The Great Plan of Salvation vs Principles & Doctrine

[Just_A_Guy]

7 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I am definitly not like Dehlin, snuffer, etc. I actually love our prophets and heed their counsel. My only point is that not all of our doctrine is 100% perfect. If not perfect, then perhaps we should discuss it.

A number of apostates professed love for Joseph Smith.  IIRC, both Dehlin and Mike Quinn professed love for the GAs of their eras.  We shouldn't trust our love of any particular GA or group of GAs to keep us on the proper path, or to justify all our other activities.

I believe we have conceded that by virtue of the continuing restoration, LDS doctrine can never safely be viewed as "complete" or "perfect".  No one is saying we shouldn't be discussing what other truths may be out there and how to harmonize bits of light and knowledge that thus far don't seem to neatly align.   Our concerns have to do with the way you are trying to characterize your role, and that of the Church, in those conversations.

[Traveler]

16 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

Some things that are true are just not very important. Can you tell me where Gods began to be? If you knew this, would it make any difference to your part in the great plan of salvation?

 

It is my opinion that all things that are true are important – in their place and time.  This is a lesson taught by my father in my youth.  His example was concerning the reading of scripture.  He would agree that it is important to read and study scripture.  However, he then pointed out to me that when playing softball – it is not a good idea to try to read and study scriptures while engaged in running the bases.  In his wisdom, he pointed out that completing even minor, seemingly unimportant or lessor important tasks during their appointed place and time is the greater importance.  Not that the more important should be forgotten but rather that there is a “season” for all things – See Ecclesiastes.

I am personally confident that the knowledge of where G-ds began will become known before the Great Plan of Salvation is completed.  However, for now, we are at a most critical place and time where we need to be completely focused on the task at hand.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

15 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

 

But I do agree with you, we do teach a lot of things that we don't know how it works. We say we are the God's children and it seems that some people think this means a 9 month pregancy and 50 billion personal births. The idea is ludicrous. That doesn't mean that we're not God's children. It just means that we don't know what makes us God's children. When we explain how things are done when we don't know, it is very likely that we will get the "how" of how things are done, wrong.

 

By the very nature – ordinances teach us to do things we do not know or understand.  Adam offer sacrifices with no understanding why other than he was commanded.

 

The Traveler

[Traveler]

33 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I am definitly not like Dehlin, snuffer, etc. I actually love our prophets and heed their counsel. My only point is that not all of our doctrine is 100% perfect. If not perfect, then perhaps we should discuss it.

 

I believe you are working very hard – trying to put a horse before a cart.  I think you way overemphasize the importance of doctrine.  As I understand doctrine is only important or has any relevance in the context of -- #1. The Law   #2.  The Ordinances   and #3.  The Covenants.

In addition – I see no reason to discuss doctrine when there is any degree of disagreement unless we are all (all included in a discussion) willing to consider things we have personally missed or overlooked.  I would love very much to discuss things with you because you have some very different ideas.  But when I try to understand you thinking I have discovered two seemingly difficult principles.  #1.  I have already considered and accounted for everything you seem to be espousing.   #2.  You are not interested in considering any input that does not support your unique and particular opinion.

 

The Traveler

[brotherofJared]

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

The paragraph from the manual I quoted is just plain wrong. It quotes from section 19 to identify those who never repent, remove themselves from the mercy of Christ, suffer like Christ and then go into telestial glory. There are several problems with this that stick out so bad it makes me wonder how we ever arrive at such teachings. The first problem is that section 19, in reference to those who do not repent, is speaking solely of those at the end of the millennium who do not repent. The second problem is that one cannot possibly suffer like Christ without their physical body. The third problem is that if one removes themselves from the mercy of Christ they cannot be saved in mercy later. All of these teachings are wrong, they go directly against every single doctrine of Christ. Christ taught that one must repent or they cannot ever be saved. The manual teaches otherwise. It teaches that these telestial heirs do not repent in this life nor in the spirit prison. How then can they possibly be saved? Without repentance and baptism, either in this life or tge next, no one can become cleansed from all their sins in order to be saved from an otherwise eternal hell that awaits all the unrepentant.

