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

[Sunslight]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

The "better hand" is only a matter of what one accepts as correct interpretation, which our faith acknowledges goes beyond mere text and into the realm of aligning prophetic and personal revelation. When critics and good-faith Christians also acknowledge this, I have found that there is no more reason to debate the point but rather to respect different conclusions.

Damnation as Joseph Smith understood it is not the same way we understand it now. Joseph Smith used the word always in context of the future punishment awaiting those who get judged into hell.

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

Damnation as Joseph Smith understood it is not the same way we understand it now. Joseph Smith used the word always in context of the future punishment awaiting those who get judged into hell.

I'm sure that at some point in his life he did understand the word/concept that way and used the word/concept that way. I'm also sure that as time went on, his conclusions changed. The keys of continuing revelation were restored to him and passed on to his successors, so I'm sure he wouldn't argue against revelatory progress and the resulting several current uses of the word in various Church-correlated doctrinal contexts and individual conversations concerning the same. The same goes for words like "eternal", "endless", "punishment" and "hell" and so forth.

Edited January 17, 2020 by CV75

[Sunslight]

2 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I'm sure that at some point in his life he did understand the word/concept that way and used the word/concept that way. I'm also sure that as time went on, his conclusions changed. The keys of continuing revelation were restored to him and passed on to his successors, so I'm sure he wouldn't argue against revelatory progress and the resulting several current uses of the word in various Church-correlated doctrinal contexts and individual conversations concerning the same.

If you are sure then could you cite a reference? It's something I have been studying (why I ended up here) and I am coming to a conclusion that Joseph Smith used it always in the meaning of being condemned to hell. In one of his last addresses, two months before his death he said "How can we escape the damnation of hell, except God be with us and reveal to us?" (King Follett Sermon)

 

[Sunslight]

1 hour ago, ERMD said:

It's one of my favorite talks, but Elder Bednar uses it in "Things As They Really Are."

Satan does not have a body, and his eternal progress has been halted. Just as water flowing in a riverbed is stopped by a dam, so the adversary’s eternal progress is thwarted because he does not have a physical body. Because of his rebellion, Lucifer has denied himself all of the mortal blessings and experiences made possible through a tabernacle of flesh and bones. He cannot learn the lessons that only an embodied spirit can learn. He cannot marry or enjoy the blessings of procreation and family life. He cannot abide the reality of a literal and universal resurrection of all mankind. One of the potent scriptural meanings of the word damned is illustrated in his inability to continue developing and becoming like our Heavenly Father.

Is Satan's halt to progress the actual definition of the word or just an effect? I would argue it's just an effect and not the actual definition. There are lots of effects of damnation. They include suffering, fear, anguish, loss, limitations, etc. Damnation is the actual sentence of the judgment. One of the effects of that judgment include limitations. 

[Calm]

2 hours ago, Sunslight said:

I believe everyone must be baptized to be cleansed and that is the only way a person can repent.

How do you see that being required for the Telestial Kingdom scripturally?  (I like learning other people's ideas, not debating you).

Edited January 17, 2020 by Calm

[Ahab]

14 hours ago, Navidad said:

Hi Ahab - Back from choir practice. Last night we took food to the family, tomorrow we help clean the chapel; Saturday is a funeral where we sing in the choir, help serve the family lunch, and clean up after, and then Sunday is . . . well Sunday! We stay busy in the ward and love doing so. I really appreciate your input. Perhaps I simply want to make one course correction in our dialogue. I am not looking to be taught as one who is seeking counsel, to make a change, or as one who is unhappy with my faith as it is. I am not seeking to understand LDS doctrine as a potential convert. My sense is that you have adopted a missionary approach to "teaching" me. Teach me about your faith so that I may learn for the sheer joy of learning; not as a potential convert. I have no interest in changing my church affiliation. After years of study of LDS history, a few years of adding doctrine to that menu, and faithfully attending the ward whenever the doors are open to the chapel, my wife and I have already decided that we are in the right place. There is no English speaking Mennonite church within 150 miles of here. My wife wants and needs to worship in an English environment. We acknowledge we will never belong in our ward as we would if we were members of the church. That is ok. We are where we believe God wants us to fellowship, worship, learn and once in a while to share. We have both given sacrament talks, testimonies, taught adult Gospel Doctrine class, and my wife is a substitute primary teacher. We love all that; but we are not candidates for conversion. We love our faith and our current relationship with the Lord. We are better people and have grown spiritually in the ward. Back in the 70's there was a popular concept in communication therapy known as transactional analysis or TA. It postulated that we communicate with others in three ways: that of the parent, the adult, and the child. Sometimes I feel you are responding to me parent to child. I don't mean that as a criticism, it is simply how I feel in reading your answers. That is similar to talking to someone as a missionary to an investigator. I am not an investigator in the typical sense any more than I am damned and not dammed (uh oh! here we go again). "Talk" to me as adult to adult. We each have our beliefs. We respect each other and certainly can learn from each other. I am certain I can learn from yo. I do genuinely want to learn. I have very high needs to know and understand. I am 71 years old and just started a university PhD program in Mexican History with a focus on religious history in Mexico. I may not live to finish it, but I am having a blast adding to my knowledge base. That is why I am on this forum. No other reason. I have been here for about two and a half years. Thanks for letting me clarify. You are a good man. Thank you for helping me learn more about the intricacies of the LDS faith. 

