Sin

Hi, Phage. Yet it juxtaposes it with a clear statement of the chronological constraint (an "until" clause): it can't be forever, yet have an end."Eternal" is not taken to mean "it won't end": it is taken to mean "from God" (D&C:6-12).----- This is anthropomorphization of nature.----- No, it doesn't: read it again.It says, "will be thrust down to hell," in passive tense: it says nothing about who or what will do the thrusting. You're reading into it what you want to see.----- Well, you're right there. One point for you.----- Mormons do not believe "almighty" to mean "unlimited."D&C 138: 28-30 explains that Christ is unable to visit the people suffering in the spirit prison in person, so He sends others (from the good side of the spirit world, where He can go) to do the work for Him. This is why it will take 1000 years: because Christ is not the limiting factor (how could He be when we have free will?).Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, ICANT. So, in your opinion, sin is disobeying God's commandments.Why did God make these commandments?
Because He wanted to?
Or, because He was required to do so by the laws of the universe?-----Running score:Sin defined by God: 1
Deterministic Sin: 1

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Phat. What does this have to do with Cain's sacrifice?And, how are "wanting to do it ourselves" and "sin" correlated? I don't understand what you're saying.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Perdition. As kind of an aside, I'm rather surprised at how common this viewpoint is among Christians. I feel it myself sometimes. There's something really scary about always being reared with something else telling you what's right and what's wrong, but you only realize it when you stop blindly following and try to figure out what's right and what's wrong for yourself.Life-long Christians who lose their religion almost invariably go through a phase where they are not responsible atheists, but callous nihilists. I go through this periodically myself as I'm dealing with my current confusion over religion, and it can get frightening.When a long-trusted moral compass is lost, it feels like there is no hope of ever having a direction; just like, when you lose your girlfriend, it feels like there is no hope of ever finding love again. You almost have to go relive all your mistakes and regrets in order to callibrate your new compass.It's very scary.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Phage. As much as it hurts me to do so, I have to admit that religion is not in the business of helping people understand the reality of things, but is only in the business of getting a point across.Let me try another approach (which I still have mixed feelings about, but which I have been taught by other Mormons before):It's like having a child: I don't really want my 2-year-old to understand the pain of being zapped by an electrical outlet, and he wouldn't understand it if I tried anyway, so the only thing I can teach him is, "I will slap your fingers if you touch that." And that (generally) helps to prevent electrical shock.It's the same with God: He doesn't want us to have to suffer the real torment of spirit prison, so He threatens us with His own punishment (which we can understand) to get the point across that we're not supposed to do it.We understand wrath, we understand fire and we understand vengeance: so, these are the terms that God uses to explain it to us.There are a few inconsistencies I see with this viewpoint, but I would be a bit remiss if I only shared the interpretation of Mormon doctrine that I personally subscribe to (especially since my brand has been less than convincing to you).

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, ICANT. You're still just dabbling on the surface and not contributing to the discussion.Why does the choice exist?
Is it because God made it exist?
Or is it because it exists inherently?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Stile. It's probably a useful distinction you're making.It's probably a pretty silly idea to think that rocks can sin because sin is a natural part of the universe (although some Mormon scripture seems to anthropomorphize the earth ).Animals and plants are not held to the same concept of sin as humans are, so sin is clearly not a universal, uniform phenomenon.When I talked about it being an innate part of the universe, I was thinking more along the lines of God being unable to design a universe where sin doesn't exist. Maybe, as you say, it would be better for me to characterize sin as an innate part of intelligence, human nature or spirituality, than as an innate part of the universe itself.----- This is at least the third time I've posted three or more messages in quick succession on this thread: I had to double-check to make sure my screen name hadn't changed to "Rrhain.:

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Phage. Wow.So, what you see is that you have been a calm, rational, model citizen with a Platonic dedication to honest understanding, and I have been a rude, inconsiderate, babbling idiot?Phage, you have read all of three verses of Mormon scripture, and you are now asserting the position that you understand the beliefs of the religion better than two of its practitioners.
And, not only that, but you are criticizing my arrogance.Many Christians and creationists have claimed to understand science better than scientists after hearing one sermon or reading one book.
Do you really think that your approach so far is any different from that?
Why does the methodology suddenly become valid when you use it for your purposes?Scripture is not intended to be read as literal words and semantics, but as principles and bottom lines with lots of emphatic, flowery language and inspirational gems to drive the point home.This may sound like a cop-out to you (it does to me). But, I have already pointed out one instance in which a word (eternal) is used in a non-conventional way in the scriptures. Note that, in this case, the precedent for the non-conventional usage of eternal was established 2 years before it was used in the scripture you quoted (D&C 19 was written in 1830, and D&C 76 was written in 1832).You didn’t know that eternal and endless had a non-conventional meaning in the scriptures when you posted your argument, and, consequently, your argument was wrong. Yet, you persist in asserting that your literal reading of a bunch of religious terms is superior to the lifetime of study that Michamus and I have put into it.Like it or not, this is just the way things are. Lots of religious writings contain this kind of language. Religious texts can say, wrath of God, when neither God nor anybody’s temper is involved, and still be teaching a correct principle. Religion is not science, and was never meant to be: scriptures are not scholarly textbooks, but practical handbooks designed for average people, who don’t care about scientific technicalities.By way of analogy, the average person does not care what the difference between a wasp and a bee is, and knowing the difference does absolutely nothing to help the average person prevent being stung by either. So, if God’s purpose is to prevent stings, does it really matter if He uses the terms wasp and bee incorrectly?You can argue that it’s unfair, or that it makes it too hard to understand, and you’ll get no complaint from me: I agree with those sentiments, and I struggle through my scripture study for it. But, discuss it with any Mormon, and you’re most likely going to hear the same things as what Michamus and I are saying.Mormons believe that sin is an eternal (i.e. deterministic, out-of-God’s-control) principle.
Mormons believe that the torment and suffering we will feel is the direct result of our own actions, not something that God does to us. Here is a link to D&C 76. And, here is a link to D&C 138, which explains how the spirit prison (i.e. Hell) fits into the LDS Plan of Salvation.Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Master Debator. This is why we meet together to discuss the doctrines, rather than let everybody go their own way and believe their own thing. The LDS Church is a worldwide organization, like the Catholic Church (but obviously smaller).