I really don't see the issue here. Two of them are not really issues (1 and 2). There will be people who don't repent who are not Sons of Perdition. They want to have nothing to do with God or His plan and refuse to participate; angry people. But they didn't commit sins that would blaspheme against the Holy Ghost. Sons of Perdition are resurrected, why not these? Where will they go if not to outer darkness? Do you know of any place that isn't one of these four places where they could be assigned, given their state? They have to go somewhere and it wouldn't be just to send them to outer darkness with those who committed heinous sins or willfully rebelled against a sure knowledge. It just wouldn't be right. God cannot go against the choices of his children. If they do not want Christ's mercy, they don't have to take it. It is there, but it is forced upon them (This brings up an issue... Was the resurrection forced upon them? The answer is no, but you will have to determine why on your own).

The second time is suffering without a body. Who said they won't have a body. The opportunity is given, it is rejected. The judgment comes, they come forth in the last resurrection and then suffer in body and soul as Christ did because they chose to suffer.

So these are not issues. Not in my mind anyway.

The third is mercy. I touched on it concerning accepting Christ's mercy is an option. It is not forced. But where do you get the idea that they get mercy later? The scripture specifically states that they don't get the mercy of Christ if they don't accept it.

And I am completely confused on this "rinse and repeat" idea of second and third and fourth chances. Where do you get the idea that if they refuse or reject that God or us will just keep trying until they accept? Who is in charge here? God or the child? Who, in all of mankind is forced?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

stretches all the way back to Philastus Hurlbut.

I mean, really.  To not only give up your eternal destiny, but to go down in ignominy with a name like that... Do we even have a <shakes head> emoticon?

[zil]

10 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

Do we even have a <shakes head> emoticon?

  (Not quite right, IMO, but the other one is smiling and even less right.)

[brotherofJared]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

It is my opinion that all things that are true are important – in their place and time.  This is a lesson taught by my father in my youth.  His example was concerning the reading of scripture.  He would agree that it is important to read and study scripture.  However, he then pointed out to me that when playing softball – it is not a good idea to try to read and study scriptures while engaged in running the bases.  In his wisdom, he pointed out that completing even minor, seemingly unimportant or lessor important tasks during their appointed place and time is the greater importance.  Not that the more important should be forgotten but rather that there is a “season” for all things – See Ecclesiastes.

I am personally confident that the knowledge of where G-ds began will become known before the Great Plan of Salvation is completed.  However, for now, we are at a most critical place and time where we need to be completely focused on the task at hand.

 

The Traveler

I agree that knowing where Gods began to be is important and it will have it's time and place where we learn it, but didn't see where you answered how it was important to our salvation. Does this mean that all those who have died already, are not saved or have no chance of being saved because they don't know where Gods began to be? Do we, or do we not, have everything that we need to know to obtain exaltation (my definition of saved in this context)? If the answer is yes, then; where Gods began to be is one of those things that are not very important for us to know.

[brotherofJared]

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

 

By the very nature – ordinances teach us to do things we do not know or understand.  Adam offer sacrifices with no understanding why other than he was commanded.

 

The Traveler

Agreed. But we don't know what Adam taught his children was the reason it was done, nor do we know what Adam's children eventually decided or made up on their own about why it was done. I'm sure, during the period where they were ignorant of the purpose of the sacrifice, they came up with all kinds of explanations and speculations and they were probably wrong on some of them. Who would have guessed that it was in similitude of the sacrifice of their Savior (which in a sense is an oxymormon, how can we be saved if we kill Him? Why would we kill Him? and the questions and speculations only increase from there)? 

Adam was told what the sacrifices represented because it was important to his salvation. We can be certain that all things that are important to our salvation will be revealed in full. Further, we can expect to learn anything that affects our own personal salvation. Some things that we learn about this will not be very important to others, but yet, for us, they are true. I think the danger comes in when we think what we learned applies to others and that it is very important to them.

