'Damned' Vs 'Dammed'- Anyone Have a Dictionary?

[mfbukowski]

Does anyone have a dictionary?

Look up "damned" in ANY dictionary and you will see that it means something like "condemned to hell forever" while we take it as meaning "stopping spiritual progression".

There is a big difference obviously, and in another thread this became a serious problem for a poster who thought that we taught that he and his wife would burn forever in hell because she could not have children and as investigators, they have not been married in the temple.

Why do we define the word "damned" in a way NO OTHER Christians do?   Really I should say "no one" else used that way?

Are we even aware that "cessation of progress" is generally NOT the definition of "damned" used by virtually everyone else?

I think the origin of this is in our interpretation of certain Book of Mormon verses translated using the word "damned" in a way no longer considered consistent with later revelations regarding the sons of perdition, and the nature of spirit prison.

It's always hermeneutics, ain't it

But we need to learn that others don't necessarily mean what we mean when we use that word.

 

[strappinglad]

I prefer  " dadgummed " 

Having just read 3rd and 4th Nephi. I noticed quite a few verses that say if one does not accept the words of Christ , the  wrath of God awaits. That is a hair stronger than blocking further spiritual progress. 

I think the LDS have a much more calm view of Hell than most  sects. 

[mfbukowski]

39 minutes ago, strappinglad said:

I prefer  " dadgummed " 

Having just read 3rd and 4th Nephi. I noticed quite a few verses that say if one does not accept the words of Christ , the  wrath of God awaits. That is a hair stronger than blocking further spiritual progress. 

I think the LDS have a much more calm view of Hell than most  sects. 

Maybe that's it. For us hell is simply Spirit prison. No Eternal burning no getting poked by pitchforks. And your progression certainly is stopped. You are stuck.

But on the other hand you will not be there forever.

Eventually every knee shall bend and confess Christ as Savior.   

So maybe the real question is our definition of hell is not what other people think of as hell.

So as usual the problem is semantics. Wittgenstein was brilliant.

By the way how do knees" bow"?

I had a hyper-extended knee one time and it was not fun, but that puppy definitely" bowed." 

But how do we expect other people to understand us?

Edited January 14, 2020 by mfbukowski

[strappinglad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

But how do we expect other people to understand us?

My spouse says that keeping a little mystery in a relationship is a good thing. Of course that may be only when the credit card bill comes. 😇

[Ahab]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Does anyone have a dictionary?

Look up "damned" in ANY dictionary and you will see that it means something like "condemned to hell forever" while we take it as meaning "stopping spiritual progression".

There is a big difference obviously, and in another thread this became a serious problem for a poster who thought that we taught that he and his wife would burn forever in hell because she could not have children and as investigators, they have not been married in the temple.

Why do we define the word "damned" in a way NO OTHER Christians do?   Really I should say "no one" else used that way?

Are we even aware that "cessation of progress" is generally NOT the definition of "damned" used by virtually everyone else?

I think the origin of this is in our interpretation of certain Book of Mormon verses translated using the word "damned" in a way no longer considered consistent with later revelations regarding the sons of perdition, and the nature of spirit prison.

It's always hermeneutics, ain't it

But we need to learn that others don't necessarily mean what we mean when we use that word.

 

Sometimes what some people think something means is very much like what some other people think something means even though they do not think so.

Aren't you the one who says it's all just a matter of interpretation?

I see the overall idea involved in both words as generally the same idea but with a few clarifications that need to be made.

Eternal punishment lasts forever but not necessarily all at the same time. Eternal punishment is God's punishment, so God can punish someone for a while until he deems the penalty has been paid, and then let them go, and then punish them again when he deems necessary.

But punishment isn't necessarily the best word to use for the type of punishment God dishes out.  Everybody's idea of punishment isn't the same. It's more like a loss of blessings, a sense of restriction or a damming effect, and in some sense it is only temporary, in some cases.

So what happens when someone is dammed, or damned?  Either way, they lose something they may have had if they had not been restricted.  Some call it a cursing while some say they are not blessed.  Tomatoes vs tomatos.  It's all pretty much the same thing.