I'm glad you enjoy service projects.  I like to serve to but apparently not in the same way that you do.  Most of my service projects are focused on taking care of my wife and our children but I occasionally serve my neighbors and ward members and even strangers in some way or another.  I'm glad you like to serve in the way that you do.

Regarding my mindset as I try to teach you, and others, I do not think of myself as a parent trying to teach children, and even when I teach children I usually teach them as I would teach an adult.  What I think you are noticing is my tendency to explain things and why I understand things the way that I do, most often while trying to see the person I am trying to teach as I would see and teach myself if I didn't already know or understand what I am then trying to teach.  Even when I taught the now defunct high priest quorum as it used to be, which included older men who often had served as bishops or stake presidents or in other positions where they knew what they were doing, I would often talk to them as I would talk to an investigator who didn't know much about our doctrine, just to try to get their mind on how an investigator would see from our perspective, and then usually build up from there.  And by that I mean I tend to focus on the basic concepts involved in the topic and try to avoid using terms that are usually only familiar to the people who already know about the topic.  Like when talking about faith I would try to avoid using the word faith because I have seen from my experiences that investigators often don't really understand what faith is all about.  And the same with repentance and what it basically means to live a religion.  In my perspective, living a religion and trying to share a religion with others is more than just sharing words and concepts.  It is all about sharing a way of life, so when I'm sharing my own religion, my own way of life, it's very personal to me and something I feel very passionately about.  In other words it's not easy for me to distance myself from my religion and talk about it as if it is just something to talk about.  So it's not so much that I am trying to get you to live the same way that I do, it's just that I feel very passionately about my way of life so when I talk about it with others I think they begin to feel how intense my feelings are about it and, unless they're not really interested at all in what I am saying, I think they think something like: "Hey, wait a minute, I don't want all of this passion, this is just something I want to talk about without committing myself to what you are trying to share with me."

Obviously you can do whatever you want with what I tell you.  You don't have to believe it or even understand it.  Just try to understand that when I am sharing my religion with you I am sharing one of the most important things in my life with you.  The way I live and why I live the way that I do.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Ahab

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Sunslight said:

If you are sure then could you cite a reference? It's something I have been studying (why I ended up here) and I am coming to a conclusion that Joseph Smith used it always in the meaning of being condemned to hell. In one of his last addresses, two months before his death he said "How can we escape the damnation of hell, except God be with us and reveal to us?" (King Follett Sermon)

That is a fine conclusion for you come to about Joseph Smith, but I am sure for reasons I stated earlier that he wouldn't mind further refinement, a hallmark of his ministry.

He used this particular rhetorical question in a particular context, not to teach about the damnation of hell per se, but about the necessity of divine keys, the Holy Ghost and the gift of revelation (see preceding paragraphs and surrounding sentences for context). From what i can tell, he could have conceptualized "damnation to hell" in any number of ways and apply the testimony that God must be with and reveal to us so that we may escape any of them. Though he possess the keys and revelation, he is using the Holy Scriptures (and a particular translation and version he finds most correct), to back up his particular doctrine in the language of the "doctors".

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Sunslight said:

I think it would be good if the church could actually give some Scripture to back up our unique definition. I thin our critics/ other Christian religions might actually have the better hand than us on this specific topic.

First though we all have to acknowledge that we even HAVE a "unique definition ".

What we have to remember is that our entire doctrine of Temple worship is based on one being able to progress in the eternities.

To me that automatically affirms that any state of punishment or separation from God must be a temporary one.

Perhaps we simply need to acknowledge that Josephs view of this changed from The Book of Mormon times because of later Revelations.

Or better yet we should probably say that his translation using the word "Damned" later changed due to deeper understanding of the temple ordinances.

An  eternal "dam" on progression is not compatible with eternal progression.

In other words in translating The Book of Mormon perhaps he should have used a word or words different than "Damned."