It brings to mind one case where a Scoutmaster felt the church was wrong about the race issue and brought the ALCU to file a lawsuit against the church concerning giving boys leadership positions in the Scouts such as patrol leader. The action got him excommunicated and then very shortly afterward the church extended the priesthood to all worthy males (the ALCU either lost the case or dropped it or the church relinquished their position on Scout leadership positions - personally, I didn't know this was an issue, which probably came about because, in a rural area, we didn't know Scout leadership positions had any association with priesthood callings)

The point is, the Scoutmaster had correct information. It was true and he was right, but it wasn't very important. He made it important by forcing his correct ideas on others, actually forcing his ideas on the church. I'm not sure that there would be a better way to handle it, but waiting on the Lord would have been more prudent. It's weird how we get ourselves all bent out of shape when we discover something and insist that everyone else is wrong and we are the only ones that are right. I don't think there is any problem with discussing it. I believe that is part of studying it out in our minds, but as soon as we get the idea that others are wrong and we're going to make it right, we get in trouble.

[Just_A_Guy]

50 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I mean, really.  To not only give up your eternal destiny, but to go down in ignominy with a name like that... Do we even have a <shakes head> emoticon?

In all fairness, his full name was Doctor Philastus Hurlbut.  The "doctor" wasn't a title; it was part of his name.

[zil]

9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

In all fairness, his full name was Doctor Philastus Hurlbut.  The "doctor" wasn't a title; it was part of his name.

Nope, that just does not help at all.  (I am refraining mightily from wisecracks about this guy's name.)

Edited June 8, 2017 by zil

[Vort]

38 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

I agree that knowing where Gods began to be is important

Then you have misunderstood the lyric from the hymn If You Could Hie to Kolob. -- "If you could hie to Kolob in the twinkling of an eye, and then continue onward with that same speed to fly, do you think that you could ever, through all eternity, find out the generation where Gods began to be?" The answer to that question is, "No, of course not." That's the point of the lyric.

[brotherofJared]

23 minutes ago, Vort said:

Then you have misunderstood the lyric from the hymn If You Could Hie to Kolob. -- "If you could hie to Kolob in the twinkling of an eye, and then continue onward with that same speed to fly, do you think that you could ever, through all eternity, find out the generation where Gods began to be?" The answer to that question is, "No, of course not." That's the point of the lyric.

I wasn't trying to understand the lyric. I know where the phrase comes from. I believe that at some place and time, in the eternities, that we will know where Gods began to be. If we are ever to be like the Father, having all knowledge, then we would know this, unless you think God doesn't know where Gods began to be. I believe also, that in my present state, IF I could Hie to Kolob, which I can't because I am mortal and finite, even IF I could, I could not find out where God's began to be, BECAUSE I am mortal and finite. But some day, I shall know. at least, I hope I will be in a place where I can know if I so choose.

[Vort]

3 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

I believe that at some place and time, in the eternities, that we will know where Gods began to be.

Then you have misunderstood the lyric from the hymn If You Could Hie to Kolob. -- "If you could hie to Kolob in the twinkling of an eye, and then continue onward with that same speed to fly, do you think that you could ever, through all eternity, find out the generation where Gods began to be?" The answer to that question is, "No, of course not." That's the point of the lyric.

4 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

If we are ever to be like the Father, having all knowledge, then we would know this, unless you think God doesn't know where Gods began to be.

What makes you think that "Gods began to be"?

[zil]

4 minutes ago, brotherofJared said:

I wasn't trying to understand the lyric. I know where the phrase comes from. I believe that at some place and time, in the eternities, that we will know where Gods began to be. If we are ever to be like the Father, having all knowledge, then we would know this, unless you think God doesn't know where Gods began to be. I believe also, that in my present state, IF I could Hie to Kolob, which I can't because I am mortal and finite, even IF I could, I could not find out where God's began to be, BECAUSE I am mortal and finite. But some day, I shall know. at least, I hope I will be in a place where I can know if I so choose.

You assume that there is a time and a place when Gods began to be.  The hymn is teaching that there is no time nor place where Gods began to be.  In other words there was never a time nor a place without Gods.  It other words, Gods have always existed.

The inability of the mortal mind to comprehend the idea of eternity past (as opposed to eternity future, which is instinctive in mortals) is an intriguing limitation.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

A number of apostates professed love for Joseph Smith.  IIRC, both Dehlin and Mike Quinn professed love for the GAs of their eras.  We shouldn't trust our love of any particular GA or group of GAs to keep us on the proper path, or to justify all our other activities.