[Anonymous Mormon]

This has always been a pet peeve of mine as well. The words Damn & Dam actually have completely different etymology. They are actually not related and don't mean the same thing. When people say that they do mean the same thing in conference, it actually really bothers me. 

[teddyaware]

4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Maybe that's it. For us hell is simply Spirit prison. No Eternal burning no getting poked by pitchforks. And your progression certainly is stopped. You are stuck.

But on the other hand you will not be there forever.

Eventually every knee shall bend and confess Christ as Savior.   

So maybe the real question is our definition of hell is not what other people think of as hell.

So as usual the problem is semantics. Wittgenstein was brilliant.

By the way how do knees" bow"?

I had a hyper-extended knee one time and it was not fun, but that puppy definitely" bowed." 

But how do we expect other people to understand us?

The root of the word bow is the Old English word bugan, which means to bend. So the expression ‘bow the knee’ simply means to bend the knee.

.

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The root of the word bow is the Old English word bugan, which means to bend. So the expression ‘bow the knee’ simply means to bend the knee.

.

Ok thanks!

I can think of a few British epithets that might go with that as well.

 

[SeekingUnderstanding]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Maybe that's it. For us hell is simply Spirit prison. No Eternal burning no getting poked by pitchforks. And your progression certainly is stopped. You are stuck.

But on the other hand you will not be there forever

Have you read A Short Stay in Hell by Steve Peck from BYU? It’s a short story about a Latter-Day who dies and goes to hell. His personal hell is a library where all he has to do to leave is find the book of his life. Unfortunately  all the books are randomly generated characters and the library’s dimensions are measured in light years. It’s haunting to contemplate how long a “short” (in an eternal sense) stay in hell can be. 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Have you read A Short Stay in Hell by Steve Peck from BYU? It’s a short story about a Latter-Day who dies and goes to hell. His personal hell is a library where all he has to do to leave is find the book of his life. Unfortunately  all the books are randomly generated characters and the library’s dimensions are measured in light years. It’s haunting to contemplate how long a “short” (in an eternal sense) stay in hell can be. 

No, I have not read it, thanks for the link

He just has to figure out that those are all just constraints he has put on himself.

Joseph essentially translated "random characters" because he saw the world differently than we do!  He just needs to give those characters meaning and that meaning will truly be HIS book!

Edited January 15, 2020 by mfbukowski

[The Nehor]

I have not heard this from a General Authority that I recall. I have heard it in ward and stake meetings. It probably started innocently enough with someone using the pronunciation similarity to make a comparison. Some started believing the words are etymologically connected. I have ever heard like in the OP that anyone thought dammed was the real meaning.

While the metaphor works it is incomplete. Hell is real and I think we soft pedal it too much and water it down. Spirit Prison is not just a holding pattern. It is also a place of sorrow and pain.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Have you read A Short Stay in Hell by Steve Peck from BYU? It’s a short story about a Latter-Day who dies and goes to hell. His personal hell is a library where all he has to do to leave is find the book of his life. Unfortunately  all the books are randomly generated characters and the library’s dimensions are measured in light years. It’s haunting to contemplate how long a “short” (in an eternal sense) stay in hell can be. 

I need to put this on my reading list.

[mfbukowski]

36 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I have not heard this from a General Authority that I recall. I have heard it in ward and stake meetings. It probably started innocently enough with someone using the pronunciation similarity to make a comparison. Some started believing the words are etymologically connected. I have ever heard like in the OP that anyone thought dammed was the real meaning.

While the metaphor works it is incomplete. Hell is real and I think we soft pedal it too much and water it down. Spirit Prison is not just a holding pattern. It is also a place of sorrow and pain.

Just go to LDS dot org and search "damnation"

Quote

 

Damnation

See also Death, Spiritual; Devil; Hell; Sons of Perdition

The state of being stopped in one’s progress and denied access to the presence of God and His glory. Damnation exists in varying degrees. All who do not obtain the fulness of celestial exaltation will to some degree be limited in their progress and privileges, and they will be damned to that extent.

