mfbukowski Posted January 16, 2020 Author Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) 43 minutes ago, CV75 said: 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. Yes good points But notice your source!! The LDS Bible dictionary!! Of course it is taken to EXPLAIN the " wider meaning than is at once apparent from modern usage" that we have added culturally. So all that says really is "It was used 400 years ago in a way that is sort of like the way we LDS take it, as existing in varying degrees, and stopping progression" OK FINE. Good for us. We use it as perhaps it was originally intended. YAY for our side!! I like that view!! It makes sense!! But guess what? We no longer use 400 year old English and many people have problems just making sense out of the KJV much less nuances of what USED to be the meaning! If we want to communicate effectively something is going to have to give in the missionary program. No wonder people think we are cruel. To them if we don't get married in the temple- whatever that is anyway- (from their pov- some grand building that is a waste of money, and by the way your family is not invited) they think we believe they will burn forever in hell and their marriage means nothing. We have to have a better way to teach others than to use loaded words like "damned" that simply- for us- means close to the opposite of what folks THINK it means. At least be AWARE that it needs some explanation when used that way- or simply don't use the word! Put footnotes in the scrips at least!*! *"Nephi's translation SAYS "damned" but that word has changed in meaning so that here it means "your progression will be slowed or stopped" Edited January 16, 2020 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted January 16, 2020 Author Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) 52 minutes ago, bluebell said: Me neither. I've only heard it used as another way to look think about what not receiving exaltation does. Oh give me a break! This says "You must be baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or you will burn in hell forever" to most "Christians" who read it. There have to be hundreds of quotes like this can are routinely misunderstood and could be improved! https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-20-baptism?lang=eng Quote We Must Be Baptized to Enter the Celestial Kingdom Jesus said, “Whoso believeth in me, and is baptized … shall inherit the kingdom of God. And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned” (3 Nephi 11:33–34). Baptism is the gateway through which we enter the path to the celestial kingdom (see 2 Nephi 31:17–18). Edited January 16, 2020 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted January 16, 2020 Author Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) 16 hours ago, The Nehor said: I have ever heard like in the OP that anyone thought dammed was the real meaning. Well then read the thread. AND the other thread which I suppose I can now link to, since Navidad has given himself away http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72555-families-and-the-plan-of-salvationexaltation/?do=findComment&comment=1209951625 He asked for some references about celestial marriage, and I gave him these quotes: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2015/12/the-new-and-everlasting-covenant?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-f-smith/chapter-20?lang=eng This was his reply: Quote I perhaps should have better clarified the context of my questions. It is my fault I did not do that. I am busy researching the specific doctrinal implications of the Mormon fundamentalist movements, especially as manifested here in Mexico, together with the very complicated nature of the intersections of the same with LDS folks. So, I am tending to focus on dysfunction. This is where I got frustrated looking at the LDS resources online. In the first article you cited, Elder Nash makes the following statement: "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." Pretty strong language, huh? I guess I am damned. I would understand this if he said dammed as in the big concrete thing behind my house that stops the flow of the river. But, damned is a whole different thing, unless LDS theologians have a very different concept of being spiritually damned by God! In this case, I guess the elder is saying that dysfunction leads to damnation. Maybe that is my answer! I don't know who wrote the second article you cited, but it is even less satisfactory for answering my questions. Whoever it is again tells us what we mean by our vow: "The Latter-day Saints marry for time and eternity, not merely until death parts husband and wife. Marriages performed under the civic law and by ministers of other denominations are regarded as honorable and effectual so far as relates to this life, but in order to be effectual in the life to come such covenants must be made for eternity, such unions must be formed according to God’s law and under his authority, or they will have no force or effect hereafter." He or she also lost me by criticizing small families - "Bachelorhood and small families carry to the superficial mind the idea that they are desirable because they bring with them the minimum of responsibility. The spirit that shirks responsibility shirks labor. Idleness and pleasure take the place of industry and strenuous effort. The love of pleasure and of an easy life in turn make demands upon young men who refuse to look upon marriage and its consequent family enlargement as a sacred duty." My wife had a tumor burst on her female parts within a year or so of our marriage. She was unable after that to have children. So sometime later we adopted a severely handicapped child who 42 years later is still with us and has taken all our energy and much of our resources. I do say a hearty shame on the author for his mean-spirited words. And people wonder why we don't want to join a church that puts such terrible and mean-spirited verbiage on their website? Sorry, I am getting off track again. I wanted you to know I followed through on the two pages you recommended. I found them helpful in some ways and very unhelpful in others. Sorry, I know that will frustrate you. I took too much of what I read personally. Sorry. I am too old and have worked too hard and have loved my son too well to be told by some anonymous author that I have a "love of pleasure and of an easy life and shirk my "sacred duty" and by another that I am damned. The "anonymous author" was Joseph F Smith. See the link above for yourself. Edited January 16, 2020 by mfbukowski
bluebell Posted January 16, 2020 Posted January 16, 2020 29 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: Oh give me a break! This says "You must be baptized into the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints or you will burn in hell forever" to most "Christians" who read it. There have to be hundreds of quotes like this can are routinely misunderstood and could be improved! https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-20-baptism?lang=eng I’m not making an argument for anything. I’m stating how I’ve heard the phrase used. I’m not sure why that would require me to give you a break.
