Damnation


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If you're really interested in having a discussion with someone, perhaps leave the condescension out of it. Just a thought.

I'm considering your thoughts.

 

No condescension intended - it was simply a plea to not get captured by a point of focus that did not embrace the entirety of the concept under consideration.  It is a common thing for most of us that certain buzz words or ideas that are contrary to our personal sense of interpretation may close the venues of further consideration beyond the point where we encounter the incongruous thought.  However, by powering through the entirety of the post, my thought was that it might come into better focus for you as to what I was attempting to communicate..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
5 hours ago, brlenox said:

If a murderer kills someone, during the process of assessing his guilt justice is acting.  However, after his guilt is fully assessed and he is condemned to die justice has received it's payment.  It no longer acts in the life of the murderer once he has paid the price for his crime.  Since he has paid with his life he has nothing more to offer nor does he have anymore to be taken. This is the same for us.  God the Father gave a sentence of judgement that was predicted upon satisfying the demands of justice. 

So you are saying that A) our state of mortality is a punishment and/or B) we have all been pre-sentenced to outer darkness and now we have to get out of that somehow or another (the somehow or another, of course, being the Atonement of Christ)?

5 hours ago, brlenox said:

Once the judgement is rendered and it was a death penalty that the Father rendered, what claim do we have on justice being for all intents and purposes dead men.

I think your analogy fails in that the murderer's capital punishment is final and our death is physically temporary and spiritually dependant upon events still yet to come. A better analogy might be someone in jail who is to appeal their case and must demonstrate good behavior in order to win that appeal. In which case justice, the fairness of it all, said prisoner certainly deserves.

Shall we take a moment to define justice?

Justice: just behavior or treatment:

Just: based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair:

Do you agree with these definitions? (If you don't you'll have to take it up with Oxford Dictionaries...but at least if we agree on the meaning it helps with discussion.

Your suggestion seems to be that our state of temporarily being spiritually dead implies we have no right to being treated in a morally right and fair manner.

5 hours ago, brlenox said:

The theme of all are fallen or lost is well represented in scripture and this one verse simply is to introduce the legitimacy of the claim that we have been judged and are fallen and lost except upon the conditions of an atonement which somehow provides for a new set of considerations.  Which we may get to later.

I disagree with your interpretation that we have already been judged for our actions in mortality. We have been judged for our actions in the pre-existence, but that estate was kept, we passed, and we were not cast out with Satan. But of course we are fallen and lost without the Savior. I just don't see how that is evidentiary in the implication that we do not deserve justice otherwise.

5 hours ago, brlenox said:

To what murder is he implying they might be held accountable?

Those we may have committed or assented to.

As I suspect you do not think this is the case, perhaps you can expound.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Your suggestion seems to be that our state of temporarily being spiritually dead implies we have no right to being treated in a morally right and fair manner.

I think he's saying justice can't help us anymore - too late for that, justice put us here.  At this point, it's mercy we need.  Justice can help the innocently wronged to be made whole, but not the fairly convicted.

Edited by zil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, zil said:

I think he's saying justice can't help us anymore - too late for that, justice put us here.  At this point, it's mercy we need.  Justice can help the innocently wronged to be made whole, but not the fairly convicted.

But it implies we've already been convicted, which is different than knowing that we will be. It implies that we are to be punished for things we never did, does it not? That even if we lived an absolutely perfect life (only theoretical because we know it isn't possible) that we would merit punishment and damnation anyhow.

Anyhow, I disagree with the idea that justice cannot help us. Justice is our friend. Without justice we are all doomed from the start.

Mercy, to my thinking, is not in opposition to justice. It is part of it. God's plan of mercy was a plan of justice. His mercy IS justice. He provided it through His Son because He is just -- morally right and fair -- and it would be neither moral nor fair to send beings He loved into a state of morality where we had no agency provided.

Which is another interesting thought I think. Agency and mercy are, from a certain point of view, equivalent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zil said:

I think he's saying justice can't help us anymore - too late for that, justice put us here.  At this point, it's mercy we need.  Justice can help the innocently wronged to be made whole, but not the fairly convicted.

Well, kind of and not quite.  Justice did put us here and independent of anything altering the decree of God the Father we are dead.  However before mercy can even be brought to bear on the equation Christ has to die.  We can get more specific later, but something about what he does open the doors of mercy but we are not quite here yet in the narrative of how all of this fits together. If you don't mind I'd like to not get too far ahead as each piece of this paradigm shift has to be explored carefully.  However, your last sentence above is precisely correct. We just need to see how mercy is activated first before we can get to that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

But it implies we've already been convicted, which is different than knowing that we will be. It implies that we are to be punished for things we never did, does it not? That even if we lived an absolutely perfect life (only theoretical because we know it isn't possible) that we would merit punishment and damnation anyhow.