Woe unto you hypocrites! ye shall receive the greater damnation, Matt. 23:14.

He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost is in danger of eternal damnation, Mark 3:29.

They that have done evil will come forth unto the resurrection of damnation, John 5:29 (3 Ne. 26:5).

He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, 1 Cor. 11:29 (3 Ne. 18:28–29).

He that will not repent, be baptized, and endure to the end must be damned, 2 Ne. 9:24 (Mark 16:16; Ether 4:18; D&C 68:9; 84:74).

The wicked would be more miserable to dwell with God than with the damned souls in hell, Morm. 9:4.

He that doeth not anything until he is commanded, the same is damned, D&C 58:29.

He that receives a fulness of the new and everlasting covenant must abide the law, or he shall be damned, D&C 132:6.

 

And what brought up this whole question was indeed a quote from a general authority- and there are many others, BUT the one that upset the individual which led to this thread was this one- from Elder Nash.  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/leader/marcus-b-nash?lang=eng&clang=ase&_r=1

Quote

 

We Must Obey Each Covenant within the New and Everlasting Covenant

The Lord unequivocally declared that we receive these supernal blessings only as we obey His laws as set forth in the new and everlasting covenant: “The new and everlasting covenant … was instituted for the fulness of my glory; and he that receiveth a fulness thereof must and shall abide the law, or he shall be damned, saith the Lord God.”23 He also declared, “For all who will have a blessing at my hands shall abide the law which was appointed for that blessing, and the conditions thereof, as were instituted from before the foundation of the world.”24 In the same section of the Doctrine and Covenants, the Lord echoed this point: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye abide my law ye cannot attain to this glory.”25

The straightforward requirement that we must obey the laws of God in order to receive the glory He offers the faithful applies to all the ordinances and covenants within the new and everlasting covenant. For example, if I do not receive the ordinance and keep the covenant of baptism, I will be damned, meaning that I cannot progress—I cannot inherit the fulness of His glory. Likewise if I do not receive the ordinances of the temple and keep the associated covenants or, indeed, if I refuse to receive any of the ordinances of the gospel or if I refuse to abide by any of the associated covenants, I cannot be exalted. Instead, I will be damned, meaning that my progress will be stopped. In short, I must receive every ordinance of the gospel and abide by every associated covenant if eternal life is my desire.

 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2015/12/the-new-and-everlasting-covenant?lang=eng

The individual thought it was terrible that one would be condemned to hell forever if one was not baptized LDS, or that his marriage was not valid and therefore he and his wife would be damned to hell for eternity.

Because of the confusion in terms, he understandably found that idea harsh and cruel, and something he could never accept.

Only the Lord knows how many others have had this confusion.

Edited January 15, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

I want to make it perfectly clear that this is all mfbukowski's fault! 😁 I am sure that most you who have read his posts over the years are not surprised at that! 🙄 He is the one who told me to read Elder Nash's talk with no warning aforethought! It never dawned on me that dam and damn meant the same thing in LDS lingo. This is one more of many cases of Christians needing an interpreter to understand each other. Another in the same conversation is the meaning of the word "part." It seems that most LDS Christians interpret that in the phrase "until death do us part" referring to eternal separation. For many Evangelicals (strict interpretation) it means separation by death when the other remains on earth. That is my interpretation. Of course another one, and a pet peeve of mine as you all know is when you all generalize the use of the word Evangelical to refer to all or most other non-LDS Christians. Evangelical has a very specific meaning referring to a very specific group of non-LDS Christians and I would argue some LDS Christians. Another is the use of the word Fundamentalist. Means something totally different to a LDS audience than to a non-LDS audience. Has anyone here ever read Ambrose Bierce's Dictionary? I highly recommend it. It is a hoot. Besides, Ambrose Bierce was the original Old Gringo in Mexico, so I relate to him. Hopefully we can all get past our etymological differences. I don't mind being dammed. I certainly don't want to be damned!