The Nehor Posted January 16, 2020 Posted January 16, 2020 1 hour ago, mfbukowski said: Well then read the thread. AND the other thread which I suppose I can now link to, since Navidad has given himself away http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/72555-families-and-the-plan-of-salvationexaltation/?do=findComment&comment=1209951625 He asked for some references about celestial marriage, and I gave him these quotes: https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2015/12/the-new-and-everlasting-covenant?lang=eng https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-f-smith/chapter-20?lang=eng This was his reply: The "anonymous author" was Joseph F Smith. See the link above for yourself. Which does not conflate damn and dam.
mfbukowski Posted January 16, 2020 Author Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) 45 minutes ago, The Nehor said: Which does not conflate damn and dam. "In Doctrine and Covenants 132:4, the Lord stated that He was going to reveal “a” new and everlasting covenant and added, “If ye abide not that covenant, then are ye damned; for no one can reject this covenant and be permitted to enter into my glory.” So if there is no conflation, it DOES then say that if I was not sealed in the temple, I would burn in hell forever, right? We cannot see it when it is right in front of us- we see our meaning regardless of what it says. Edited January 16, 2020 by mfbukowski
mfbukowski Posted January 16, 2020 Author Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) 2 hours ago, bluebell said: I’m not making an argument for anything. I’m stating how I’ve heard the phrase used. I’m not sure why that would require me to give you a break. See above for one of many, many examples We cannot see it when it is right in front of us- we see our meaning regardless of what it says. But it's okay if you don't give me a break. Do any of these mean the perpetrators will burn in hell forever? Simply search "damned" on LDS.org These do not include any time they have been quoted in a talk or lesson. I think there might be one or two of those.. "Damnation, Damned See also Condemn; Death, Spiritual; Hell; Punishment; Torment; BD Damnation if men will not repent, believe in Christ’s name, be baptized, and endure to end, they must be damned, 2 Ne. 9:24 (3 Ne. 11:34; Morm. 9:23; Ether 4:18). if man obeys evil spirit and dies in sins, he drinketh damnation to his soul, Mosiah 2:33 (3:25). men bring damnation to their souls except they humble themselves, Mosiah 3:18. to be delivered up to devil is damnation, Mosiah 16:11. if men have been evil, they shall reap damnation of their souls, Alma 9:28. Alma2 was racked with pains of damned soul, Alma 36:16. they who have done evil shall have everlasting death, Hel. 12:26. whoso eateth and drinketh Christ’s flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul, 3 Ne. 18:29. if men be evil, they are brought forth to resurrection of damnation, 3 Ne. 26:5. Nephites’ sorrowing is sorrowing of damned, Morm. 2:13. why have ye transfigured holy word of God, that ye might bring damnation upon your souls, Morm. 8:33. those who believe not will receive eternal damnation, D&C 29:44 (68:9). disobedient shall be damned, D&C 42:60 (68:9; 84:74; 112:29). he that receives not the Son shall be damned, D&C 49:5. he that does not anything until he is commanded is damned, D&C 58:29. he that is not baptized shall be damned, D&C 112:29. those who discomfort the Lord’s people shall not escape damnation, D&C 121:23. he that does not abide covenant will be damned, D&C 132:4. those who commit blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall be damned, D&C 132:27. disbelievers in the Son will be damned, Moses 5:15." Edited January 16, 2020 by mfbukowski
bluebell Posted January 16, 2020 Posted January 16, 2020 9 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: See above for one of many, many examples We cannot see it when it is right in front of us- we see our meaning regardless of what it says. But it's okay if you don't give me a break. Do any of these mean the perpetrators will burn in hell forever? Simply search "damned" on LDS.org "Damnation, Damned See also Condemn; Death, Spiritual; Hell; Punishment; Torment; BD Damnation if men will not repent, believe in Christ’s name, be baptized, and endure to end, they must be damned, 2 Ne. 9:24 (3 Ne. 11:34; Morm. 9:23; Ether 4:18). if man obeys evil spirit and dies in sins, he drinketh damnation to his soul, Mosiah 2:33 (3:25). men bring damnation to their souls except they humble themselves, Mosiah 3:18. to be delivered up to devil is damnation, Mosiah 16:11. if men have been evil, they shall reap damnation of their souls, Alma 9:28. Alma2 was racked with pains of damned soul, Alma 36:16. they who have done evil shall have everlasting death, Hel. 12:26. whoso eateth and drinketh Christ’s flesh and blood unworthily eateth and drinketh damnation to his soul, 3 Ne. 18:29. if men be evil, they are brought forth to resurrection of damnation, 3 Ne. 26:5. Nephites’ sorrowing is sorrowing of damned, Morm. 2:13. why have ye transfigured holy word of God, that ye might bring damnation upon your souls, Morm. 8:33. those who believe not will receive eternal damnation, D&C 29:44 (68:9). disobedient shall be damned, D&C 42:60 (68:9; 84:74; 112:29). he that receives not the Son shall be damned, D&C 49:5. he that does not anything until he is commanded is damned, D&C 58:29. he that is not baptized shall be damned, D&C 112:29. those who discomfort the Lord’s people shall not escape damnation, D&C 121:23. he that does not abide covenant will be damned, D&C 132:4. those who commit blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall be damned, D&C 132:27. disbelievers in the Son will be damned, Moses 5:15." Again, I’m not arguing if it’s right or wrong. I’m only sharing how I’ve heard the phrase (“damned means progress is stopped like a dam”) used.
mfbukowski Posted January 16, 2020 Author Posted January 16, 2020 1 hour ago, bluebell said: Again, I’m not arguing if it’s right or wrong. I’m only sharing how I’ve heard the phrase (“damned means progress is stopped like a dam”) used. Yes, that makes my point exactly and I hope that every confused Christian for whom it means "burning in hell for eternity" reads and understands it. Here is a very intelligent and educated member of the church who has only heard the word "damned" used the way "dammed" is used to stop progression, as in damming a river. No interpretation is right or wrong, we learn the meaning of words through our experience. Yours is a perfect LDS experience of the meaning of that word. Thanks!
