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

[JAHS]

 Actually the word "damnation" is a term derived from the Latin damnum, meaning "injury" and "loss," and connotes deprivation of what should have been possessed. 

This actually correlates quite well with the latter-day Saint definition which is that our progression is injured and because of that we can not obtain what we could have had, which is eternal life.
 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Navidad said:

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."   

Please just clarify this statement you made: He approves them one by one or I would not accept him. 

That seems to contradict what you said later.

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, Navidad said:

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."   

Well in that case I owe you a huge apology.  Forgive my interpretation

Would you be kind enough to then clarify what you meant by the emphasized words in your quote below?

Quote

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.

Perhaps it was a typo and you meant "He approves them one by one or I would not accept THEM" meaning the speaking engagement?

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

There is another way to correctly interpret the phrase "the only God with whom we have to do".  We are that kind of being that we call God, and aside from that kind of being, there is no other kind of being that we call God.

I'll echo your sentiment though by saying that I will always respect and honor my/our Father in heaven as my Father, though.  He will always be my  Father and I will always respect and honor and worship him as such, deferring to him even if I become exactly like him.

[mfbukowski]

6 minutes ago, JAHS said:

 Actually the word "damnation" is a term derived from the Latin damnum, meaning "injury" and "loss," and connotes deprivation of what should have been possessed. 

This actually correlates quite well with the latter-day Saint definition which is that our progression is injured and because of that we can not obtain what we could have had, which is eternal life.
 

Great point but unfortunately we speak 21st Century English, not classical Latin.

[Navidad]

8 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Please just clarify this statement you made: He approves them one by one or I would not accept him. 

That seems to contradict what you said later.

Please see prior post.

[Navidad]

5 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Well in that case I owe you a huge apology.  Forgive my interpretation

Would you be kind enough to then clarify what you meant by the emphasized words in your quote below?

Perhaps it was a typo and you meant "He approves them one by one or I would not accept THEM" meaning the speaking engagement?

Yes, Please see prior post.

[Ahab]

Just now, Navidad said:

Yes, Please see prior post.

I saw.  You are now one of my favorite people.

[mfbukowski]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

There is another way to correctly interpret the phrase "the only God with whom we have to do".  We are that kind of being that we call God, and aside from that kind of being, there is no other kind of being that we call God.

Actually that phrase in your first sentence was exactly the one I was thinking about as well, I just thought it to be more "jargony" than I wanted to say

Yes there are no other kinds of beings we acknowledge as being possible gods.

[Ahab]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Actually that phrase in your first sentence was exactly the one I was thinking about as well, I just thought it to be more "jargony" than I wanted to say

Yes there are no other kinds of beings we acknowledge as being possible gods.

I love how inspiration works.  I wonder how long it will be before I am able to read everyone's minds.

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Yes, Please see prior post.

Which one?  Are you saying I was correct in assuming that it was a typo and it would be the engagement you would refuse and not the bishop?

And I would still like a link to the "Gordon" who wrote the article in Times and Seasons.

I am sorry but my philosophical training comes out sometimes and precision of language becomes very important to me.

Other times like everyone, I am a total mess.  😜.  But this is important to me, so my precision gene is acting up. 

It's kind of like when your back "goes out".  Not sure where it goes when it does that.

[mfbukowski]

2 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I love how inspiration works.  I wonder how long it will be before I am able to read everyone's minds.

Truly a scary thought for humanity. 

 

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Yes, Please see prior post.

Just for the record, there IS no "prior post" which clarifies it.  The prior post is what created the problem

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Which one?  Are you saying I was correct in assuming that it was a typo and it would be the engagement you would refuse and not the bishop?

And I would still like a link to the "Gordon" who wrote the article in Times and Seasons.

I am sorry but my philosophical training comes out sometimes and precision of language becomes very important to me.

Other times like everyone, I am a total mess.  😜.  But this is important to me, so my precision gene is acting up. 

It's kind of like when your back "goes out".  Not sure where it goes when it does that.

A conservative way of saying out of alignment, I think.  When mine goes out it helps me to try to straighten myself out, or to straighten my back out, as much as I can.  Back meaning spine, I mean.

It goes to where it doesn't feel comfortable, too much of a twist.

Shall I continue to try to clarify further?

[Navidad]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

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.