Edited January 15, 2020 by Navidad

[Ahab]

33 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I want to make it perfectly clear that this is all mfbukowski's fault! 😁 I am sure that most you who have read his posts over the years are not surprised at that! 🙄 He is the one who told me to read Elder Nash's talk with no warning aforethought! It never dawned on me that dam and damn meant the same thing in LDS lingo. This is one more of many cases of Christians needing an interpreter to understand each other. Another in the same conversation is the meaning of the word "part." It seems that most LDS Christians interpret that in the phrase "until death do us part" referring to eternal separation. For many Evangelicals (strict interpretation) it means separation by death when the other remains on earth. That is my interpretation. Of course another one, and a pet peeve of mine as you all know is when you all generalize the use of the word Evangelical to refer to all or most other non-LDS Christians. Evangelical has a very specific meaning referring to a very specific group of non-LDS Christians and I would argue some LDS Christians. Another is the use of the word Fundamentalist. Means something totally different to a LDS audience than to a non-LDS audience. Has anyone here ever read Ambrose Bierce's Dictionary? I highly recommend it. It is a hoot. Besides, Ambrose Bierce was the original Old Gringo in Mexico, so I relate to him. Hopefully we can all get past our etymological differences. I don't mind being dammed. I certainly don't want to be damned!

What in your mind do you see as the difference as it pertains to the end result?  If God said to you, you are dam_ed!...with you not seeing if he used an "m" or an "n" in what he had told you ... would you really not mind or have no problem with that? 

And while it may be partly mski's fault I will not shift all of the blame onto him as you did.

 

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Just go to LDS dot org and search "damnation"

And what brought up this whole question was indeed a quote from a general authority- and there are many others, BUT the one that upset the individual which led to this thread was this one- from Elder Nash.  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/church/leader/marcus-b-nash?lang=eng&clang=ase&_r=1

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2015/12/the-new-and-everlasting-covenant?lang=eng

The individual thought it was terrible that one would be condemned to hell forever if one was not baptized LDS, or that his marriage was not valid and therefore he and his wife would be damned to hell for eternity.

Because of the confusion in terms, he understandably found that idea harsh and cruel, and something he could never accept.

Only the Lord knows how many others have had this confusion.

And? Saying damned means a stopping of progress does not exclude other meanings. Elder Nash did not suggest that damned just meant our metaphorical dammed.

If you corrected it to “No, you will probably only be in hell for a thousand years and maybe some change” would he have found it palatable?

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And? Saying damned means a stopping of progress does not exclude other meanings. Elder Nash did not suggest that damned just meant our metaphorical dammed.

If you corrected it to “No, you will probably only be in hell for a thousand years and maybe some change” would he have found it palatable?

Good question.

But being dammed for not being baptized? For not marrying in the temple for non-members? 

I mean we are used to statements like that from Anti Mormons, and our other "Christian friends" but they are not.

He might answer for himself, the other thread is still current and he posts here quite often.

Part of the reason I started this thread was to prove to him that there was indeed an ambiguity which more fundamentalist Christians may find confusing.

Edited January 15, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

What in your mind do you see as the difference as it pertains to the end result?  If God said to you, you are dam_ed!...with you not seeing if he used an "m" or an "n" in what he had told you ... would you really not mind or have no problem with that? 

And while it may be partly mski's fault I will not shift all of the blame onto him as you did.

 

Let's see, the difference is I think I am beginning to understand the LDS concept of exaltation which is "dammed" stopped, halted etc. if one does not receive LDS baptism and other ordinances. I don't believe in exaltation as the LDS do; I believe in sanctification which I believe continues on in heaven as therein we continue to become more like Christ in our holiness; not as Christ in His essence. I don't believe I need LDS baptism or ordinances to achieve heaven or to grow in my sanctification. The proof of the pudding in the latter is that I have already grown and grown from where I was sixty years ago. I received salvation at a point in time and have experienced sanctification over the course of my life. Up and down, to be sure, but generally on the incline! No LDS doctrine can take that away from me because I have already experienced it in my Christian life. God has never said to me I am dammed; in fact in His grace I have already experienced just the opposite. 