Calm Posted January 16, 2020 Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) Because of this discussion I just checked my pocket dictionary of theological terms*** and interestingly in the short definition of damnation, burning in hell is not mentioned. Rather damnation is defined being scripturally described as “eternal separation from God” and the consequences of that separation...without the consequences being detailed. Seems to me other Christians who use that definition start in the same place as Saints, where we differ is what the consequences may be and that might include significant variation among more than one Christian denomination. ***https://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Theological-Stanley-1-Mar-2007-Paperback/dp/B012HUQ9NW/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?keywords=pocket+dictionary+of+theological+terms&qid=1579152933&sprefix=pocket+dictionary+of+the&sr=8-2 Edited January 16, 2020 by Calm 1
mfbukowski Posted January 16, 2020 Author Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Calm said: Because of this discussion I just checked my pocket dictionary of theological terms*** and interestingly in the short definition of damnation, burning in hell is not mentioned. Rather damnation is defined being scripturally described as “eternal separation from God” and the consequences of that separation...without the consequences being detailed. Seems to me other Christians who use that definition start in the same place as Saints, where we differ is what the consequences may be and that might include significant variation among more than one Christian denomination. ***https://www.amazon.com/Dictionary-Theological-Stanley-1-Mar-2007-Paperback/dp/B012HUQ9NW/ref=mp_s_a_1_2?keywords=pocket+dictionary+of+theological+terms&qid=1579152933&sprefix=pocket+dictionary+of+the&sr=8-2 Disagree quite profoundly. What you have quoted is the OPPOSITE of what we believe, and @bluebell just confirmed that she has not ever heard an LDS reference to that sort of thing- IF I understand her correctly- that being "damned" always means "stopped in progression" as a river is, on a temporary basis. The only difference between my characterization of "burning in hell forever" and "eternal separation from God" is the burning. Fine. The point of difference is the "ETERNAL" aspect. We do not believe in eternal separation OR punishment- the "usual Christian" does. The difference is clear. and is the entire reason we have temples. We have temples to ENSURE eternal progression even for those who never had the opportunity to "accept Christ as their savior". There simply IS no such thing as "eternal separation" in our church except for the sons of perdition- and presumably they had to work very hard to attain that separation. Yes of course if you are eternally stopped in progression you ARE stopped in progression! But we do not believe that happens eternally. Yes I think "eternal separation" works just fine with what the ordinary Christian means by "damned" and I would agree with that interpretation for the usual Christian definition. But that is not the LDS interpretation and that is the whole point of the thread!! We do not even believe in an eternal "hell" or "spirit prison" We do not believe in "eternal separation from God" because one was not baptized. We do not even believe in an ETERNAL hell So yet again it seems to me that we are so close to this that we cannot even fathom what the "usual Christian" believes in being ETERNALLY separated from God, except for the sons of perdition who presumably want just that! Edited January 16, 2020 by mfbukowski
Calm Posted January 16, 2020 Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) I may not be following the conversation, but we do have teachings of eternal separation without repentance. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2001/10/building-a-bridge-of-faith?lang=eng “And so, as we attempt to build a bridge of faith, we need to build in our lives a firm testimony of the Father and the Son and His Atonement. This bridge of faith will make a difference between the reality of eternal reunion with our Heavenly Father or eternal separation from Him if we erect walls of sin that turn us away from His love and mercy.” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1989/08/the-lords-side-of-the-line?lang=eng “Lucifer’s plan encourages momentary sensual pleasure for which, if there is no repentance, the reward is eternal separation from the celestial kingdom.” Quote We have temples to ENSURE eternal progression even for those who never had the opportunity to "accept Christ as their savior" But we can only ensure the opportunity to learn and then to repent, we do not ensure repentance and therefore people may choose eternal separation, either partial or full. Edited January 16, 2020 by Calm 1
Navidad Posted January 16, 2020 Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) Just my .02 cents. I think this is the most important thread I have read or participated in the two and a half years I have been on this forum. That is just my opinion, ok? It gets to the heart of the LDS Christian/Non-LDS Christian struggle. And it is a struggle, full of talking past each other, inability to see, acknowledge and understand the others' perspectives. Because of that both tend to resort to hyperbole, mocking, and the ever present "that isn't what my scripture, dictionary, canon, statement of faith, etc etc says," "I've never read it that way" and on and on. Some of the bitterest (is that a word?) debates that divide us are about things that we won't even know until we experience them in the future. For one side it is the apostasy, for the other it is heterodoxy. For one side it is the creed that is mocked, for the other it is the new scriptures which are mocked. Both sides like their own visions, theophanies, and hierophanies as long as they are not the others'. Both sides have formed doctrines out of history, culture, and the need to be "the other." Both sides then assure the other that God superintended it all (on their side of course). Both sides are susceptible to cultural changes in doctrine to stay current, and then of course cite new, supplemental, and different revelations for the same. Yes, both sides have revelations and like to think of themselves as restorationists. Both sides have the "go away closer" disease which sort of wants unity, but only if the other sees "how it truly is." I am an observer and inter-actor with both. Neither is exempt, blameless, or different one whit in their self-righteousness, worthiness, authority, morality or certainty that they are "right," "the only," etc. - choose your term. God cries and each side blames the other. This thread, in some ways gets at the heart of it all. "Why doesn't the other understand terms, words, rituals, rites, scriptures, like I do? How can they be so wrong?" My friend, antagonist, and in this case protagonist, mfbukowski has hit the nail on the head when he states "give me a break." He has said it to me on several occasions and now he is saying it to you. He has also told me to "get over it." That was sound advice. The faithful gather, assure each other that if there is an issue it is the fault of the other and the tension, mockery, arrogance, goes on. And the beat goes on. And God cries again. Each side co-opts Him because in Christianity there is no greater evidence that someone can put