I believe we have conceded that by virtue of the continuing restoration, LDS doctrine can never safely be viewed as "complete" or "perfect".  No one is saying we shouldn't be discussing what other truths may be out there and how to harmonize bits of light and knowledge that thus far don't seem to neatly align.   Our concerns have to do with the way you are trying to characterize your role, and that of the Church, in those conversations.

Well, the way I see it, some doctrines may stay uncorrected for too long. So, why not crack away at it, ask for some clarification. Nothing wrong with that at all. Especially, as a teacher in church on gospel matters, if I or any of us has a conflict we cannot resolve it becomes rather necessary to seek some clarification.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

I believe you are working very hard – trying to put a horse before a cart.  I think you way overemphasize the importance of doctrine.  As I understand doctrine is only important or has any relevance in the context of -- #1. The Law   #2.  The Ordinances   and #3.  The Covenants.

In addition – I see no reason to discuss doctrine when there is any degree of disagreement unless we are all (all included in a discussion) willing to consider things we have personally missed or overlooked.  I would love very much to discuss things with you because you have some very different ideas.  But when I try to understand you thinking I have discovered two seemingly difficult principles.  #1.  I have already considered and accounted for everything you seem to be espousing.   #2.  You are not interested in considering any input that does not support your unique and particular opinion.

 

The Traveler

I see it a little differently. I walk around, go through life with the perspective of looking at myself and all of Gods other children and wonder how and when we can all be truly converted to Christ because if we dont then the devil seals us his in eternity. Under our current doctrine we go around with the mindset of looking for celestial candidates or work on people until we think we have done everything we can and then suppose they werent really celestial grade but perhaps terrestrial or telestial and think nothing of it if they dont accept the gospel because in the end there is a salvation for them somewhere in Gods kingdom. Ive seen too many give up or not even think about the crazy drug addict down the street or person who repeatedly turn away missionaries in the mindset that they arent gonna make the celestial kingdom anyway. This mindset that we have as a church that God can save sinners eventually in the end just by acknowledging the Savior without strict repentance from all sin and baptism is damaging. 

Im more than willing to entertain other ideas but in doing so it cant go around or circumvent the very laws and principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

[Just_A_Guy]

11 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, the way I see it, some doctrines may stay uncorrected for too long. So, why not crack away at it, ask for some clarification. Nothing wrong with that at all. Especially, as a teacher in church on gospel matters, if I or any of us has a conflict we cannot resolve it becomes rather necessary to seek some clarification.

Sure; I think "seeking clarification" is the best approach.  

In that process, I think it's problematic to try to distill "doctrine" down to any particular text--even a correlated or canonical text.  We have the manual failing to clarify one point--and some Church members perhaps reading it the wrong way due to cultural issues and concluding that the Telestial save themselves without repentance.  But we also have conference talks and scriptures innumerable saying that *all* must repent; that *every* knee will bow; that the Telestial are indeed *redeemed*; that *no one* can save himself in any degree.  So, which is the "church doctrine", really?  "Doctrine", I submit, lies in the way the various teachings and texts can be synthesized into a whole--it is greater than the sum of its parts.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, brotherofJared said:

I really don't see the issue here. Two of them are not really issues (1 and 2). There will be people who don't repent who are not Sons of Perdition. They want to have nothing to do with God or His plan and refuse to participate; angry people. But they didn't commit sins that would blaspheme against the Holy Ghost. Sons of Perdition are resurrected, why not these? Where will they go if not to outer darkness? Do you know of any place that isn't one of these four places where they could be assigned, given their state? They have to go somewhere and it wouldn't be just to send them to outer darkness with those who committed heinous sins or willfully rebelled against a sure knowledge. It just wouldn't be right. God cannot go against the choices of his children. If they do not want Christ's mercy, they don't have to take it. It is there, but it is forced upon them (This brings up an issue... Was the resurrection forced upon them? The answer is no, but you will have to determine why on your own).

The second time is suffering without a body. Who said they won't have a body. The opportunity is given, it is rejected. The judgment comes, they come forth in the last resurrection and then suffer in body and soul as Christ did because they chose to suffer.

So these are not issues. Not in my mind anyway.

The third is mercy. I touched on it concerning accepting Christ's mercy is an option. It is not forced. But where do you get the idea that they get mercy later? The scripture specifically states that they don't get the mercy of Christ if they don't accept it.