God has already given me guidelines in the Bible that someone has already posted about being dam_ed. To me, God's dam_ation is an assignment to hell - place of darkness - place of perdition - place of separation from God - place of torment - however one defines it. This is one of the reasons I smile when my LDS friends inform me how seriously they take the sacrament and their baptismal covenants. They seem totally unaware that I also made baptismal covenants and take the sacrament very seriously because not doing so is eating and drinking dam_ation to myself- a path to eternal hell. That is pretty serious. You all have discussed a lot of this in the apostate thread. I don't mind an LDS friend saying I am dammed because I don't agree with his or her assertion. God doesn't dam us; we oftentimes may dam ourselves. No one else can dam me in my relation to God. I can only do that to myself and it has nothing to do with an ordinance, rite, or ritual. It has to do with my determination, heart intent, and desire. I think what an LDS acquaintance can do is dam my desire to join the LDS church.There are a number of things about LDS church doctrine that dam my desire to join, including its onlyism. But you all know how I feel about that, it is water over the dam so to speak.  🙂

On the other hand, God is the only one who can da_n me - assign me to place without Him forever.  No LDS member can do that. By the same token no Mennonite member can do that. Knowing that as something He can do, I certainly don't want to be dam_ed by Him. I don't expect that. That is why I take sacrament every week and take it seriously. I am often told, just join - get baptized and then you can figure it all out. Ok, I then ask - can I keep my Mennonite affiliation, loyalty and convictions while I am a member of the church and figuring out what the doctrine means? Nope, I can't do that. So I keep questioning as a faithful non-member. Oh, and I hope you understand that I was joking in my tease of my friend mfbukowski. He is one of the few who have stuck with me over my years on this forum. I appreciate him very much.

I also speak a number of times a year to predominantly LDS groups about LDS history. I am absolutely convinced that the better I understand LDS doctrine as a non-member, the better I can accurately represent the nuances and intricacies of LDS history. They are inextricably linked.  I also speak to non-LDS groups about LDS history. The more I understand the doctrine, the better I can share LDS history with a non-LDS group. I do that a lot here in Mexico. I speak about Anglo influences in northern Mexico a lot. So I end up talking about Mennonites and Mormons a lot.

More recently, since the murders here in our area I have spoken about that situation, the fundamentalist versus LDS colonies and the interactions between them all. I will be doing that at MHA in Rochester, at JWHA in St. George as well as for the secular press who simply glaze over. I speak in Mexican academic communities quite often. The vast majority of them have no clue about my subject. Mexican academic history is very secular. Religion is hardly ever discussed. I bring a different perspective to that, which is one reason why I am invited to speak fairly often at different Mexican history conferences. I cannot speak about LDS history without having a grasp of LDS doctrine.

Oh, and I never speak anywhere without the approval of my bishop. My wife and I have voluntarily placed ourselves under his authority because he is our shepherd, the authority in the church we choose to attend. I have already spoken with him about my speaking and writing engagements I have lined up for 2020. He approves them one by one or I would not accept them. This includes everything from an LDS fireside in another stake to a meeting at the Federal School of Anthropology and History in Monterrey or Mexico City. Or at a conference at UMASS, a radio show on border history in El Paso or MHA or wherever. He approves my subject, content, and attendance. My wife and I are serious about our engagement in our ward, even as non-members. That is foreign to many of you, but we take it seriously. I would never do anything without the approval and authority of our bishop. I hope all that helps. 

Edited January 15, 2020 by Navidad

[Ahab]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Good question.

But being dammed for not being baptized? For not marrying in the temple for non-members? 

I mean we are used to statements like that from Anti Mormons, and our other "Christian friends" but they are not.

He might answer for himself, the other thread is still current and he posts here quite often.

Part of the reason I started this thread was to prove to him that there was indeed an ambiguity which more fundamentalist Christians may find confusing.

Yes and yes.  Anyone who doesn't receive all of the ordinances by people who are authorized to administer those ordinances will not receive eternal life.  So his message was right, regardless of how he spelled dam_ed.

[Ahab]

11 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Let's see, the difference is I think I am beginning to understand the LDS concept of exaltation which is "dammed" stopped, halted etc. if one does not receive LDS baptism and other ordinances.