forth for their rightness than that God is the initiator of whatever happens to be our current understanding of this or that. My oh my, how much better it would be to seek to understand each other instead of assuring the other over and over of what we believe, how we understand this or that, etc? How about asking, "How do you understand this?" Not as an opening of the door to convincing you that you are wrong and that you need to "convert," but just so that we can better understand each other. Of course that risks the likelihood that someone from our side will accuse us compromising, failing to uphold the truth, the uniqueness of our own beliefs. Very few folks on either side are willing to risk that. I am. I am not an investigator to use an LDS term. I'm not. I enjoy being a member of this forum and a faithful non-member of a ward to ask questions because I really want to understand, not because I want to join, or more importantly because I want to convert any of you or them. That confuses many LDS Christians. They don't know how to react to that, especially when my wife cooks honey glazed carrots or we come early Saturday to clean. "Oh, you are here? That's nice. We didn't expect to see you!" My reaction (in my own head) is always - "Well why not? This is our church home. Why wouldn't we sing in the choir, substitute teach, serve at a funeral, bring a dish, or yes my favorite, clean toilets?" That is what we hear so very often. That is what I hear in a sense on this forum at times - "Oh, you are here? That's nice. We didn't expect to see you!" Now, why are you here, what is your motivation, why do you ask so many questions but never join, you better go back to seeking a witness of the BOM (no matter how many times I have clarified my testimony of the same), what are you really all about? I am sure some of you are thinking (in your head) or will say out loud, "but we have the truth, we have more, it is our responsibility to help you to find all that and become one of us so that you can have it all too." What I think you don't understand is that I am already one of you by the means of the atonement of Jesus Christ. I can't think of anything more I could ask for. I know . . . I put 02.cents into a lot of words. I am simply thrilled with this thread because we are finally getting down to important stuff like language, words, interpretation of words (both hermeneutical and literal), meanings, etc. None of this may be important to many of you. But to me as one who consciously seeks to be a bridge-builder (not a missionary - although like many of you I have been that), it is imperative. After all these words I probably owe you all .05 cents! Edited January 16, 2020 by Navidad
CV75 Posted January 16, 2020 Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) 14 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Yes good points But notice your source!! The LDS Bible dictionary!! Of course it is taken to EXPLAIN the " wider meaning than is at once apparent from modern usage" that we have added culturally. So all that says really is "It was used 400 years ago in a way that is sort of like the way we LDS take it, as existing in varying degrees, and stopping progression" OK FINE. Good for us. We use it as perhaps it was originally intended. YAY for our side!! I like that view!! It makes sense!! But guess what? We no longer use 400 year old English and many people have problems just making sense out of the KJV much less nuances of what USED to be the meaning! If we want to communicate effectively something is going to have to give in the missionary program. No wonder people think we are cruel. To them if we don't get married in the temple- whatever that is anyway- (from their pov- some grand building that is a waste of money, and by the way your family is not invited) they think we believe they will burn forever in hell and their marriage means nothing. We have to have a better way to teach others than to use loaded words like "damned" that simply- for us- means close to the opposite of what folks THINK it means. At least be AWARE that it needs some explanation when used that way- or simply don't use the word! Put footnotes in the scrips at least!*! *"Nephi's translation SAYS "damned" but that word has changed in meaning so that here it means "your progression will be slowed or stopped" Of course, and I think the unloading of words comes out fairly quickly in normal conversation... though granted it might help some people if the missionaries taught it as "the plan of damnation"... I think one's visceral reaction to the word (whether that is fear, amusement, shame, guilt, "huh?", skepticism, apathy, etc.) depends on their religious upbringing, personality, quirks and other factors, but hopefully they can talk it through on a doctrinal basis and get comfortable with what the Spirit would confirm. Personally, I think the "hermeneutics" are impressive and would offer a measure of relief to the nervous. The standard works footnotes often have references that lead to the Dictionary and an introduction to "Rome". For example (Nephi): "And if they will not repent and believe in his aname, and be baptized in his name, and bendure to the end, they must be cdamned; for the Lord God, the Holy One of Israel, has spoken it." cdamned Damnation, Damned See also Condemnation; Curse; Hell; Punish; Spirits in Prison; BD Damnation Edited January 16, 2020 by CV75
bluebell Posted January 16, 2020 Posted January 16, 2020 9 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Yes, that makes my point exactly and I hope that every confused Christian for whom it means "burning in hell for eternity" reads and understands it. Here is a very intelligent and educated member of the church who has only heard the word "damned" used the way "dammed" is used to stop progression, as in damming a river. No interpretation is right or wrong, we learn the meaning of words through our experience. Yours is a perfect LDS experience of the meaning of that word. Thanks! I'm not saying that's the only way I've heard damned explained. I'm saying that I have heard it explained that way before (probably twice that I can remember). It is not the common definition of the word in LDS circles, in my experience. It's a side definition, that is occasionally used to explain the relationship between progress and exaltation. 1
bluebell Posted January 16, 2020 Posted January 16, 2020 8 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Disagree quite profoundly. What you have quoted is the OPPOSITE of what we believe, and @bluebell just confirmed that she has not ever heard an LDS reference to that sort of thing- IF I understand her correctly- that being "damned" always means "stopped in progression" as a river is, on a temporary basis. Sorry for the confusion, but you haven't understood me correctly. I never said always and I never said temporary. The couple of times that I have heard that definition used, it has been to describe the permanent state of those who are not exalted. 1
Sunslight Posted January 16, 2020 Posted January 16, 2020 Found this topic while searching. Damnation means to be condemned to hell. That's how I have come to understand it. It can't mean to stop or block one's progress as even those damned to spirit prison can progress by repenting and accepting the gospel and associated proxy baptism and other ordinances there and progress into the spirit world we call "paradise".