And I am completely confused on this "rinse and repeat" idea of second and third and fourth chances. Where do you get the idea that if they refuse or reject that God or us will just keep trying until they accept? Who is in charge here? God or the child? Who, in all of mankind is forced?

I can quote a myriad of scriptures that state man absolutely must repent in order to be saved from an eternal hell at resurrection and judgement. Heres one-

43 And thus did I, the Lord God, appoint unto man the days of his probation—that by his natural death he might be raised in immortality unto eternal life, even as many as would believe;
44 And they that believe not unto eternal damnation; for they cannot be redeemed from their spiritual fall, because they repent not;
45 For they love darkness rather than light, and their deeds are evil, and they receive their wages of whom they list to obey. (D&C 29:43-45)

It specifically states that the unrepentant are raised in immortality unto eternal damnation and are not redeemed from their spiritual fall because they repent not. They have no salvation. Eternal damnation only comes upon those cast off into outer darkness.

[Rob Osborn]

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Sure; I think "seeking clarification" is the best approach.  

In that process, I think it's problematic to try to distill "doctrine" down to any particular text--even a correlated or canonical text.  We have the manual failing to clarify one point--and some Church members perhaps reading it the wrong way due to cultural issues and concluding that the Telestial save themselves without repentance.  But we also have conference talks and scriptures innumerable saying that *all* must repent; that *every* knee will bow; that the Telestial are indeed *redeemed*; that *no one* can save himself in any degree.  So, which is the "church doctrine", really?  "Doctrine", I submit, lies in the way the various teachings and texts can be synthesized into a whole--it is greater than the sum of its parts.

And, in my opinion, the doctrine we currently teach regarding salvation and the kingdom of heaven which include the telestial is incorrect. There comes a point where either most of our BoM and NT is wrong, or, our teachings and interpretations are wrong because there actually are real contradictions. Bruce R. McConkie tried to resolve this issue by changing/modifying certain words and terms but in the process just made more of a mess of it.

[Traveler]

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I see it a little differently. I walk around, go through life with the perspective of looking at myself and all of Gods other children and wonder how and when we can all be truly converted to Christ because if we dont then the devil seals us his in eternity. Under our current doctrine we go around with the mindset of looking for celestial candidates or work on people until we think we have done everything we can and then suppose they werent really celestial grade but perhaps terrestrial or telestial and think nothing of it if they dont accept the gospel because in the end there is a salvation for them somewhere in Gods kingdom. Ive seen too many give up or not even think about the crazy drug addict down the street or person who repeatedly turn away missionaries in the mindset that they arent gonna make the celestial kingdom anyway. This mindset that we have as a church that God can save sinners eventually in the end just by acknowledging the Savior without strict repentance from all sin and baptism is damaging. 

Im more than willing to entertain other ideas but in doing so it cant go around or circumvent the very laws and principles of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

The first point I would make is that if someone tries to make sense of anything – using as measurement, a beginning at birth and ending with death – one cannot come to any reasonable or intelligent conclusion.  For example – it is impossible to imply that justice has any possibility.  There is no equality in birth and death is the ultimate injustice. 

Nothing you can say or demonstrate about life has any possibility of confirming the very laws and principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.   The only possibility is to mitigate that something before this life impacts what happens to cause the disadvantages of birth that continue to death.  But then we must mitigate that something will reconcile the obvious disparities of this life.

And there is another problem – in part it is called free will but the full understanding comes through what we LDS call “Agency”.   Not only is there a problem of choice – that cannot be argued as a choice as long as there is any measure of ignorance of a “final resolution” – which is impossible to know.  Plus, once one “comes to their senses” to believe in Christ – how can someone innocent (i.e. - Christ) be punished to free others of their indiscretions and badly uninformed choices?

Then there is one last thought.  When Satan rebelled, he took with him a one third part of heaven.   The ancients that recorded this revelation did not understand the binary laws of number theory of division.  The only possible interpretation is not that one of three (1/3) followed Satan but that heaven was divided into 3 parts – one part which followed Satan.  No one know how big or small each part was or that they were even close to being the same.  Besides; what were the other two parts?  We find the shadow of this ancient concept in the epoch of Noah and how his 3 sons divided the souls of man into 3 divisions – which were the infidel, the gentile and the “sons of G-d”.   Then in the resurrection that same 3 divisions reoccur and are a symbol of the very G-dhead.

