Hell

[Ahab]

4 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

Joseph Campbell said "All the gods, all the heavens, all the hells are within you."

Well, that's not right.  Was he a brother of the Alexander who was a rival of Joseph Smith, who founded a church called the Church of Christ, among others?  Not everything people say is true, ya know.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

The concept of “Hell“, or should I say the reality of “Hell”, comes from Scripture. However there are many “differing or contradictory”, versions as to what it is and it’s duration. Different religious denominations use these contradictions to adopt their own versions of both, “Heaven and Hell”. If Heaven is reward, in differing degrees, then Hell by extension probably is punishment in differing degrees. But “endless punishment”, and the “same punishment”, for every sin makes no sense, and could serve only one function, and teach us nothing. 
 

As Latter-day Saints, we believe in a loving God, who will in time give all mankind the opportunity to knowing choose, “Eternal Life”, or “Eternal Damnation”. Also as Latter-day Saints we are taught that the word “Eternal”, is a word used to describe God, thus “Eternal Life” is “God’s Life”, thus “Eternal Damnation”, would be it’s opposite. Also, both “Eternal, and Everlasting”, are also viewed as specific amounts of time, as Jesus Christ is from “Everlasting to Everlasting”. Also as Latter-day Saints, we know that in the end, and according to Scripture, both “Death and Hell”, will be cast into the “Lake of Fire and Brimstone”. That “Hell” is prepared for Satan, and those who fell with him, and for the few truly evil Sons of Perdition, where they will suffer or be consumed. 
 

My 2 cents, anyway! 

[Teancum]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

Reminds me of this:

Wisdom!

[AtlanticMike]

9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Well, that's not right.  Was he a brother of the Alexander who was a rival of Joseph Smith, who founded a church called the Church of Christ, among others?  Not everything people say is true, ya know.

He was a 20th century professor. I'm not saying what he said is true, but its interesting to think about. To me it means you have a choice to make of your life what you want. Every person has a choice to live a happy, almost Heavenly life while here on earth, also, if your not careful, you can live a life that's pure hell inside your own mind. 

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, AtlanticMike said:

He was a 20th century professor. I'm not saying what he said is true, but its interesting to think about. To me it means you have a choice to make of your life what you want. Every person has a choice to live a happy, almost Heavenly life while here on earth, also, if your not careful, you can live a life that's pure hell inside your own mind. 

Well, I agree with your takeaway of what he meant, at least.  It's just that to live a happy almost heavenly life we need to know how, and that is what the gospel is all about while also making it possible to live an actual heavenly life too.

[Ahab]

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Wisdom!

No, silly, the probability is that there actually is a supreme kind of being... which is what we are usually talking about when we use the word God.  So keep worrying until you figure out which kind of being that is.

[bluebell]

13 hours ago, Rivers said:

I recently listened to an episode on a Catholic podcast called Pints with Aquinas.  The episode was about Hell. The podcast host had some truly frightening things to say.  First he quoted Christ’s teaching that the way to eternal life is narrow and that most people will go to Hell.  

He then quoted several Catholic Saints over the centuries who gave horrifying descriptions of Hell which literally lasts forever.

The very concept of anybody condemned to being tortured forever is unimaginable.  Especially when it’s the majority of the human family. I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy.  I can’t fathom how a loving God could do this to anybody.  Can anyone explain how one reconciles Hell in the mainstream Christian sense with benevolent God?

Also, I heard somewhere that Brigham Young taught that some spirits will eventually be taken out of existence.  Anybody know the source for that?

The D&C says that "endless" doesn't refer to the length of the punishment or torment but rather who's it is.  Endless is another name for Christ.  That same verse says that nowhere does it say that the suffering will have no end.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Stargazer said:

Reminds me of this:

Later God was discovered to be a stranger riding on that bus trying to find his way home.

[longview]

12 hours ago, Rivers said:

12 hours ago, CA Steve said:

How is that different from condemning one third of the spirits in the pre-existance to outer darkness?

Good question.  We really don’t know much about outer darkness. Were they condemned or did they willingly walk away?  

I like to believe that even they have hope for repentance.

I believe they still have the option for repentance.  Lucifer's ultimate desire was to subvert the work of God the Father (Elohim).  The third part of the hosts either were deceived into following him or were willing agitate against the Plan of Happiness (for whatever reasons).  They also understood clearly the consequences for NOT obtaining bodies for themselves and did enter into the earth with open eyes to act as unseen adversaries to temp the mortals to disobey God.