Ahab Posted January 16, 2020 Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) 6 hours ago, Navidad said: Just my .02 cents. I think this is the most important thread I have read or participated in the two and a half years I have been on this forum. That is just my opinion, ok? It gets to the heart of the LDS Christian/Non-LDS Christian struggle. And it is a struggle, full of talking past each other, inability to see, acknowledge and understand the others' perspectives. Because of that both tend to resort to hyperbole, mocking, and the ever present "that isn't what my scripture, dictionary, canon, statement of faith, etc etc says," "I've never head it that way" and on and on. Some of the bitterest (is that a word?) debates that divide us are about things that we won't even know until we experience them in the future. For one side it is the apostasy, for the other it is heterodoxy. For one side it is the creed that is mocked, for the other it is the new scriptures which are mocked. Both sides like their own visions, theophanies, and hierophanies as long as they are not the others'. Both sides have formed doctrines out of history, culture, and the need to be "the other." Both sides then assure the other that God superintended it all (on their side of course). Both sides are susceptible to cultural changes in doctrine to stay current, and then of course cite new, supplemental, and different revelations for the same. Yes, both sides have revelations and like to think of themselves as restorationists. Both sides have the "go away closer" disease which sort of wants unity, but only if the other sees "how it truly is." I am an observer and inter-actor with both. Neither is exempt, blameless, or different one whit in their self-righteousness, worthiness, authority, morality or certainty that they are "right," "the only," etc. - choose your term. God cries and each side blames the other. This thread, in some ways gets at the heart of it all. "Why doesn't the other understand terms, words, rituals, rites, scriptures, like I do? How can they be so wrong?" My friend, antagonist, and in this case protagonist, mfbukowski has hit the nail on the head when he states "give me a break." He has said it to me on several occasions and now he is saying it to you. He has also told me to "get over it." That was sound advice. The faithful gather, assure each other that if there is an issue it is the fault of the other and the tension, mockery, arrogance, goes on. And the beat goes on. And God cries again. Each side co-opts Him because in Christianity there is no greater evidence that someone can put forth for their rightness than that God is the initiator of whatever happens to be our current understanding of this or that. My oh my, how much better it would be to seek to understand each other instead of assuring the other over and over of what we believe, how we understand this or that, etc? How about asking, "How do you understand this?" Not as an opening of the door to convincing you that you are wrong and that you need to "convert," but just so that we can better understand each other. Of course that risks the likelihood that someone from our side will accuse us compromising, failing to uphold the truth, the uniqueness of our own beliefs. Very few folks on either side are willing to risk that. I am. I am not an investigator to use an LDS term. I'm not. I enjoy being a member of this forum and a faithful non-member of a ward to ask questions because I really want to understand, not because I want to join, or more importantly because I want to convert any of you or them. That confuses many LDS Christians. They don't know how to react to that, especially when my wife cooks honey glazed carrots or we come early Saturday to clean. "Oh, you are here? That's nice. We didn't expect to see you!" My reaction (in my own head) is always - "Well why not? This is our church home. Why wouldn't we sing in the choir, substitute teach, serve at a funeral, bring a dish, or yes my favorite, clean toilets?" That is what we hear so very often. That is what I hear in a sense on this forum at times - "Oh, you are here? That's nice. We didn't expect to see you!" Now, why are you here, what is your motivation, why do you ask so many questions but never join, you better go back to seeking a witness of the BOM (no matter how many times I have clarified my testimony of the same), what are you really all about? I am sure some of you are thinking (in your head) or will say out loud, "but we have the truth, we have more, it is our responsibility to help you to find all that and become one of us so that you can have it all too." What I think you don't understand is that I am already one of you by the means of the atonement of Jesus Christ. I can't think of anything more I could ask for. I know . . . I put 02.cents into a lot of words. I am simply thrilled with this thread because we are finally getting down to important stuff like language, words, interpretation of words (both hermeneutical and literal), meanings, etc. None of this may be important to many of you. But to me as one who consciously seeks to be a bridge-builder (not a missionary - although like many of you I have been that), it is imperative. After all these words I probably owe you all .05 cents! I like you and I think I like this idea you are sharing about unity, too, but I think I have a better idea for you and I would like you to consider it. But don't cry or think that God is crying about me saying I think my idea is better than yours. You say you want to understand people, so just try to understand what I will tell you and why I think i have a better idea than you do. First let me preface the idea I want to share with you by telling you that I think people are different, with some people having different ideas about what they think is good and what they think is evil. And on the good side there are people who think some good ideas are better than other good ideas, with both ideas still being good. And then there are also some people who think some ideas are even better than the better ideas, which give us 3 different categories for all good ideas, which I will refer to as good, and even better, and best. All 3 being good, but some being better than others. And this is only the preface for the good idea that I would like to share with you, which I will do now. Well, actually, that was it, just in a different way than I first thought about how I would phrase it. What I first had in mind before I wrote that was something about how there are different degrees of glory for people who will eventually go to what we refer to as heaven, with glory referring