There is no doubt I haven't been well-trained in LDS doctrine. Speaking bluntly as you do - I don't know that I know many people who have been, especially as you or someone said the "Mormons in the pew." I am trying. I don't know where else to go. I spend 10 hours every day reading LDS material. Not books about the LDS by non-LDS critics, but books by presidents, scholars, etc. That is why I am on this forum so much and ask so many questions. Even today you and Ahab provide different views on the same questions. That happens all the time on this forum. My wife and I spend at least two hours a day together discussing our understanding of LDS doctrine. I can only claim a "grasp" as I have clearly stated. Again speaking bluntly, the sacrament service is no help in understanding doctrine. The Elders Quorum is no help in understanding LDS doctrine. Sunday School is a bit better but the last few years have been on the Bible and I have been mostly aghast at how Biblical scripture was interpreted in that context. So I read books by the scores of hours. I come to this forum. Where else should I go? I have asked folks in SLC who I know and respect. It is almost like they are not supposed to answer my questions. They refer me to my local leaders. Those men are wonderful -- absolutely wonderful - but they are not well-trained in LDS doctrine either. That is not a criticism of them at all. They are Godly men and role models. That is much more important. You have invited me to call you. I have neglected to do that, not wanting to bother you. I am not sure what else more I can do to learn more?

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, mfbukowski said:

Just for the record, there IS no "prior post" which clarifies it.  The prior post is what created the problem

He edited his last post, the post before he said that.

[mfbukowski]

26 minutes ago, Navidad said:

 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. 

AHA! Found it.   Thanks.

 

[Navidad]

3 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Just for the record, there IS no "prior post" which clarifies it.  The prior post is what created the problem

Here is my prior post from 20 minutes ago. And I provided you the link to the quote a few hours ago.   "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."   Perchance we have too many posts flowing around right now. Please go to the bottom of the first page - on my computer and you will see my clarification and apology post. 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Navidad said:

There is no doubt I haven't been well-trained in LDS doctrine. Speaking bluntly as you do - I don't know that I know many people who have been, especially as you or someone said the "Mormons in the pew." I am trying. I don't know where else to go. I spend 10 hours every day reading LDS material. Not books about the LDS by non-LDS critics, but books by presidents, scholars, etc. That is why I am on this forum so much and ask so many questions. Even today you and Ahab provide different views on the same questions. That happens all the time on this forum. My wife and I spend at least two hours a day together discussing our understanding of LDS doctrine. I can only claim a "grasp" as I have clearly stated. Again speaking bluntly, the sacrament service is no help in understanding doctrine. The Elders Quorum is no help in understanding LDS doctrine. Sunday School is a bit better but the last few years have been on the Bible and I have been mostly aghast at how Biblical scripture was interpreted in that context. So I read books by the scores of hours. I come to this forum. Where else should I go? I have asked folks in SLC who I know and respect. It is almost like they are not supposed to answer my questions. They refer me to my local leaders. Those men are wonderful -- absolutely wonderful - but they are not well-trained in LDS doctrine either. That is not a criticism of them at all. They are Godly men and role models. That is much more important. You have invited me to call you. I have neglected to do that, not wanting to bother you. I am not sure what else more I can do to learn more?

It just takes time and I think you are doing well at understanding our doctrine.  Communication breakdowns happen with everyone so don't worry so much about that.  Just try to clarify and seek clarification as well as you can. I think you are doing well at that too.

Just understand that we're not all at the same level at understanding the gospel or the "appendages to it" which means of course there are varying degrees of understanding and agreement among each of us, whether we believe it or not.

[Navidad]

4 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

AHA! Found it.   Thanks.

 

Thanks - I need to step away from the computer or I will make more typos. My wife and I are going over to Colonia Juarez to deliver a dish of honey glazed carrots (Mennonite style) to serve 26 folks who are coming in for the funeral of their wonderful grandma who died yesterday. She will be sorely missed by all of us - members and non-members alike. 

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Navidad said:

Thanks - I need to step away from the computer or I will make more typos. My wife and I are going over to Colonia Juarez to deliver a dish of honey glazed carrots (Mennonite style) to serve 26 folks who are coming in for the funeral of their wonderful grandma who died yesterday. She will be sorely missed by all of us - members and non-members alike. 

When you come back, after some time, maybe we could talk about what we do to share the gospel with those who have died.  No other church deals with that issue, at least none that I know of. She'll be okay and you'll be able to see her again if you can find her.

[CV75]

On 1/14/2020 at 4:55 PM, 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".

I have a Church Bible Dictionary: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/damnation?lang=eng ! ("When in Rome...").

"As used in the KJV this word has a wider meaning than is at once apparent from modern usage. Damnation is the opposite of salvation and 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 hence be damned to that extent."

I've taken the idea of "dammed" (as in stopping water from flowing to its original destination) to illustrate the spiritual principle.

[bluebell]

15 hours 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.

Me neither.  I've only heard it used as another way to look think about what not receiving exaltation does.