Anyhow, I disagree with the idea that justice cannot help us. Justice is our friend. Without justice we are all doomed from the start.

Mercy, to my thinking, is not in opposition to justice. It is part of it. God's plan of mercy was a plan of justice. His mercy IS justice. He provided it through His Son because He is just -- morally right and fair -- and it would be neither moral nor fair to send beings He loved into a state of morality where we had no agency provided.

Which is another interesting thought I think. Agency and mercy are, from a certain point of view, equivalent.

You are absolutely correct - Justice does help us, as well it condemns us.  We are trying to explore the nuances that define this relationship.  When you state this "His mercy IS justice."  If you can define in detail, which is to say how the various laws interact to ensure justice is served and mercy does not rob justice then this paradigm shift will be far simpler I think.  Frankly, it is the precise point. But why?

Edited by brlenox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, brlenox said:

If you can define in detail, which is to say how the various laws interact to ensure justice is served and mercy does not rob justice 

I'm not sure what kind of detail you're looking for here. Christ paid the price. That's the detail. I tend to think that an effort to understand it beyond that, while perhaps interesting, amounts to guess work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, brlenox said:

Most likely eating a paradisaical pomegranate is not going to equate to a death penalty. 

Why not?

Any action warrants a death penalty if a law is established. God established the law - if ye eat ye shall die. Therefore it warranted it.

But I think you're still equating a mortal death penalty to eternal death, which is not strictly equivalent. As I pointed out before, prison would be a better analogy imo.

10 hours ago, brlenox said:

Thus his decree is that [Satan] will be permanently held accountable as complicit in the shedding of innocent blood without reservation. His decree of death is permanent.

Do you believe then that Satan had a chance for redemption prior to this "decree"?

Here's my overall response though:

How do you reconcile the idea that we will be punished for our own sins and not for Adam's transgressions (per the 2nd Article of Faith) with you ideas?

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quote

 

Question: What exactly is the atonement and how can I receive its blessings and one thing I have always wondered but have never been able to find my answer to is how do I access the atonement. Is all I have to do is just ask God for the atonement to take place in my life?

President Eyring: Could I … First thing to do is to get a few facts straight.  The atonement was something that Jesus Christ Did.  It's not a thing itself he atoned for our sins and he paid the price to allow us to be forgiven and to be resurrected...alright, so it's what he did that qualified him to give us forgiveness to change our hearts and it's the Holy Ghost that is doing that.It's not the atonement as if it is a thing itself. 

The atonement is something the Savior did and the Father has given Him, because of that great sacrifice that He made for us, the power to forgive us.  And so when you feel forgiveness that is not the atonement - that's the Savior giving you a feeling of forgiveness because of the atonement.(President Henry B. Eyring, Face To Face, Transcript March 4th 2017 )

 

 

Edited by brlenox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, brlenox said:

However the figurative fruit consumption is not an adequate cause.

What standard of morality are you applying here? Utilitarianism?

24 minutes ago, brlenox said:

Eating a fruit and then being condemned to death is not just and is borderline capricious in the implications of fairness.

This logic doesn't work for me. Does walking onto someone's property justify getting shot? Are the "trespassers will be shot" signs all unjust? If you walk onto property with a "trespassers will be shot" sign would you moan, upon getting shot, "that was so unjust!" Fair warning is fair. God gave fair warning. That makes it fair. 

29 minutes ago, brlenox said:

Presuming that you mean spiritual death when you reference eternal death then clarification can be found in examining LDS Theology more closely:

Either way. The inequality in the comparison stems from the fact that death from mortality is permanent -- that is to say, you can never return to mortality again. Death from the physical in general is not permanent. Spiritual death is conditionally temporary. 

32 minutes ago, brlenox said:

The mortal and the eternal death penalty were both imposed on mankind

It's really strange to me that you inject "penalty" into this. Which, of course, is your entire premise. But it's strange to me. The ability to experience mortality is a blessing, not a penalty.

35 minutes ago, brlenox said:

As I have pointed out a couple of times now, we are trying to take this in a chronological fashion.  At this point we are simply trying to establish the things that can be derived at from scripture and prophetic commentary and a few Jewish sources concerning the Fall.  We have not gotten beyond the fall to the atonement which accomplishes the mitigation of impact from Adams transgression.  If we can get the conditions of the fall firmly grasped then we can advance as to the mechanics of the atonement and how it overcomes the effects of he fall and Adam's sin and our own sins.  We just haven't gotten that far yet.