to intelligence, and that while all of those people will be good and all will be in heaven, there are still going to be some people who have more glory/intelligence than some others and therefore, in a sense, will be better people... or perhaps I should say people who are better off... than those whose glory/intelligence.is less than those with a greater degree of glory/intelligence. But we haven't been told, generally, all of the details about that, yet, so it could be that this will be a situation in flux wherein people can continue to learn and grow and become more intelligent than they were, so that those with what we refer to as a Telestial or Terrestrial degree of glory/intelligence might someday in eternity gain what we call a Celestial degree of glory/intelligence, but even if that is the case those 3 states will always exist because it is still a matter of progression, a matter of learning and growing in intelligence, instead of people being stuck with an inferior amount of intelligence and not able to gain anymore throughout the course of eternity. So, anyway, that was it. Your idea seemed to suggest to me that you think it would be better if we all consider all of us to be the same, with the same degree of intelligence, just different than each other. My idea, in a nutshell, is that while yes we (all of us) are different, it will always be that way, unless maybe someday all of us will become as intelligent/glorious as our Father in heaven. Edited January 16, 2020 by Ahab
bluebell Posted January 16, 2020 Posted January 16, 2020 30 minutes ago, Sunslight said: Found this topic while searching. Damnation means to be condemned to hell. That's how I have come to understand it. It can't mean to stop or block one's progress as even those damned to spirit prison can progress by repenting and accepting the gospel and associated proxy baptism and other ordinances there and progress into the spirit world we call "paradise". When I've heard the word used to denote a stopping of progress, it's in connection with what occurs after the final judgement. As far as I can find, the church does not teach progress (or repentance) after the final judgement.
mfbukowski Posted January 16, 2020 Author Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) 8 hours ago, Calm said: I may not be following the conversation, but we do have teachings of eternal separation without repentance. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2001/10/building-a-bridge-of-faith?lang=eng “And so, as we attempt to build a bridge of faith, we need to build in our lives a firm testimony of the Father and the Son and His Atonement. This bridge of faith will make a difference between the reality of eternal reunion with our Heavenly Father or eternal separation from Him if we erect walls of sin that turn us away from His love and mercy.” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1989/08/the-lords-side-of-the-line?lang=eng “Lucifer’s plan encourages momentary sensual pleasure for which, if there is no repentance, the reward is eternal separation from the celestial kingdom.” But we can only ensure the opportunity to learn and then to repent, we do not ensure repentance and therefore people may choose eternal separation, either partial or full. Ok. Take the nuance you like. We all do. The entire point here is that damnation for us does not mean what it does to other Christians. If you want to believe otherwise that's your decision. It plainly confuses people. I have seen these kind of questions raised more than once. If you don't believe that that's a problem is not a problem for you. This is not about Doctrine even. This is about the nuances of meaning of a single word. If you honestly think there is no difference between what we mean by that word and what they they believe it means then so be it. Edited January 16, 2020 by mfbukowski
Navidad Posted January 16, 2020 Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ahab said: I like you and I think I like this idea you are sharing about unity, too, but I think I have a better idea for you and I would like you to consider it. But don't cry or think that God is crying about me saying I think my idea is better than yours. You say you want to understand people, so just try to understand what I will tell you and why I think i have a better idea than you do. First let me preface the idea I want to share with you by telling you that I think people are different, with some people having different ideas about what they think is good and what they think is evil. And on the good side there are people who think some good ideas are better than other good ideas, with both ideas still being good. And then there are also some people who think some ideas are even better than the better ideas, which give us 3 different categories for all good ideas, which I will refer to as good, and even better, and best. All 3 being good, but some being better than others. And this is only the preface for the good idea that I would like to share with you, which I will do now. Well, actually, that was it, just in a different way than I first thought about how I would phrase it. What I first had in mind before I wrote that was something about how there are different degrees of glory for people who will eventually go to what we refer to as heaven, with glory referring to intelligence, and that while all of those people will be good and all will be in heaven, there are still going to be some people who have more glory/intelligence than some others and therefore, in a sense, will be better people... or perhaps I should say people who are better off... than those whose glory/intelligence.is less than those with a greater degree of glory/intelligence. But we haven't been told, generally, all of the details about that, yet, so it could be that this will be a situation in flux wherein people can continue to learn and grow and become more intelligent than they were, so that those with what we refer to as a Telestial or Terrestrial degree of glory/intelligence might someday in eternity gain what we call a Celestial degree of glory/intelligence, but even if that is the case those 3 states will always exist because it is still a matter of progression, a matter of learning and growing in intelligence, instead of people being stuck with an inferior amount of intelligence and not able to gain anymore throughout the course of eternity. So, anyway, that was it. Your idea seemed to suggest to me that you think it would be better if we all consider all of us to be the same, with the same degree of intelligence, just different than each other. My idea, in a nutshell, is that while yes