We always have an out because any phrase might not have been "translated correctly."

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Sunslight said:

Is Satan's halt to progress the actual definition of the word or just an effect? I would argue it's just an effect and not the actual definition. There are lots of effects of damnation. They include suffering, fear, anguish, loss, limitations, etc. Damnation is the actual sentence of the judgment. One of the effects of that judgment include limitations. 

And thus, looking at the topic this way, we are sentenced to hell in many ways. For example, physical death is a sentence with limitations. Spirit prison is a sentence with limitations (one does not teach the gospel to others or live according to God in the spirit), as are perdition and even spirit paradise (D&C 45:17, 138:50). All of these effects are forms of "hell."

[mfbukowski]

11 minutes ago, CV75 said:

And thus, looking at the topic this way, we are sentenced to hell in many ways. For example, physical death is a sentence with limitations. Spirit prison is a sentence with limitations (one does not teach the gospel to others or live according to God in the spirit), as are perdition and even spirit paradise (D&C 45:17, 138:50). All of these effects are forms of "hell."

Physical ailments and pain can also be seen as a temporary form of hell.

I think about Calm, and what she goes through.

In building a coherent Paradigm about anything one must not just throw out a definition here or there. It's like a game of Jenga. You just randomly pick a block to pull out and suddenly the whole Tower Falls

No we need to keep our definition of temporary hell. 

It is crucial to the whole doctrine of Eternal progression. We just need to know that we do have a unique definition. That's okay. We have a whole bunch of those anyway.

 

Edited January 17, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, Calm said:

I agree.  

Logically if that is the end result, there must be a process of removing sin from those who do not accept the Atonement/Gospel process of repentance, but are not in rebellion against God in the sense of Perdition.  Suffering for their own sins---whatever that means---is likely this process.  They become sinless.  If "purify" is too strong of a word for their cleansing (sins removed, but not forgotten because they have not repented, thus they will bear the consequences whether temporarily as they pay the debt or balance their karma or whatever they do to become sinless or eternally as perhaps personality characteristics they nurtured in their wickedness, whatever they are), there is still some sort of cleansing from sin to the point no sin is left.  In that sense they are "pure" in my view and that is why I use "purify".  They are not sanctified however, which I see as filling with godliness.

I also understand not everyone sees the nuances of those terms in the same way, so don't always use them.

My view of what suffering for their sins will be something similar to an intimate experience of a repeat of their behaviour from the POV of those they caused pain contrasted to how life could have been without their sins, so they will know even better than their victims the consequences of their choices on others and how they harmed them and they experience every last feeling of suffering they put others through (an eye for an eye in essence at that point).  

Once they have experienced the same level of suffering, they no longer experience hell and now realizing consequences fully, no longer desire to sin knowing the cost will always outweigh the benefit to themselves.  If it is true there can be no sin, then it seems to me at that point no one destined for the Telestial will still revel in their past wickedness, but rather at least don't want others to suffer because of them, if only so they themselves avoid punishment.  They may not care enough about how they have harmed others to attempt restitution or feel remorse...thus no repentance.  Just a recognition it was wrong....but there may be good in them and so that might be the worst state while others actually care and feel remorse, but see accepting the Atonement as a cost rather than a blessing.  My belief is those that accept the Atonement even in some small way, even a small opening of themselves up willing to submit to the Lord will be seen as Terrestrial and likely imo will be able to progress through the eternities at least within the limits of the Terrestrial, opening themselves up more to God's love over time.

Hi Calm or anyone else who wants to opine:

Is not accepting certain specific unique LDS doctrines a sin for which someone must repent?

[Navidad]

6 hours ago, Sunslight said:

I believe everyone must be baptized to be cleansed and that is the only way a person can repent.

I am assuming you are referring to LDS baptism. If so, no non-LDS Christian can or ever has repented in this life? If so, then how can they be considered Christians by any definition?

Edited January 17, 2020 by Navidad
Clarification

[Sunslight]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

How do you see that being required for the Telestial Kingdom scripturally?  (I like learning other people's ideas, not debating you).

How else are they cleaned? We must be clean from sin to be saved. Suffering doesn't cleanse.

[Ahab]

19 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi Calm or anyone else who wants to opine:

Is not accepting certain specific unique LDS doctrines a sin for which someone must repent?

Not in my perspective.  In my perspective, to commit a sin the person must feel that what they are doing is wrong and then do it anyway, or not do what they feel is the right thing to do.  If a person has no feeling either way about something, such as when trying to learn about something but is not yet sure what to think or how to act in response, it's not a sin to not know what they should do.  At that point they are unsure and are in need of faith to be sure.  If they feel or have a sense that it is something important in their life they should not just ignore it or forget about it, though.  We should each feel responsible for the actions and decisions we make in our life and when we see an opportunity that might help to perfect us or improve our life, we should take it and not just let that moment pass.