The term "LDS" is throwing your perception off, I believe. I believe we each need to receive particular concepts and ordinances before we can receive exaltation, and I also believe those concepts and ordinances must be administered by individuals who are authorized by God.  I will also admit that those you call "LDS" are the only mortals on this earth who I believe are authorized to administer those concepts and ordinances, while it seems you believe there are other mortals currently on this planet who can also administer them.  But regardless of whoever is authorized to administer those ordinances, the key is that those ordinances must be administered by people who God has authorized to administer them, and that without them, we can not be made perfect because we need to receive those ordinances before we can receive exaltation.

11 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I don't believe in exaltation as the LDS do; I believe in sanctification which I believe continues on in heaven as therein we continue to become more like Christ in our holiness; not as Christ in His essence.

I believe we agree that the process of our sanctification will continue in heaven, and I am not sure about what you are referring to as the essence of Christ. I believe we are already the same kind of being he is, in essence, although we are not as perfect as he is...  yet.

11 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I don't believe I need LDS baptism or ordinances to achieve heaven or to grow in my sanctification. The proof of the pudding in the latter is that I have already grown and grown from where I was sixty years ago. I received salvation at a point in time and have experienced sanctification over the course of my life. Up and down, to be sure, but generally on the incline! No LDS doctrine can take that away from me because I have already experienced it in my Christian life. God has never said to me I am dammed; in fact in His grace I have already experienced just the opposite. 

I would appreciate seeing you rephrase these sentiments without using the term "LDS".  Try using the word "valid" instead.  I would also like you to know that I believe we can grow as Christians even if we are not members of the one and only true church of Christ, yet.  I believe I grew a lot as a Christian before I joined the church of Christ as a member of it, and before I even knew which church was his church.  And considering how there will be many noble and virtuous Christians in the Terrestrial region of heaven I think it's fairly obvious from our teachings that Christians don't need to be exalted to be able to be good Christians.

Thank you for sharing your other thoughts in your post.  Your statements help me to understand you a little bit better,  but I don't feel particularly inspired to say anything in response to those statements.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Yes and yes.  Anyone who doesn't receive all of the ordinances by people who are authorized to administer those ordinances will not receive eternal life.  So his message was right, regardless of how he spelled dam_ed.

And others will read "eternal life" as "living forever" instead of our code, knowing it means "becoming like God"

So all this does is perpetuate the problem.

We need to issue a code translator to investigators, that "eternal life" does not mean what they think of as "eternal life"- life for eternity.   Imagine how odd of them to think that "eternal life" means living eternally?  Little did they know that plain English is not so plain after all..... 

And "hell" does not mean hell either, but more like what Catholics would call "purgatory".   "You are going to hell!"  actually means "You will hang out in purgatory until you get it right."

And "saved" is not about accepting Christ, except sometimes, and sometimes it means "becoming like God"

Hey- what's the difference?  Just huge...... 

 

 

[Ahab]

Just now, mfbukowski said:

And others will read "eternal life" as "living forever" instead of our code, knowing it means "becoming like God"

So all this does is perpetuate the problem.

We need to issue a code translator to investigators, that "eternal life" does not mean what they think of as "eternal life"- life for eternity.   Imagine how odd of them to think that "eternal life" means living eternally?  Little did they know that plain English is not so plain after all..... 

And "hell" does not mean hell either, but more like what Catholics would call "purgatory".   "You are going to hell!"  actually means "You will hang out in purgatory until you get it right."

And "saved" is not about accepting Christ, except sometimes, and sometimes it means "becoming like God"

Hey- what's the difference?  Just huge...... 

 

 

Yes again we see that it is all a matter of interpretation and how important it is to interpret correctly.

You want to know something I think is really interesting?  God doesn't seem to be very concerned about making things easy for us to understand.  It's like he wants us to work hard at understanding EVERYTHING!

I mean, don't you think he is capable of making things a lot easier for us to understand?   That he could tell prophets to clarify this or that statement and say this or that, in addition to what he already told us through them?  Point by point, saying it this way instead of that way, or saying that when he said this he meant this, clarified further, and when he said that he meant this, clarified further.