we (all of us) are different, it will always be that way, unless maybe someday all of us will become as intelligent/glorious as our Father in heaven. Hi Ahab: Thanks for you post. Perhaps another word that we need translated is your use of the word "intelligence" in the context of exaltation or glory in one or the other level of heaven. I ask that because I am not sure what that means in a spiritual context? I agree wholeheartedly with you in that I believe people are different too. Our difference on that point may be that I believe we are different individually based on our commitment to hungering and thirsting after righteousness - like the deer of Ps 42:1 thirsting after the waterbrooks. As individuals we have different levels of thirst. I keep using the word individual because I believe our differences have nothing to do with what church we go to, or to which church we are a member. Membership in no particular Christian group gives us a better (to use your word) or higher standing with God. When He looks at His children He sees us through the blood of His son - not through the membership rolls of a particular church. When I approach the judgment seat God will not check a book to see what church I belonged to. He will see if my name is written in the Lamb's book of life. As far as a I know there is no column therein identifying a church affiliation. He will know the faith I have or have not had, and he will say "Navidad!" (well not really) welcome thou good and faithful servant and I will enter His presence based on the merits of Christ, not those of the church to which I belonged when alive. I am pretty sure God knows there are Mennonites and Mormons in the world; I am pretty sure there are no denominational distinctions in heaven, nor will there be in the Kingdom of God. I am positive that whichever of those I am, of whichever of the many other Christian organizations I belong to will not factor into his judgment of me. I stand before that throne on my own based on the worthiness of His Son, claiming the promise of eternal life I have been promised. No church affiliation attached to my application for eternal life with Him (using eternal life in both your and my contexts). I don't believe He will ask me where or how I was baptized or confirmed. I certainly don't think he will vary in His assessment of the person in front of me because he is a Lutheran, or the person behind me because he never heard. Or the sixth person back who is LDS. I will also tell my fundamentalist Baptist friend that I believe Christ is not going to ask if I believed in the trinity or not. I don't believe He will ask if I a pre-millenial, mid-tribulational kind of a guy. I don't think he will care if I studied Menno Simon's life or Joseph Smith's first vision. I believe God will get it right and that "right" has nothing to do with a church affiliation. I very much want to understand what you are telling me. I want to understand it because I want to understand you. It would be great if you would be willing to understand me as well. It seems that you are. Thank you for that. The same two LDS men have been coming weekly to our home for over two years. They are fine Godly men, but they lost the coin toss so they are stuck with us! But, in all those visits neither one of them have ever asked my wife or I what we believe. What our idea (to use your term) is. It would sure be nice if they would try and get to know us as we are, before they try and change us to what they want us to be. And yes, I already think we are the same in the eyes and mind of God the Father and that there is a great wideness in His mercy. Edited January 16, 2020 by Navidad
Ahab Posted January 16, 2020 Posted January 16, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Navidad said: Hi Ahab: Thanks for you post. Perhaps another word that we need translated is your use of the word "intelligence" in the context of exaltation or glory in one or the other level of heaven. I ask that because I am not sure what that means in a spiritual context? I agree wholeheartedly with you in that I believe people are different too. Our difference on that point may be that I believe we are different individually based on our commitment to hungering and thirsting after righteousness - like the deer of Ps 42:1 thirsting after the waterbrooks. As individuals we have different levels of thirst. I keep using the word individual because I believe our differences have nothing to do with what church we go to, or to which church we are a member. Membership in no particular Christian group gives us a better (to use your word) or higher standing with God. When He looks at His children He sees us through the blood of His son - not through the membership rolls of a particular church. When I approach the judgment seat God will not check a book to see what church I belonged to. He will see if my name is written in the Lamb's book of life. As far as a I know there is no column therein identifying a church affiliation. He will know the faith I have or have not had, and he will say "Navidad!" (well not really) welcome thou good and faithful servant and I will enter His presence based on the merits of Christ, not those of the church to which I belonged when alive. I am pretty sure God knows there are Mennonites and Mormons in the world; I am pretty sure there are no denominational distinctions in heaven, nor will there be in the Kingdom of God. I am positive that whichever of those I am, of whichever of the many other Christian organizations I belong to will not factor into his judgment of me. I stand before that throne on my own based on the worthiness of His Son, claiming the promise of eternal life I have been promised. No church affiliation attached to my application for eternal life with Him (using eternal life in both your and my contexts). I don't believe He will ask me where or how I was baptized or confirmed. I certainly don't think he will vary in His assessment of the person in front of me because he is a Lutheran, or the person behind me because he never heard. Or the sixth person back who is LDS. I will also tell my fundamentalist Baptist friend that I believe Christ is not going to ask if I believed in the trinity or not. I don't believe He will ask if I a pre-millenial, mid-tribulational kind of a guy. I don't think he will care if I studied Menno Simon's life or Joseph Smith's first vision. I believe God will get it right and that "right" has nothing to do with a church affiliation. I very much want to understand what you are telling me. I want to understand it because I want to understand you. It would be great if you would be willing to understand