I believe you need to adequately explain in the mechanics of the fall how we are "punished" (penalized) for Adam's transgression because, as far as I know, we believe we are not punished for Adam's transgressions in any regard. The problem, as I see it, is that you are calling things "punishment" and "penalty" that are nothing of the sort.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I'll be candid.  I am sensing that wave of the hand of dismissal.

It is true that I think the end result of any discussion of things we do not and cannot fully understand means guesswork. Why that would be insulting I do not know.

14 minutes ago, brlenox said:

I do not guess, I do not offer up opinions as facts.  I qualify and reinforce every step of the way meticulously precisely because I cannot tolerate guess work and opinions as facts. 

I believe you that you believe this.

19 minutes ago, brlenox said:

Generally when we say he paid for our sins we are making an implied observation.  It is not intentional, it is simply the by-product of not knowing what drove the need for an atonement. We are implying that each sin has a value. One drop of blood for a cookie, 2 for a lie, 17 for embezzlement

How do you know that "we" mean that when "we" say that? Who is "we"? And how do you know that all the millions implied in "we" mean that?

23 minutes ago, brlenox said:

So using that line of reasoning why does God need his Son to Die before he can allow you to return to his kingdom.  Why not just say The Folk Prophet has sinned but over the course of his lifetime he has grown to manifest a demeanor that does not like sin.  He now has matured into an honest and forthright Son of God, I believe I will allow him to return to me and dwell with me for eternity.

Please, do share your view on the matter.

23 minutes ago, brlenox said:

How come God the Father cannot do this? 

I'll confess that I do not know the complete answer to this, but I feel quite confident that it stands unrevealed -- probably beyond our mortal ability to understand. But, I do think I understand, in principle, that God's laws are natural ones. He must be just because if He isn't then we cannot trust Him and if we cannot trust God...well...that's quite the pickle isn't it now? If God can be unfair and lie and cheat and randomly be a respector of persons then what is there to actually have faith in?

Why, along the lines of things that we don't understand, is baptism required to return to God beyond His say so? Why did God make that a condition? Seems like a pretty random thing to have to obey to me. Doesn't really help anyone -- utilitarianistically speaking (yeah...I just made that word up).

32 minutes ago, brlenox said:

If you achieve everything in this life that you are going to achieve and it is adequate to get you eternal life then why not let you come back whether an atonement or not? Who says to God that is not right?  How does innocent blood change the conditions to make them favorable for your return?  What exactly was the price that you claim Christ paid...and why was it exacted? Why does Christ suffering horrific pain pay for anything? If you can put that into LDS theology juxtaposing the laws the enable and deny based upon conditions then we have understanding, otherwise we are just repeating what we have heard our entire life "Christ paid the price" without really taking the time to figure out what paying the price really means.

Yep. That's why the Atonement is often spoken of in terms of "incomprehensible and inexplicable".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This may correlate with the end of the millennial reign when the final Day of Judgment is completed and the terrestrial state of this world ends as it becomes the celestial world of promise.

 

Edited by brlenox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the spirit of turning the other cheek, besides your implicit accusation that I'm failing to exert desire, effort, prayer and earnest ambition, I'll confess that I'm also bad with money, so you can slap away at me on that matter too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

In the spirit of turning the other cheek, besides your implicit accusation that I'm failing to exert desire, effort, prayer and earnest ambition, I'll confess that I'm also bad with money, so you can slap away at me on that matter too.

First let's be realistic, to really understand anything in the Gospel it has to be taught by the Spirit.  My efforts here cannot circumvent that process.  Even were I to double, no wait even triple the length of my posts ... ah heck why not...even if I was to quadruple the length of my posts it would not be sensible to believe that you could just read on through them and pick up what has taken literally years of effort.  What you are considering a slight or offense is simply Alma 12:9 in action

Quote

 

Alma 12:9

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to know the mysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart only according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

 

I am simply referencing a correct and true principle.  Now maybe I should pay greater attention to the "not impart" but I think that I make extreme efforts to only utilize material that is perfectly available to you and me and anyone else that wants to put the effort into putting it all together.  I claim no mystical interpretations, no angelic ministrants...just a lot of effort and pondering etc.  In case it is not obvious, I am analytical to a fault.  In your responses, you have hedged with doubt, rebutted in ways that made it clear that certain things were not being understood and that is perfectly okay.  If instead, it makes it any easier to deal with my personality, I am at all times attempting to be cordial and encouraging but I also tend to be very candid - I suffer from the social ineptitudes common to certain characteristics that I have but I do not intend to ever offend and hope you will understand that to be the case. 