It does not have to be permanent.  After this Plan of Happiness is completed and the new generation of the gods move on to their assigned "Mansions" above, the demons may (after eons of sitting in Outer Darkness) decide to give it up and ask to taken back somewhere (to start over where permitted).

[Teancum]

34 minutes ago, Ahab said:

No, silly, the probability is that there actually is a supreme kind of being... which is what we are usually talking about when we use the word God.  So keep worrying until you figure out which kind of being that is.

Well there may be a probability of a "supreme kind of being" whatever that means. But nobody really knows what this "being" is, may want and on and on. It is all just humans trying to figure it out, though a lot seem to think this "being" is talking directly to them and thus we ought to submit to what they say. Sorry. I will pass on that. Spent most my life doing that. I am free now. Come join me.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

Well there may be a probability of a "supreme kind of being" whatever that means. But nobody really knows what this "being" is, may want and on and on. It is all just humans trying to figure it out, though a lot seem to think this "being" is talking directly to them and thus we ought to submit to what they say. Sorry. I will pass on that. Spent most my life doing that. I am free now. Come join me.

I only submit to God, whether he speaks through people he tells me are speaking for him by saying what he told them to say or whether he is speaking to me directly.  I am free now.  Come join me in following God and those who say what he tells them to say.

[CV75]

14 hours ago, Rivers said:

I recently listened to an episode on a Catholic podcast called Pints with Aquinas.  The episode was about Hell. The podcast host had some truly frightening things to say.  First he quoted Christ’s teaching that the way to eternal life is narrow and that most people will go to Hell.  

He then quoted several Catholic Saints over the centuries who gave horrifying descriptions of Hell which literally lasts forever.

The very concept of anybody condemned to being tortured forever is unimaginable.  Especially when it’s the majority of the human family. I wouldn’t wish that on my worst enemy.  I can’t fathom how a loving God could do this to anybody.  Can anyone explain how one reconciles Hell in the mainstream Christian sense with benevolent God?

Also, I heard somewhere that Brigham Young taught that some spirits will eventually be taken out of existence.  Anybody know the source for that?

RE: Brigham Young, I think it comes from Journal of Discourses, 4 (the enemies of God, if they persist, will be sent back, or turned back (i.e. rejected) into their "native element"). But I think he might have been referring to the glory by which their bodies (element) are quickened (D&C 88:28-32), and which defines their final, permanent, natural state in immortality, and not referring to their gettig blasted into the finest particles of spirit element where they no longer exist as entities.

Edited February 25, 2021 by CV75

[Stargazer]

I don't watch much television, so plenty of shows have come and gone without my noticing them. One that caught my attention a few weeks ago was the one called Lucifer. Description: "The series revolves around the story of Lucifer Morningstar (Tom Ellis), the Devil, who abandons Hell for Los Angeles where he runs his own nightclub named 'LUX' and becomes a consultant to the LAPD."

Interesting premise for an unembodied spirit, but heck, I don't think the show runners are LDS.

I've watched a few scenes from the series, and one scene, in which Lucifer is kidnapped, he finds himself in bonds with his Father, who is of course God. It's a very tender scene, but the one thing that caught my attention was the character playing God, who looks like a dead ringer for the image of Jesus that our own dear @Abulafia used to use for her avatar. This is supposedly what Jesus should have looked like in mortality, given his ethnicity and era. She's changed her avatar since then, but here's what it looked like:

 

And here's how the show pictured God, whom I presume they conflate with Jesus. See the resemblance?

 

 

[CA Steve]

2 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

Personal revelation.

Hi Bob,

As evidenced by some of the posts in the thread on when Christ will return, one person's personal revelation is another's wild speculation. 

[Teancum]

35 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I only submit to God, whether he speaks through people he tells me are speaking for him by saying what he told them to say or whether he is speaking to me directly.  I am free now.  Come join me in following God and those who say what he tells them to say.

You are not free if you follow what some so called prophet is telling you that God told them.

[Ahab]

1 minute ago, Teancum said:

You are not free if you follow what some so called prophet is telling you that God told them.

I'm not doing that.  As I told you before, already, multiples times, I'm only following God by following what God told me he told that prophet to say.  I'm not relying on the word of that man claiming to be a prophet of God.  I'm following God who told me he is.