So when trying to learn something, there are consequences in regard to how a person chooses to act in response.  We will all be judged for how we act including how we think and respond to the thoughts that we get.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Ahab

[Sunslight]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

That is a fine conclusion for you come to about Joseph Smith, but I am sure for reasons I stated earlier that he wouldn't mind further refinement, a hallmark of his ministry.

He used this particular rhetorical question in a particular context, not to teach about the damnation of hell per se, but about the necessity of divine keys, the Holy Ghost and the gift of revelation (see preceding paragraphs and surrounding sentences for context). From what i can tell, he could have conceptualized "damnation to hell" in any number of ways and apply the testimony that God must be with and reveal to us so that we may escape any of them. Though he possess the keys and revelation, he is using the Holy Scriptures (and a particular translation and version he finds most correct), to back up his particular doctrine in the language of the "doctors".

I guess one would have to show how Joseph Smith wrote Scripture with a different meaning than judgment to hell if one were to believe. Even modern prophets use the same scriptures Joseph translated and wrote through revelation. Is it possible to prove without doubt that damnation means to be stopped in one's progress?

[Sunslight]

11 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I am assuming you are referring to LDS baptism. If so, no non-LDS Christian can or ever has repented? If so, then how can they be considered Christians by any definition?

Everyone who ends up savef will receive a baptism by proper authority. It's not an issue.

[bluebell]

12 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks, that helps. 

So in your experience, it does NOT mean "condemned to hell" but simply  "stopping spiritual progession" neither necessarily on a permanent basis nor necessarily on a temporary basis, but it could be either.

Does that capture it?

When I have heard someone teach the "dammed" homonym, those people still knew that damned in the scriptures didn't actually mean stopping spiritual progression.  

Quote

My point is that I don't think present day Christians understand it that way at all.

Probably not, since their doctrine about the next life and what eternal life is hugely different than ours.

[Sunslight]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

First though we all have to acknowledge that we even HAVE a "unique definition ".

What we have to remember is that our entire doctrine of Temple worship is based on one being able to progress in the eternities.

To me that automatically affirms that any state of punishment or separation from God must be a temporary one.

Perhaps we simply need to acknowledge that Josephs view of this changed from The Book of Mormon times because of later Revelations.

Or better yet we should probably say that his translation using the word "Damned" later changed due to deeper understanding of the temple ordinances.

An  eternal "dam" on progression is not compatible with eternal progression.

In other words in translating The Book of Mormon perhaps he should have used a word or words different than "Damned."

We always have an out because any phrase might not have been "translated correctly."

 

Except that if we truly understand the doctrine of Christ then we know unless a man is born again of the spirit through baptism he must be condemned to hell. That doctrine of Christ is firmly established in all of our canon.

[bluebell]

18 hours ago, Sunslight said:

In general, being saved means being saved from hell. Eternal life goes to all of the saved. It's either the way of eternal life or Eternal Death. 

It's fine if you believe that but that's not what the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints teaches.  Our doctrine is that eternal life is living with God and becoming joint-heirs with Christ.  While those in lower kingdoms are redeemed, in our beliefs they do not inherit eternal life.   They are not joint-heirs with Christ in obtaining all that the Father has.

[Sunslight]

2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

It's fine if you believe that but that's not what the church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints teaches.  Our doctrine is that eternal life is living with God and becoming joint-heirs with Christ.  While those in lower kingdoms are redeemed, in our beliefs they do not inherit eternal life.   They are not joint-heirs with Christ in obtaining all that the Father has.

Christ teaches that all of the saved receive eternal life. 

27 And the righteous shall be gathered on my right hand unto eternal life; and the wicked on my left hand will I be ashamed to own before the Father;
            28 Wherefore I will say unto them—Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels.

From the D&C section 29.

Do you suppose Christ left out a group here?

[Navidad]

4 hours ago, Sunslight said:

Damnation as Joseph Smith understood it is not the same way we understand it now. Joseph Smith used the word always in context of the future punishment awaiting those who get judged into hell.

It is interesting that you say that. Since beginning to read the Joseph Smith Papers I have always thought to myself that the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith are both more "orthodox" in terms of the beliefs of traditional non-LDS Christianity than is the modern post-current version of D&C LDS community, especially after 1924 (I think it was) when the Lectures on Faith were removed from the D&C by the recommendation of Talmage's committee. It seems that both the BOM and the founder are archetypes from which the modern members, brethren, writings, scholars, doctrinaires, etc. have moved beyond. Just my observation of course.