 

Now as to your financial ineptitudes, let's see how I can a slap you around with that....I guess to say that I probably cannot claim any better....Ha ha ha...well be of good cheer ol' boy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, brlenox said:

What you are considering a slight or offense is simply Alma 12:9 in action

I just think it's a strange approach to treat the one individual who's engaged and shown interest in your philosophies in any detail as if he's uninterested, unwilling, closed minded, etc., because he's challenged you on a few of the details. -- Particularly strange in that those challenges are by way of allowing you to better clarify what may not have been entirely clear in your excessively long and wordy posts...and even more particularly strange in that I don't necessarily deem your views wrong. But you interpret every question I have as is I'm just being pig headed. The plain fact is that I don't understand your views well enough to be pig headed about them. So how is it that my asking questions and challenging you to clarify how your views fit in with other ideas within the gospel is being interpreted as disinterest and hand waving?

I'm the only one really showing interest thusfar and you cast me aside with series of passive aggressive insults followed by a conclusion that I've closed the screen door on you or some such.

Well...I can let go of the implications that I'm closed-minded, stupid, lazy or what-have-you. But when you won't even answer the questions I pose with plain-speak answers it's hard to continue in any sort of actual discussion. I mean, you won't even answer the "Is this what you mean?" yes/no questions plainly. It seems to me that, at least in this case, you're less interested in discussion and more interested in lecturing. If that's the case, lecture away. I'll probably read what you write and I'll just stop bothering with any sort of response.

1 hour ago, brlenox said:

In your responses, you have hedged with doubt,

No. I have not. I have asked to to reconcile plain gospel principles with what you have presented. That does not mean I believe there is no reconciliation to be had. That is your, apparent, chip-on-the-shoulder interpretation of my questions and comments.

For example, the idea that this life is a penalty for Adam's transgression -- I do not think it is entirely unreasonable to interpret the 2nd Article of Faith to mean only as it relates to final judgment. But I would like some support for the idea that it does not apply to our mortal existence, so I asked. I don't know that I think it right or wrong. I haven't drawn any conclusions on that matter yet. I'm just asking you to make your case.

1 hour ago, brlenox said:

rebutted in ways that made it clear that certain things were not being understood

Which you seem to take as my being lazy, unwilling to explore or expand my mind, and failing in prayerful consideration, etc.

1 hour ago, brlenox said:

If instead, it makes it any easier to deal with my personality, I am at all times attempting to be cordial and encouraging but I also tend to be very candid - I suffer from the social ineptitudes common to certain characteristics that I have but I do not intend to ever offend and hope you will understand that to be the case. 

It isn't social ineptitude that's the problem. It's the obvious fact that you consider yourself, your views, your research, and your understanding superior to me and mine. Well, it may be. But it may not be. I've been at this gospel study thing a while now too. Do you think you're the only one who ponders, considers, studies, prays, and works out gospel principles? You expect me to carefully consider what you have to say but don't seem willing to give me the same respect. I'm not offended by it, per se, (slightly annoyed at times I suppose, but I've mostly put that aside). I just can't actually communicate with someone who treats everything I think and say with such cynicism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I just think it's a strange approach to treat the one individual who's engaged and shown interest in your philosophies in any detail as if he's uninterested, unwilling, closed minded, etc., because he's challenged you on a few of the details. -- Particularly strange in that those challenges are by way of allowing you to better clarify what may not have been entirely clear in your excessively long and wordy posts...and even more particularly strange in that I don't necessarily deem your views wrong. But you interpret every question I have as is I'm just being pig headed. The plain fact is that I don't understand your views well enough to be pig headed about them. So how is it that my asking questions and challenging you to clarify how your views fit in with other ideas within the gospel is being interpreted as disinterest and hand waving?

I'm the only one really showing interest thusfar and you cast me aside with series of passive aggressive insults followed by a conclusion that I've closed the screen door on you or some such.

Well...I can let go of the implications that I'm closed-minded, stupid, lazy or what-have-you. But when you won't even answer the questions I pose with plain-speak answers it's hard to continue in any sort of actual discussion. I mean, you won't even answer the "Is this what you mean?" yes/no questions plainly. It seems to me that, at least in this case, you're less interested in discussion and more interested in lecturing. If that's the case, lecture away. I'll probably read what you write and I'll just stop bothering with any sort of response.

No. I have not. I have asked to to reconcile plain gospel principles with what you have presented. That does not mean I believe there is no reconciliation to be had. That is your, apparent, chip-on-the-shoulder interpretation of my questions and comments.

