to be unreasonable (or the insane thing to do), and is therefore disallowed as an option.

There is a price to be paid to receive all that God has, and there are those who are not willing to pay it, not because they are insane, but because they are proud. They are not “quickened” by the pure love of Christ but are satisfied with something less. This has been the case since the war in heaven.

Perhaps someone as described by Elder Widtsoe would rather start all over from scratch (pun unintended), which could be yest another form of h***.

[thesometimesaint]

inquiringmind:

One can be total sane and still do evil, and/or self destructive acts. IE; Injuries in professional sports are plentiful, but people still do play them. IE; Sky diving is inherently risky, and the consequnces of failure of the "chute" not opening or improperly opening are quite severe. The general rule is that actions in and of themselves do not constitute mental illness or insanity.

In law, at least in California, a person judged insane is not held accoutable to the law for their actions. That doesn't mean we let them go. They are held to a different standard.

h*** is reserved for those that knowing fully still freely choose of their own volition to remain in h***. That the sons of perdition by their own will, will not repent.

[inquiringmind]

Everything in this matter is relative. President Bush 41 was famous for saying that, since he was the president, he would not eat broccoli any more

If Pres. Bush loved the tast of Broccoli, and still refused it (knowing of all it's nutritional benefits), his dietary choice might be irrational

But he made it plain that he didn't like the tast of broccoli.

Do you like the tast of broccoli?

Did you, or Goerge W. choose how it would effect your tast buds?

I don't think so, and I don't see what it has to do with this topic.

I'm assuming that good is really (objectively) better than evil. and joy is really (objectively) better than torment--not that it's all relative, or only a matter of taste..

How is "Free Agency" "Free" if it allows people to irrationally chose what they don't really want (i.e. what tasts bad, and is bad)?

Would there not be a logical incongruity in saying that a person could freely chose to eat broccoli that not only had no nutritional value, but violated their tast buds?

h*** is reserved for those that knowing fully still freely choose of their own volition to remain in h***

If h*** is torment, does that statement really make any sense?

Does it make any sense to say that anyone could freely chose to indefinately embrace an open flame?

And does scripture portray h*** as a punishment inflicted by God (or a chioce freely embraced by those who find it to their liking)?

To LeSellers: As to why I'm interested in this, I'd like my faith to make sense to me (and I thought we were told to think things out.)

Edited August 24, 2011 by inquiringmind

[BCSpace]

He.. is not a pleasant place. But there are some that will not have any other place.

If that's true, would they not be insane?

Ever had teenagers?

[thesometimesaint]

BCSpace:

Me? I had three.

[inquiringmind]

Getting back to the topic, how many of you believe this blog is totally heretical?

http://notoriousbiggins.blogspot.com/2011/01/mormonism-and-universalism.html

And how many of you believe these comments ((from Apostle John Widtsoe) are totally incompatible with Mormon doctrine?

...the ultimate punishment of the sons of perdition may be that they, having their spiritual bodies disorganized, must start over again, must begin anew the long journey of existence, repeating the steps that they took in the eternities before the Great Council was held (Evidence and Reconciliations, pp. 213-214).

[thesometimesaint]

inquiringmind:

At worst it is a personal opinion, for which Br. Widtsoe alone is responsible. That being said I see no support for it in the Scriptures.

[Maidservant]

One small thing I would like to add to this discussion.

You have used the word "relative" a few times. I don't really like that word, as it is not scriptural and it has a philosophical context that has not been unpacked either societally or religiously.

However.

The scriptures teach us several different paradigms about good and evil (and upon study and revelation, they are one paradigm). We most often like to think of evil as being on the one hand, and good on the other. And indeed, there are myriad of scriptures that set this up, and there is reason for that, and also it is true.

Yet we imagine that there is no edge, or no touching between the two . . . that you can just hop from where you are in Evil (if you want to repent), and get yourself into the Good basket, and all's well. Or vice versa, that you can screw up, and wallah, you've got a condo in the large and spacious building.

However.

Each individual is progressing. Never forget this.

What was yesterday's good, is today's evil. What is today's good, is tomorrow's evil. In other words . . . we can never save ourselves. We always fall short, and all of us have stains, and all of us require the merits of the Savior in order to become clean in this life and continuing in the next. The law cannot save us. Because all the laws we have are lesser laws, because if they were the highest laws, and if we were living them, we would already be experiencing what we call the celestial kingdom (and most of us are not, and certainly the world at large is not).

Children of God are never in static conditions. There is progression (and regression).

If you are speaking of Perdition, in the understanding of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, this type of h*** cannot be for any person who sins or makes mistakes or even does evil. All human beings who sin, make mistakes or do evil will continue to progress at least until they have joy and glory in what we call, or is represented by, the Telestial Kingdom. Those who will experience Perdition are those who have a level of knowledge that almost no one on earth has . . . because we are all struggling in our blindness . . . and they choose against this knowledge with perfect clarity. In other words, at the very least, no person who has not received their endowment and understood it clearly , and THEN violated that deliberately, could ever be on their way to Perdition.

I am a person who believes that there is no such thing as a "final condition" of an Intelligence or of a son or daughter of God. Eternity is too long. At the very least, a human being that is holed up in the Telestial Kingdom is going to probably read every book that was ever written in the multi-metaverse, and would not that on its own, if that's all one did, change ones condition? So I just think on things like that, and I realize that all human beings are going to have lots of adventures in time and in eternity, and most if not all of us will figure our progression out eventually. I could be wrong .

Edited August 23, 2011 by Maidservant

[inquiringmind]

inquiringmind:

At worst it is a personal opinion, for which Br. Widtsoe alone is responsible. That being said I see no support for it in the Scriptures.

Thank you.