 

The Traveler

[Rob Osborn]

5 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

The first point I would make is that if someone tries to make sense of anything – using as measurement, a beginning at birth and ending with death – one cannot come to any reasonable or intelligent conclusion.  For example – it is impossible to imply that justice has any possibility.  There is no equality in birth and death is the ultimate injustice. 

Nothing you can say or demonstrate about life has any possibility of confirming the very laws and principles of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.   The only possibility is to mitigate that something before this life impacts what happens to cause the disadvantages of birth that continue to death.  But then we must mitigate that something will reconcile the obvious disparities of this life.

And there is another problem – in part it is called free will but the full understanding comes through what we LDS call “Agency”.   Not only is there a problem of choice – that cannot be argued as a choice as long as there is any measure of ignorance of a “final resolution” – which is impossible to know.  Plus, once one “comes to their senses” to believe in Christ – how can someone innocent (i.e. - Christ) be punished to free others of their indiscretions and badly uninformed choices?

Then there is one last thought.  When Satan rebelled, he took with him a one third part of heaven.   The ancients that recorded this revelation did not understand the binary laws of number theory of division.  The only possible interpretation is not that one of three (1/3) followed Satan but that heaven was divided into 3 parts – one part which followed Satan.  No one know how big or small each part was or that they were even close to being the same.  Besides; what were the other two parts?  We find the shadow of this ancient concept in the epoch of Noah and how his 3 sons divided the souls of man into 3 divisions – which were the infidel, the gentile and the “sons of G-d”.   Then in the resurrection that same 3 divisions reoccur and are a symbol of the very G-dhead.

 

The Traveler

I am in complete agreement that this life is anything but fair. The advantages and disadvantages are so varried at opposite ends of the spectrum that it certainly cant be true that what happens in this life is what qualifies us for a kingdom in eternity. It is on this basis alone that leads me to that certain belief that the heaven we get saved into is only one physical place. The millennium is that period where we all truly prove ourselves and work towards perfection.

[brotherofJared]

12 hours ago, Vort said:

What makes you think that "Gods began to be"?

 

Good question. In really, they never began because they always were. If we find a point where Gods became flesh and then we can determine a point in eternity when something changed. One of them was first. That is the point that I would like to know how He did it. That, for me, is the place I want to pin the tail on the donkey. For now, I am blindfolded and, even if I was close, I wouldn't know how close until the blindfold is removed.

[brotherofJared]

13 hours ago, zil said:

You assume that there is a time and a place when Gods began to be.  The hymn is teaching that there is no time nor place where Gods began to be.  In other words there was never a time nor a place without Gods.  It other words, Gods have always existed.

1

This part is easy to understand. I am perfectly aware that Gods have always existed. There are, however; things that have existed before the Gods connected spirit and element.

Quote

The inability of the mortal mind to comprehend the idea of eternity past (as opposed to eternity future, which is instinctive in mortals) is an intriguing limitation.

Indeed. that limitation will be removed after the resurrection and judgment ... or is it judgment and resurrection?

[brotherofJared]

12 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I can quote a myriad of scriptures that state man absolutely must repent in order to be saved from an eternal hell at resurrection and judgement. Heres one-

43 And thus did I, the Lord God, appoint unto man the days of his probation—that by his natural death he might be raised in immortality unto eternal life, even as many as would believe;
44 And they that believe not unto eternal damnation; for they cannot be redeemed from their spiritual fall, because they repent not;
45 For they love darkness rather than light, and their deeds are evil, and they receive their wages of whom they list to obey. (D&C 29:43-45)

It specifically states that the unrepentant are raised in immortality unto eternal damnation and are not redeemed from their spiritual fall because they repent not. They have no salvation. Eternal damnation only comes upon those cast off into outer darkness.

3

Fine, but eternal damnation is a relative term, it appears. Damnation is separation from God and everyone who obtains a telestial glory will be separated from both the Father and the Son. It is not necessary for them to be cast into outer darkness to fulfill this scripture.