I realize that part of the problem in communicating clearly is that some people don't do that very well, but surely some other prophet could have come along later to clear all of that up.

Maybe now that we're in the technological age at the level we're in some prophet will get the bright idea of of actually making a code translator available on our main Church webpage, or at least a link to it, to make our doctrine super clear and easy for everyone to understand.

OR maybe he'll just keep doing what he has been doing for the last who knows how many  years and suggest that people come to him when they have any questions, so that he can then sort everything out, personally, in a way each person can understand, with his help..

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

Oh, and I never speak anywhere without the approval of my bishop. My wife and I have voluntarily placed ourselves under his authority because he is our shepherd, the authority in the church we choose to attend. I have already spoken with him about my speaking and writing engagements I have lined up for 2020. He approves them one by one or I would not accept him. This includes everything from an LDS fireside in another stake to a meeting at the Federal School of Anthropology and History in Monterrey or Mexico City. Or at a conference at UMASS, a radio show on border history in El Paso or MHA or wherever. He approves my subject, content, and attendance. My wife and I are serious about our engagement in our ward, even as non-members. That is foreign to many of you, but we take it seriously. I would never do anything without the approval and authority of our bishop. I hope all that helps. 

You mean the bishop that has no authority over you because you are not members?  And yet you say that if he did not approve- you would not accept his judgement??

Why go through the little ceremony of accepting his authority when you do not accept his authority?   The whole thing seems to be what we might call "a mass of confusion"- another somewhat coded message.

As a former bishop myself, that is very weird that he approves of what a non-member may say about the church, while you are not accepting his authority to approve that.   It is a huge contradiction.  And a waste of time for him.

I think he is probably acting beyond his limits of authority, to say the least.  On the other hand, if he knows you do not accept his authority while asking for it,  I am not sure of the need for the ceremony and wasting his time pretending you are giving him authority while you are not.

Pardon my directness but it almost seems dishonest to me.

Very weird indeed.

[Navidad]

17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You mean the bishop that has no authority over you because you are not members?  And yet you say that if he did not approve- you would not accept his judgement??

Why go through the little ceremony of accepting his authority when you do not accept his authority?   The whole thing seems to be what we might call "a mass of confusion"- another somewhat coded message.

As a former bishop myself, that is very weird that he approves of what a non-member may say about the church, while you are not accepting his authority to approve that.   It is a huge contradiction.  And a waste of time for him.

I think he is probably acting beyond his limits of authority, to say the least.  On the other hand, if he knows you do not accept his authority while asking for it,  I am not sure of the need for the ceremony and wasting his time pretending you are giving him authority while you are not.

Pardon my directness but it almost seems dishonest to me.

Very weird indeed.

Methinks you have not read what I wrote correctly. I did not say if he did not approve I would not accept his judgment! I said the exact opposite. I do accept his authority as a bishop of our congregation, as I would the bishop of any church in which we engaged over time. Your entire response is incorrect. Please read what I wrote again.  Here is my last sentence "I would never do anything without the approval and authority of our bishop."   UPDATE- However upon reading my response again I see a typo. I wrote "I would not accept him." I meant to say I would not accept them" referring to the engagements. That is my mistake and probably confused you. I will correct the typo. As you have been saying, words make a difference. In this case one little word changes the whole meaning. Sorry. 

Edited January 15, 2020 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I cannot speak about LDS history without having a grasp of LDS doctrine.

And yet it appears you do not.   Sorry for the directness but some things need to be said.   That is the scary part.  The whole idea that "we get a planet" is something I would never say in public and is very misleading.  I honestly believe you have not been well trained in LDS doctrine at all- many of your ideas about LDS doctrine are in fact erroneous. 

Yes we can become like God but He will always be our God and we will never surpass him, just as my parents on earth will always be my earthly parents to whom I owe authority and respect and love, and to thank them for bringing me into the world, fostering me in love, and teaching me how to be a decent human being.   I will always worship our God as MY God, the only God I have the privilege of knowing and loving, as I know Him.