Edited January 17, 2020 by Navidad

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

Except that if we truly understand the doctrine of Christ then we know unless a man is born again of the spirit through baptism he must be condemned to hell. That doctrine of Christ is firmly established in all of our canon.

Joseph Fielding Smith

• Will those who enter the terrestrial and telestial kingdoms have to have the ordinance of baptism? No! Baptism is the door into the celestial kingdom. The Lord made this clear to Nicodemus. We are not preaching a salvation for the inhabitants of the terrestrial or the telestial kingdoms. All of the ordinances of the gospel pertain to the celestial kingdom, and what the Lord will require by way of ordinances, if any, in the other kingdoms he has not revealed. (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:329)
• The First Presidency have said in answer to a similar question: "We know of no ordinances pertaining to the terrestrial or the telestial kingdom. All of the ordinances of the gospel are given for the salvation of men in the celestial kingdom and pertain unto that kingdom." (Doctrines of Salvation, 2:330)

http://emp.byui.edu/SatterfieldB/Quotes/Terrestrial.htm

• 
   

[Sunslight]

1 minute ago, Navidad said:

It is interesting that you say that. Since beginning to read the Joseph Smith Papers I have always thought to myself that the Book of Mormon and Joseph Smith are both more "orthodox" in terms of the beliefs of traditional non-LDS Christianity than is the modern post D&C LDS community, especially after 1924 (I think it was) when the Lectures on Faith were removed from the D&C by the recommendation of Talmage's committee. It seems that both the BOM and the founder are archetypes from which the modern members, brethren, writings, scholars, doctrinaires, etc. have moved beyond. Just my observation of course.

I agree. One thing that's interesting to me is that Joseph appears to have shifted himself from Orthodox, to unorthodox, then back to Orthodox. Christianity alignment as he himself came to understand the plan of salvation. Some of this is reflected in the D&C. One axiom of truth I have always measured against is when the scriptures appear to quote Christ himself.

[Navidad]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

I'm glad you enjoy service projects.  I like to serve to but apparently not in the same way that you do.  Most of my service projects are focused on taking care of my wife and our children but I occasionally serve my neighbors and ward members and even strangers in some way or another.  I'm glad you like to serve in the way that you do.

Regarding my mindset as I try to teach you, and others, I do not think of myself as a parent trying to teach children, and even when I teach children I usually teach them as I would teach an adult.  What I think you are noticing is my tendency to explain things and why I understand things the way that I do, most often while trying to see the person I am trying to teach as I would see and teach myself if I didn't already know or understand what I am then trying to teach.  Even when I taught the now defunct high priest quorum as it used to be, which included older men who often had served as bishops or stake presidents or in other positions where they knew what they were doing, I would often talk to them as I would talk to an investigator who didn't know much about our doctrine, just to try to get their mind on how an investigator would see from our perspective, and then usually build up from there.  And by that I mean I tend to focus on the basic concepts involved in the topic and try to avoid using terms that are usually only familiar to the people who already know about the topic.  Like when talking about faith I would try to avoid using the word faith because I have seen from my experiences that investigators often don't really understand what faith is all about.  And the same with repentance and what it basically means to live a religion.  In my perspective, living a religion and trying to share a religion with others is more than just sharing words and concepts.  It is all about sharing a way of life, so when I'm sharing my own religion, my own way of life, it's very personal to me and something I feel very passionately about.  In other words it's not easy for me to distance myself from my religion and talk about it as if it is just something to talk about.  So it's not so much that I am trying to get you to live the same way that I do, it's just that I feel very passionately about my way of life so when I talk about it with others I think they begin to feel how intense my feelings are about it and, unless they're not really interested at all in what I am saying, I think they think something like: "Hey, wait a minute, I don't want all of this passion, this is just something I want to talk about without committing myself to what you are trying to share with me."

Obviously you can do whatever you want with what I tell you.  You don't have to believe it or even understand it.  Just try to understand that when I am sharing my religion with you I am sharing one of the most important things in my life with you.  The way I live and why I live the way that I do.

Ditto to everything you said. 

[Navidad]

3 hours ago, Sunslight said:

Is Satan's halt to progress the actual definition of the word or just an effect? I would argue it's just an effect and not the actual definition. There are lots of effects of damnation. They include suffering, fear, anguish, loss, limitations, etc. Damnation is the actual sentence of the judgment. One of the effects of that judgment include limitations. 

 

Edited January 17, 2020 by Navidad