Sin

The distinction is irrelevant, either way it comes down to violation of arbitrary rules. The Mormon version is just trying to get around the issue of violating arbitrary rules getting people damned; it isn't the rule violations that damn you, it is the tick marks at the end... cough... from.the.rule.violations...cough...The Mormon version also implies that there should be a material change in the world that can be measured to indicate the presence of sin. This would imply that if I were to curse God in my mind then I would be physically altered. This is wholly unsupported by evidence, which is why most denominations go for the unprovable "its all in the spirit/soul, wooo!" concept.It is all garbage: Sin is code for "if you don't do what I say, I really would prefer for you to die." Thats all.

Translation: "I think hurting other people unnecessarily is worthy of punishment, but I don't care about anything else. I refer to my opinion as "sin" because it is more likely to get people to obey me, as it implies material repercussions."

That God once again causes trouble by having unfathomable preferences, questionable judgement, and an unwillingness to help his followers when in need? That a coward Lamech relied on superstition and lies to protect his life and manipulate those around him? This is simply more of the same.

The distinction between a bee and a wasp is important; it is a big difference between the number of times you can be stung, for one. The distinction between being punished for your actions or punished for "impurity" acquired through actions is irrelevant because there is no other function of impurity other than as a stand-in for those actions. If the "impurity" was measurable or had other ill effects you would have a point, but you have not claimed any so I conclude that you don't. So lets see how they are different: The Mormon version has them as obstacles preventing becoming like God and being accepted into heaven, and the other version has them as deviations from being like god thus preventing being accepted into heaven.Oh wait, its exactly the same thing! If you consider "Yes" as equivalent to "Your distinction isn't particularly distinct or relevant." I would add to Woodsy's presentation the concept of inevitable accountability. If a criminal managed to escape the law, or was supported by the community and friends, they would be inclined to think that all possible repercussions were dodged. The cleric's version meant that even if the criminal could avoid the law and their friends approved then they were still going to suffer punishment in the end.It is a wonderful method of controlling people, as long as you can get them to believe.

Slide that scale, slide it! God does not punish you, he just... withholds blessings. He does not send you to hell, you just are not privileged to be in his presence.The Mormon thing would be just the same if bad actions caused you to miss out on blessings rather than causing impurity that causes you to miss out on blessings. The whole "punishment or withheld blessings" thing is a completely different issue. Ohh, so God does not determine what causes impurity, he just chooses to judge people based on it. Oh wait, its EXACTLY THE SAME THING!Look, suppose I were an arbitrary deity and I have three different ways of doing my godly thing:1) I make a rule that the taller you are, the more I hate you! Nobody can get completely rid of height, so everyone is screwed more or less. There are things you can do to stop being tall but they run contrary to people's biology. Anyways, I say being tall is bad and punish people based on their tallness.2) In this second method I still hold the same position as the first, I just slide the scale over so that I reward people less as they get taller. Assumptions about how it is to go completely reward-less vary, but generally people assume it is about the same as in method 1. It gets me out of looking like a bad guy though, right?3) The third method I will call the "Mormon Method". Here I go with the same sliding scale as in method 2, but I don't say people being tall is a bad thing. Instead I say having a bunch of "tall-tokens" is a bad thing, and decide that being taller gives you more tall-tokens. But hey, this way I am not judging people on their height, I don't make the rules there.It is ridiculous to try to avoid responsibility that way! It is like saying that the police don't charge you for speeding.. they charge you for having a ticket, which you get for speeding.

So suffering in Hell for 1000 years because one refuses to accept Jesus as their Savior is purely metaphorical? (Doctrine and Covenants 76:84, 105-106) It is an interesting viewpoint, I will give you that...

I was under the impression that the general consensus was that verse referred to somewhere other than the Telestial Kingdom. This is because:

quote:

---

105 These are they who suffer the vengeance of eternal fire.
106 These are they who are cast down to hell and suffer the wrath of Almighty God, until the fulness of times, when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work

---

Hey, it has fire! Brimstone and devastation are not specifically mentioned, so you got me there. If you are correct, then apparently those in the Telestial Kingdom burn for eternity.

Right, so lets recap: Even Mormons have God toasting people based on arbitrary rules, despite initial denial.

So the deterministic way the universe works says that people will be toasted for exactly the same period that it takes Christ to finish his work, just by happenstance. Also, given that Christ is almighty there isn't any reason why this should take 1000 years, so the best we can conclude is that he does not care at all about the suffering and is just taking his time.Also, we can conclude that as this suffering is the "wrath of Almighty God" that... well... he gets angry and toasts people as a result of the deterministic consequence of the way the universe works?Look Bluejay, I appreciate the gymnastics you are going through, but I don't see how it can be much clearer.1) It says they are burned with "eternal fire".
2) It says this burning is "vengeance", like punishment.
3) It says they are put in this "Hell" by Almighty God.
4) It says that they are put there specifically to "suffer the wrath... until the fulness of times"
5) This "fulness of times" is defined as "when Christ shall have subdued all enemies under his feet, and shall have perfected his work" which is to say it is directly under the control of Christ.What more does it have to say to get the point across? He is toasting them in a manner directly under his control, and as a consequence of his intentions!

quote:

---

...and suffer the wrath of Almighty God...