For example, the idea that this life is a penalty for Adam's transgression -- I do not think it is entirely unreasonable to interpret the 2nd Article of Faith to mean only as it relates to final judgment. But I would like some support for the idea that it does not apply to our mortal existence, so I asked. I don't know that I think it right or wrong. I haven't drawn any conclusions on that matter yet. I'm just asking you to make your case.

Which you seem to take as my being lazy, unwilling to explore or expand my mind, and failing in prayerful consideration, etc.

It isn't social ineptitude that's the problem. It's the obvious fact that you consider yourself, your views, your research, and your understanding superior to me and mine. Well, it may be. But it may not be. I've been at this gospel study thing a while now too. Do you think you're the only one who ponders, considers, studies, prays, and works out gospel principles? You expect me to carefully consider what you have to say but don't seem willing to give me the same respect. I'm not offended by it, per se, (slightly annoyed at times I suppose, but I've mostly put that aside). I just can't actually communicate with someone who treats everything I think and say with such cynicism.

The Folk Prophet, I'm kind of at a loss...I responded to your first questions here:

https://mormonhub.com/forums/topic/63272-damnation/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-941141

You'll note that I do a fair job of trying to politely give attention to your questions.  However, did you acknowledge this effort.  If so, I missed it. 

However, my internal analysis of your questions actually caused me to question whether you were serious or not.  I gave good response and they should have eliminated your position.  I mean when you asked

Quote

Any action warrants a death penalty if a law is established. God established the law - if ye eat ye shall die.

I thought really? God just makes up silly reasons that do not equate to a rational expectation and that works for you.  Eat Green Jello and you'll die.  Wait, are those fingernail clippings in the sink - die you uncouth hillbilly.  I candidly thought perhaps you and I see God differently.  I gave you easy and clear indications where there is a correlation and you ignored them.  My question to you is do you still believe what I quoted you as saying above? Is your God a fickle God?

5 hours ago, brlenox said:

The Folk prophet states: But I think you're still equating a mortal death penalty to eternal death, which is not strictly equivalent. As I pointed out before, prison would be a better analogy imo.

Now this question here...I have stated twice by now that I am addressing the point of the fall in a Chronological fashion.  I have provided scriptures which talk about mankind being cast off.  That is a very common reference point concerning the fall.  If you want to hear, based on an analysis of the verses I am using I would suspect that no matter how poor my communication skills are the verse that states that mankind was cast off would not generate the question you are asking. The verse states that they were physically condemned to die and that they were spiritually dead.  That's all. The point is there is more than adequate quality of presentation that if you wanted you could very easily understand my perspective but you do not try to do that. You want to create opposition.  I am sure you know the gospel points I am referencing concerning this place in the fall narrative. It is well represented in scripture and you want me to defend it? That is the current place in the chronology that we are discussing.  We are not discussing the atonement yet which ameliorates the conditions of the fall, we are simply discussing the conditions of the fall.  We are trying to use scripture to establish the conditions that man found himself in after the fall.  And your response to  me is that "you're still equating a mortal death penalty to eternal death,".  I am left to wonder why are you opposing the clear statements of scripture as if I can't read and to take them for what they say is not how one should accept scripture.

Finally I reestablish how I am addressing this entire subject as my final paragraph of the post.

I am cordial and pleasant if not matter of fact.

My point is that while I am new to this forum, I am not without sufficient presentation skills to be taken seriously.  In your answers you have generally tossed out opinions without any effort to provide insight from legitimate sources that would compel me to consider your points of view, while I err on the completely other side of the process of overwhelming with resources in hopes that I can overcome the nature tendency that many have to ignore sound reasoning and just stay with their own limited insight. I'm doing all the heavy lifting here and you want to be taken seriously for a few moments of critique? After your last couple of posts, I took a little tour around the forum and I see that actually I am not being treated any differently than anyone else in your engagements. You do not evince a spirit of conciliatory tone but seem more confrontive to combative just as a natural manner of interaction.  Had I realized I probably would have withheld engaging you in conversation at all as that attitude can seldom learn anything from anybody.

I am trying to engage you and be polite in doing so, but I candidly state with confidence that I understand this subject in ways you will never grasp unless you are willing to drop the John Wayne and just be a decent guy. For now though that appears not probable especially since I am probably just too frank for your tastes. There is no offense intended - just a honest effort at trying to split a hemlock knot with a corn-dodger for a wedge, and a pumpkin for a beetle.

Edited by brlenox
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, zil said:

FWIW, I'm interested, but don't have time to read this much today.  Hopefully I can over the weekend.

You were the reason I went ahead and posted the Avenger of Blood material.  You appear thoughtful and patient as you weave your way through what I realize is not an easy read.  Thank you for your support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share