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Michamus. This one only works on that guy from the Princess Bride: the rest of us only have 4 pointing back at us.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Phage.I’ve been a bit busy this weekend: I apologize for the wait.Okay, from the beginning, the Mormon doctrine is that sin prevents the attainment of full glory. It makes us filthy, in the words of the scriptures (1 Nephi 15:33-34; sorry, I don’t know how to link directly to individual verses: you’ll have to scroll down).Filthiness results in spiritual death, which basically means separation from God, or separation from righteousness (2 Nephi 9:12).

quote:

---

And this death of which I have spoken, which is the spiritual death, shall deliver up its dead; which spiritual death is hell...

---

We are technically all spiritually dead on Earth, because we are separated from God, but this separation is only temporary, and isn’t actually complete (because we can feel the Spirit and get revelations, etc.). But, spiritual death is also encountered two more times. Note that, in the verse quoted above, spiritual death is equated with hell, which we have already explained is in the spirit world, before Judgment.The other time that spiritual death is encountered is when it is made permanent for the Sons of Perdition, as Michamus explained earlier.-----Okay, none of that was really new, but it was important background.What is new is the issue of culpability for the torment and suffering we feel. The prophet Joseph Smith:

quote:

---

A man is his own tormenter and his own condemner. Hence the saying, They shall go into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone. The torment of disappointment in the mind of man is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone.

​

Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled 1938 by Joseph Fielding Smith

---

Looks like I found the brimstone for you!The fire and brimstone is, as Michamus and I have been saying, of our own making. It is, quite literally, our own sense of guilt and failure that torments us.-----It is a generally-accepted tenet of Mormonism that God is subject to the same eternal law of justice that we are. Alma 42:13:

quote:

---

Now the work of justice could not be destroyed; if so, God would cease to be God.

---

Bascially, God cannot undermine justice, which requires punishment to be enacted.Now, there are two ways of looking at this:

1. The most common viewpoint of Mormons is, like Joseph Smith said above, we bring our own torment upon ourselves, and God is not capable of preventing the suffering because He cannot interfere with justice. In this view, God’s punishment is His withholding aid from us (but He is required to withhold it by eternal law, so isn’t really His doing, anyway).
   ​
2. The other view is that God metes out punishment personally because He is required to do so by eternal laws. Although the wording of the scriptures seems more in harmony with this view, my personal experience tells me that it is much less common among Mormons.

----- Actually, technically, you didn’t.The very first line, above the title of the article you quoted---What is the meaning of the Book of Mormon scriptures on eternal hell for the wicked?:

quote:

---

Questions of general gospel interest answered for guidance, not as official statements of Church policy.

---

The disclaimer, written by Daniel Ludlow, attached to the Encyclopedia of Mormonism:

quote:

---

Those who have written and edited [the Encyclopedia of Mormonism] have only tried to explain their understanding of Church history, doctrines, and procedures; their statements and opinions remain their own. The Encyclopedia of Mormonism is a joint product of Brigham Young University and Macmillan Publishing Company, and its contents do not necessarily represent the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Daniel H. Ludlow

---

Your other sources (which were good, official sources) mentioned punishment, which I gave a good explanation for above.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, ICANT. ICANT, you're awesome.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Phage. Yeah, I apologize for my weird debating tactics earlier on the thread. I've just accepted it all for so long that I couldn't remember where all the relevant quotes were.----- I thought about this while I was writing my earlier, and the answer is that I don't know. I think most Mormons believe that God used to punish people before Christ's mission, and the Atonement brought about the new, non-punishment system.Unfortunately, I can't tell you why the Atonement would have changed all that, so I personally tend to shy away from that viewpoint.Things got more complicated when the Lord brought forth the Book of Mormon and Doctrine and Covenants (the "Restoration," as you've no doubt heard of before). During the Restoration, it is said that God brought in the "fullness of the Gospel," introducing some new doctrines and new covenants (hence, the name of the modern scriptures). The Lord maintains a prophet on the earth so He can continue to add greater depth to the things we already know.The problem is that this gives the Church an excuse to rub out old doctrines that are no longer seen as positive, so it's impossible to be certain what is actually inspired and what isn't.But, personally, I prefer a religion that is open to the idea of change over time to a religion that believes truth lies in stagnation.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, the Master Debator.Sorry, I never gave you a full reply to this message. Well, you're right. I wasn't thinking about the Bible when I wrote that: I was thinking about the Book of Mormon and the Doctrine and Covenants, which were not written by scholars (at least, to the best of our current knowledge, they weren't).My comment clearly doesn't explain the Bible: I'll try to be more careful with my wording next time.Thanks.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Perdition. That's an even better explanation.It just seems that all Straggler, Stile and I ever talk about is free will: maybe it was my subconscious trying to avoid that road again.Thanks.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.