---

It does not really seem like an anthropomorphization, it seems like it is the wrath of Almighty God. This is me telling you that it reads quite simply; but hey, don't mind that, it really is just an anthropomorphization of nature telling you that you are wrong.Heck, if we are going to conclude that when it says "this is the wrath of God!" that what it *really* means is "this is totally not the wrath of God, it isn't under his control at all" then we might as well just start making the entire thing up as we go along. Right, he isn't throwing them down and curb-stomping them, he just happens to be stomping at a curb and they just happened to fall under his foot.

So what does this mean for sinners? Does God still punish people arbitrarily based on the production of sadness? Does getting sad from a chemical imbalance make your glands sinners? How about getting sad when your significant other goes away on a trip; are they now sinners?If there is no spiritual or physical interaction with this inherent quality of "sin" then what use is such a definition?

So the concept is that God is willing to lie and misrepresent the truth in order to get a point across, or to protect us from something.As you said, there are some problems with this. For one thing it throws everything God says into question: Do we really get an afterlife which is pretty sweet no matter what, or he just saying that to protect us from the concept of death being the end? Does God really love us infinitely or is he sort of ambivalent toward most people, but figures everyone needs to feel special?I'm going to stop here in that train of thought, because I am sure you can see where it goes. I would just like to point out how I see our exchange has gone so we can get some perspective:

quote:

---

Me: The two concepts are similar because of these similarities.

​

You: No, they are totally different ideas, Mormons don't believe that.

​

Me: I really think they do, these verses say they do.

​

You: You uneducated cur, you don't understand what they say! Their version is quite nice.

​

Me: I'm not talking about the nice part, I am talking about the part I quoted. It says it is very not-nice right here.

​

You: It might not be nice, but it does not specifically say who put them there, or who is doing the not-nice stuff.

​

Me: It totally does, it says it is God's not nice stuff very clearly.

​

You: Well, I heard somewhere that he was probably lying. But it was totally for our own good of course, and I could be wrong about the lying. But I'm not wrong about it being for our own good, that I am totally certain of.

​

Me: Look, I don't think calling him a liar helps a lot.

---

Now I can only speculate on the future of this exchange, but you seem to have locked yourself into an untenable position. You cannot claim "Well *I* believe differently, I am special!" because your claim is about what Mormons believe, not some particular brand of whatever you happen to have in your head.You cannot really claim that the interpretation is wrong because the text is fairly unambiguous, which is frankly surprising for a religious text. We already explored that route but unfortunately I can actually read, and besides the Mormons already accept the passage anyways.You cannot really claim that the passage is a lie (although you have tested the waters), because it leaves it open for anything else to be a lie as well. It also brings up the question as to how one could tell it is a lie in the first place, and why we don't just use this alternate source of information exclusively rather than reading a fiction.Honestly, I don't know what else you can try other than to accuse me of unforgivable rudeness and being generally impossible to deal with. Then you can refuse to respond and make it out to be my fault.But hey, I am open to new ideas, so lets hear them.

Right! They are the same people, but two different places. The hell where they get burned is not the Telestial Kingdom, but rather a "hell" all to its own. Thus, your argument that the Telestial Kingdom is actually quite nice is irrelevant as it isn't where they are at that particular time. I was talking about the 1000 years of burning godly vengeance they were experiencing. No, it isn't. It seemed you were claiming that the hell talked about in verses 105-106 was the same as in verse 84, and that you were conflating it with the Telestial Kingdom. In that case the burning would continue for eternity, as they don't really get to leave. I don't agree; most Mormons seem to consider it a separate location after which they move on. This is irrelevant to the point in any case, which is that the Mormon god burns people in a hell just like the mainstream Christian god, just not for as long.

I pretty much understood the references, although I disagree that verse 84 refers to the Telestial Kingdom. I rather think it fits better referring to the prison, if only to keep terminology consistent.In any case, the pertinent thing to take away is that the Mormon god is exacting vengeance through fire on people, specifically and intentionally, because they did not do something he wanted them to do.

No, but when it says that someone is to "suffer the vengeance of eternal fire" I figure that, if not fire, it is at least similarly unpleasant. Are you attempting to argue that suffering from eternal fire *actually* means something like intensely experiencing zeal or what? When I quote them as a group and they appear to share consistent terminology, and they refer to people who end up in the same location, after the same period of time, and under the same conditions... sure. And I wonder about you Michamus. You have a lot of insults and claims that I am wrong, but you don't seem to be able to back them up with anything other than your unsupported opinion and derisive hoots. I would remind you of Rule 10 of the Forum Guidelines:

quote:

---

Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring and goading tactics.

---

You are hectoring, you are goading, and more importantly, you are not providing an argument.