[JLHPROF]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

You are not free if you follow what some so called prophet is telling you that God told them.

I don't see the correlation between freedom and following a priesthood leader.  Freedom doesn't require an absence of leadership.  That's anarchy, not freedom.

[strappinglad]

I have read enough about world history and the punishments that people have done to others to wonder just how bad the one third of the hosts were if the spirits that came here are from the better two thirds. Some of us can be REALLY evil to others. 

I also recall the situation in Bosnia where people of different faiths had lived together peacefully for decades, had attended one another's weddings and funerals , and ,as if turning a switch, killed and burned whole families of their neighbors.

 

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

You are not free if you follow what some so called prophet is telling you that God told them.

Are you not free if you choose to follow someone making predictions about the stock market based on their theories in your view?

[Calm]

Just now, strappinglad said:

the one third of the hosts were if the spirits that came here are from the better two thirds

Some could have chosen to follow Satan not because they were evil, but out of fear.  And some might have followed the Lord out of selfishness, understanding that Satan offered a dead end option of limited power and limited experiences. 

[Teancum]

18 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

I don't see the correlation between freedom and following a priesthood leader.  Freedom doesn't require an absence of leadership.  That's anarchy, not freedom.

Freedom means you don't have to submit your will to someone who says God it telling me what you should do. And that is the essence of most religions and very much so for the LDS Church.

[Teancum]

16 minutes ago, Calm said:

Are you not free if you choose to follow someone making predictions about the stock market based on their theories in your view?

I am not sure I get tour correlation.

[JLHPROF]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Freedom means you don't have to submit your will to someone who says God it telling me what you should do. 

No it doesn't.  That's not any definition of freedom.  Especially when you have the freedom not to follow.

[Ahab]

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Freedom means you don't have to submit your will to someone who says God it telling me what you should do. And that is the essence of most religions and very much so for the LDS Church.

I think I get what you don't like about the idea of having no choice but to believe what someone says when they say they are saying something God told them to say.  Either that or just don't believe them, which could be the only other option

I suggest you start by not believing them and instead just asking God what he thinks or how he feels about the issue.  And then after God answers you, if he answers you, you would know if what that other person said agreed with what God told you.

[Kenngo1969]

If I were a parent, and if I told my child, "If you do that, I will ground you," pre-grounding, am I taking away my child's freedom?  No.  Perhaps I'm not consistent in discipline, and/or perhaps I haven't always kept my word when threatening to punish my child.  Thus, perhaps my child feels free to "roll the dice" in the hope that I don't actually mean what I say.  Perhaps he feels that the negative consequences of being grounded will not outweigh any positive consequences he feels will ensue from taking the action.  Thus, perhaps he does it anyway.

If I were a law enforcement officer, and if I told someone, "If you do that, I will arrest you," pre-arrest, am I taking away that person's freedom?  No.  Perhaps the person has heard from others that I'm prone to making empty threats to arrest someone.  Thus, like the child in the example in the foregoing paragraph, perhaps the person feels free to "roll the dice" in the hope that I don't actually mean what I say.  Perhaps the negative consequences of being arrested will not outweigh any positive consequences he feels will ensue from taking the action: "Meh, I'll be out of jail in a few hours, anyway," or "So what?  I'll get a mere slap on the wrist when I go to court anyway."  Thus, perhaps he does it anyway.

If I were a religious leader and if I told someone, "If you do that, you will burn in hell," am I taking away that person's freedom?  No.  Perhaps that person doesn't believe in hell, or if he does believe in hell, he doesn't believe he will burn in hell if he commits the act in question.  And there are plenty of people who, even believing that they will burn in hell if they do something, have done that thing anyway.  Just as is the case with the child in my first paragraph and the "would-be criminal" in my second paragraph, perhaps they believe that whatever benefit they derive from doing the thing now outweighs the threat of burning in hell later.

Whatever coincidental similarities may exist, neither the parent in the first example nor the law enforcement officer in the second example is God.  And there are myriad choice-and-consequence examples I could cite to make the point.  Whatever consequences ensue from my making a particular choice don't remove my ability to make that choice in the first place.  If I disobey a parent, I risk being punished; if I commit a crime, I risk being arrested; and if I make any of a myriad of other choices, I risk incurring the consequences of that choice.  But do whatever consequences ensue remove my ability to make a choice (even if it is a poor choice) in the first place?  No.