[mfbukowski]

5 minutes ago, Navidad said:

There is no doubt I haven't been well-trained in LDS doctrine. Speaking bluntly as you do - I don't know that I know many people who have been, especially as you or someone said the "Mormons in the pew." I am trying. I don't know where else to go. I spend 10 hours every day reading LDS material. Not books about the LDS by non-LDS critics, but books by presidents, scholars, etc. That is why I am on this forum so much and ask so many questions. Even today you and Ahab provide different views on the same questions. That happens all the time on this forum. My wife and I spend at least two hours a day together discussing our understanding of LDS doctrine. I can only claim a "grasp" as I have clearly stated. Again speaking bluntly, the sacrament service is no help in understanding doctrine. The Elders Quorum is no help in understanding LDS doctrine. Sunday School is a bit better but the last few years have been on the Bible and I have been mostly aghast at how Biblical scripture was interpreted in that context. So I read books by the scores of hours. I come to this forum. Where else should I go? I have asked folks in SLC who I know and respect. It is almost like they are not supposed to answer my questions. They refer me to my local leaders. Those men are wonderful -- absolutely wonderful - but they are not well-trained in LDS doctrine either. That is not a criticism of them at all. They are Godly men and role models. That is much more important. You have invited me to call you. I have neglected to do that, not wanting to bother you. I am not sure what else more I can do to learn more?

Yes I acknowledge the problem.

Here it is in a nutshell.   We have no magesterium but the scriptures, no creed, and no clear statement of doctrine.

We are encouraged to read the scriptures and seek personal revelation.   But my personal revelation may differ from your personal revelation because we are in different circumstances and God teaches us how to get where he wants us in a persona way.

God is like GPS.  You want to get to God using GPS.

He says, Go North in your driveway until you get to the street.   Make a left turn. Go down xyz avenue until you get to highway abc and turn right.   Continue 6 miles until you reach Interstate rx7.

You get the idea.

The directions from where I am have nothing to do with the directions from where YOU are!   If I follow YOUR directions I will never get to God, and neither will your directions help me get to God.

So stop with the articles and "experts" who are no more expert than you are.

READ THE SCRIPTURES - all of them especially the D&C.   THAT is where you find how the church works.

But you will still have vocabulary problems in your new langauge- and that is where this forum comes in to teach you the language.   I presume you are as fluent in Spanish as you are in English if you address Mexican audiences- you know that some phrases simply CANNOT be translated directly or they will not make sense in the other language.

I think that is the problem you are having.

Words like "salvation" and "eternal life" and "damned" do not have the same meaning as other Christian groups.  When you understand the language it gets all much clearer

The other problem is that here we speak "Utah LDS" while you speak "Colonias LDS" - but even that is cloudy.   I have known others who have come from there and their understanding of the LDS language is not the same as ours!!   You guys have been fairly isolated from the culture for a long time and as a historian you know that results in a cultural "drift".

My stake is VERY integrated with many Spanish and English wards- and I know that the Spanish ward's understanding (primarily Mexican culture) are a bit different than ours.   They tend to be a bit looser in many ways than the English wards.  Going out for dinner on a Sunday for example seems OK for many of the Spanish wards hereabouts but VERY frowned upon in the English wards.   It's little things like that.

So I am convinced that what you have been taught is kind of a triple cultural shock from what most folks on this board have been taught.  Shock one is simply Mexican cultured wards vs Anglo wards, but then you might see some differences- shock 2- between what is taught in the Colonies vs Utah.  And shock 3- the biggest- is Mennonite vs LDS.

I think you need to learn "Utah LDS" before all you doctrinal questions can be answered.   It will even be easier to answer you central question about exclusivity if you simply understood our idea of authority- we really DO think WE have the true church of Jesus Christ and- sorry- you don't!!

I think that belief also has interesting ties culturally to what is called here "American exceptionalism" meaning that of course to us, the good old USA is just the biggest and best and most right country in the world.

There is plenty of that in LDS politics in the US as well- we do tend to be conservative politically with the idea that our way is the "RIGHT" answer for humanity IF they just saw it!  It's the Manifest Destiny - carving out your own civilization from the wilderness around you ethos we have inherited.

It all fits together.

I see that as the raw truth- the way things are and why you are having problems getting the answers you need.  There is a cultural gap- in this case 3 cultural gaps perhaps- Mennonite VS LDS, and then on the LDS side you have Colonies LDS vs Utah LDS, and of course there is also the Mexican culture vs USA culture adding to the confusion.

You need a translator you trust.

You are probably expert at these differences because you live them daily, but I found these comments about Mexican business culture similar to your feelings about Mennonites wanting to "get along" with all Christians  https://wmp.mx/en/cultural-challenges-in-mexico/

But I am prattling away.   I want to help - go ahead and text first and call me.  I get probably 50 robo calls a day.

 

[CV75]

26 minutes ago, bluebell said:

Me neither.  I've only heard it used as another way to look think about what not receiving exaltation does.

When a soul is damned, he is confined by some kind of metaphysical barrier. When water is dammed, it too is confined by a physical barrier of some sort. Loss of freedom to move and to act in both cases... I like these verb definitions from Merriam-Webster: "to declare to be bad or a failure" and "to swear at (CURSE)."