me as well. It seems that you are. Thank you for that. The same two LDS men have been coming weekly to our home for over two years. They are fine Godly men, but they lost the coin toss so they are stuck with us! But, in all those visits neither one of them have ever asked my wife or I what we believe. What our idea (to use your term) is. It would sure be nice if they would try and get to know us as we are, before they try and change us to what they want us to be. And yes, I already think we are the same in the eyes and mind of God the Father and that there is a great wideness in His mercy. I recommend that you study, ponder and pray while reading D&C 93 to get whatever good you can from it. I get and have already received a lot from those words but I don't want to spend a lot of time telling you what I have because what I have may not be what you will get even if I spend a lot of time and energy expounding on all that I have received from those words through the power of the Holy Spirit. My understanding of what intelligence is came from verse 36 in the context of the whole section as I received it through the power of the Holy Spirit. https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/93?lang=eng You say a lot of other things here and I don't want to spend a lot of time getting into all of that because I don't think you would receive what I tell you, but I will tell you that Church membership is a lot more important than you seem to think it is. I think maybe the reason you don't think Church membership is very important is because of your idea that there are 2 churches which Christians can choose to join. One church which you seem to think is an invisible church and the other church as ANY other Christian church anyone wants to join. That is not how I see things, and I think I agree with most who are "LDS" on this. In my perspective there is only one true church of Jesus Christ, and a Christian is either a member or isn't. In other words, in my perspective, the church which you think is an invisible church, the one you think all Christians automatically become a member of as soon as they consider themselves to be a Christian, is a false portrayal of reality and instead the truth is that there is only way to get into the one and only true church of Christ and that is through baptism and confirmation by the laying on of hands by those who have authority in the church to confirm someone as a member of it, at which time that Christian is then a member of the very same church that we (LDS) refer to as The Church of Jesus Christ or Latter-day Saints, which itself is a restoration of the one and only true church of Christ which Jesus Christ restored during his mortal ministry, both of which are the same church as the true church of Christ as it has existed since who knows when it was established. Same church, but in different periods of time. Maybe once you understand that you will begin to understand why we believe that all of the scriptures you study from the Bible are actually our scriptures, written by apostles and prophets of our Church, including Adam and Enoch and Noah and Abraham and Moses and Isaiah and all of the prophets who lived during the times the Old Testament mentions, and all of the apostles and prophets mentioned in the New Testament as well. Those people were members and prophets and apostles of our Church, before the time we refer to as the period of the Great Apostasy, just as Joseph Smith and Brigham Young and all of the latter day prophets and apostles are members of that same church that was a restoration of that same church in a previous time. I don't know if you'll even understand what I am trying to tell you, and even if you do I'm pretty sure you still will not agree with our latter-day teachings. We can lead people to water but we can't make them drink it or be baptized in it, but you can know it is true with God's help. Edited January 16, 2020 by Ahab
Sunslight Posted January 16, 2020 Posted January 16, 2020 2 hours ago, bluebell said: When I've heard the word used to denote a stopping of progress, it's in connection with what occurs after the final judgement. As far as I can find, the church does not teach progress (or repentance) after the final judgement. Yes, the church does seem to suggest such. The scriptures also seem to suggest such. The scriptures teach both a temporary damnation and an "eternal damnation". The temporary damnation is pronounced upon those wicked souls who are judged and who then go into spirit prison at death. The "eternal damnation" which is what is generally referred to in the plan of salvation will only be pronounced upon the Sons of Perdition. Christ will redeem all the rest through the great plan of redemption.
bluebell Posted January 16, 2020 Posted January 16, 2020 4 minutes ago, Sunslight said: Yes, the church does seem to suggest such. The scriptures also seem to suggest such. The scriptures teach both a temporary damnation and an "eternal damnation". The temporary damnation is pronounced upon those wicked souls who are judged and who then go into spirit prison at death. The "eternal damnation" which is what is generally referred to in the plan of salvation will only be pronounced upon the Sons of Perdition. Christ will redeem all the rest through the great plan of redemption. I agree. As far as I’ve heard it used, those who have used the symbolism of damming to illustrate the state of those who aren’t exalted seem to agree with that as well.
Sunslight Posted January 16, 2020 Posted January 16, 2020 2 hours ago, mfbukowski said: Ok. Take the nuance you like. We all do. The entire point here is that damnation for us does not mean what it does to other Christians. If you want to believe otherwise that's your decision. It plainly confuses people. I have seen these kind of questions raised more than once. If you don't believe that that's a problem is not a problem for you. This is not about Doctrine even. This is about the nuances of meaning of a single word. If you honestly think there is no difference between what we mean by that word and what they they believe it means then so be it. Have you ever wondered though if our meaning of the word "damnation" is wrong? That it is being misused according to a faulty series of assumptions? As far as I can tell in my research Joseph Smith understood damnation in the typical sense other Christians understood it. It wasn't unto after his death in the late 1800's that due to a lack of understanding common English the word "dammed" started being used interchangeably. One such publication dated 1896 documented where it was used interchangeably.
Recommended Posts