brotherofJared

I am under the impression that we are supposed to be talking about our condition after the resurrection. We are not damned now because Christ has already redeemed us. We are bound only by mortality and our actions. That's why this is a probationary state. It is the only period in the eternities where we can make mistakes (without suffering eternal consequences for those mistakes) and correct our course. After the resurrection and judgment, our condition will be permanent. My point here is that our present condition is not damnation even though we are limited or bound. Our present condition is simply probation where judgment is suspended. With the definition you associate with damnation as being limited or bound, that would include those who enter the Celestial Kingdom but are not exalted. They live in the constant presence of God and His Son. I don't see how that could be considered damnation.

I believe this world is an example of the telestial worlds in the hereafter. However, living in this world, coupled with immortality, it seems that most of those "sins" will be rendered inoperative. Eternity has a way of sapping all the fun out of some sins. But, I don't know what God suffered that caused him to tremble, but I suspect that that suffering will be enough that when released into a telestial glory, that which caused them to suffer will be enough to leave the sin well enough alone. I'll leave the where, when, and how those things will be accomplished to God. Your last statement seems to allude to a sense that ceasing from sin is the same as repentance and therefore, by default, they take some of Christ's atonement and thus justify their graduation to a telestial glory? I'm not sure what you were trying to say. My position is rejecting Christ's atonement for themselves is not grounds for outer darkness and that anything other than the Celestial Kingdom is damnation. Further, I believe people will choose another weight of glory simply because they don't want to live the kind of life that God lives.

It's not there. Explain it so I can understand how you see it. Where does it say "outer darkness"?

Well. I guess if neither exists, then your definition is simply an assertion without evidence. I gave you mine. It appears that yours with made up out of thin air without any scriptural basis. Let's try this on as a basis for some scriptural support. Bible Dictionary: The followers of Satan who will suffer with him in eternity. Sons of perdition include (1) those who followed Satan and were cast out of heaven for rebellion during premortality and (2) those who were permitted to be born to this world with physical bodies but then served Satan and turned utterly against God. Those in this second group will be resurrected from the dead but will not be redeemed from the second (spiritual) death and cannot dwell in a kingdom of glory (D&C 88:32, 35). Outer Darkness <> Hell in the same sense as those who simply don't repent. There is a huge difference between fighting against God and rejecting Christ's atonement for themselves. Just clarify where you get the definition that being condemned is being condemned to hell?

I don't believe the intent was that a person should or even can ever remove anything from anyone else's eye. The message for me is: stop trying to fix other people's problems. Fix your own. The rest of it, IMO, was added by some well-meaning scribe who insisted that it is our duty to fix other people's problems.

No. I meant mote.

Do you have a reference for your assertion?

I didn't ask what damnation was. I believe it is relative. Do you have a reference that supports your definition?

"People of faith". I think you mean Christians. Everyone has faith, but why would a Muslim, who also are people of faith, do well to obey the apostle Paul's admonition? I mean, the admonition is sound, but I doubt that they would be inclined to follow it because it was stated by the apostle Paul. Then you make some interesting comments which I believe are not quite correct, though they have nothing to do with colonel Sanders and his religious bigotry. I believe you are right. Sanders overstepped his bounds. Good thing he wasn't a popular candidate for president. Let's hope that if he runs again in a future election that people of faith won't forget that. My understanding of the Muslim belief is that Allah has no NEED for a son. All he has to do is say a thing and it is done. And this is true. Allah doesn't need a son. God's children, however, do need His son. That He doesn't need a son makes no difference. It doesn't mean He doesn't have a son. The latter part of that statement is evidence that if Allah wanted a son, all He would have to do is "say a thing" like, I choose a Son to help the poor Muslims (and everyone else) to get back to me... and it is done. The statement defeats itself. If he is so powerful, he can have a son if he wants. That we disagree with the Talmud and or that phrase, does not make us infidels. Sure some liberal warmongers, who have an eye on world domination, use the term to identify everyone that isn't a Muslim as an infidel, who preach this, but it is not part of the Muslim religion. It might be helpful to view that minority who do think like that as FLDS. They took some small part of the overall religion, decided that they were right and are now doing their own thing. I have no idea if Sanders or the government supports the minority religions over mainstream religions. I've seen evidence of this under Obama. But I believe it is wise to know a person's convictions and it is wise to base decisions on whether a person is fit for a job or not based on his convictions. Protestants have always feared Catholics and Mormons having public office (truthfully, I think some don't really give it much notice, but the minority of that group have no problem using it to defeat the opposition). Kennedy had to give a statement of faith, how his beliefs would affect his public service, and so did Romney. I don't think this is going to go away soon. I don't know if there is any legal recourse for Sander's statement, but based on his stated position, he shouldn't be allowed a vote, either yea or nay as a bare minimum.

Actually, I decided not to post anything in response.

Wouldn't doing that make you god? Or something on that order? Maybe a prophet or at least an apostle.

While the root may be similar, I don't think the concept is.

Are we not separated from God now? Is this death? Is this hell?. If it is death, why do I feel pain? If it is hell, then hell is a pretty darn good place. By that definition, we are damned now. By that definition, then it would seem that everything but exaltation is damnation. Is that correct?

Ok. I'm in Utah, I can tell right away. I am tired of swimming upstream. I'm done.

Maybe you don't understand what I believed about the argument that was presented. I'm not stupid.

There is clearly a problem here. How shall we take advantage of the atonement if we dare not look up to God? I know what your point was. I'm disagreeing with it. Our thoughts will only condemn us if we act on them. And there is always context. And whether the thought we had warrants repentance or not is entirely up to the individual. Yesterday, I had the thought that'd I'd like to smoke a cigarette. I have no inclination to repent. The day before, I saw a really pretty person walking on the sidewalk. I'm pretty sure I had no thoughts of fornication. I'm not going to repent just in case I did. Doing so would not be... normal.

I believed that definition was left out of the OP to which I replied. There is no other way to fornicate other than by having sex. The OP implied that sex was some how different that fornication.

Actually, I acquired it through the course of my work, but I find that most people in my field are too lazy to do it. Here is a definition from Wiki...

I didn't get the impression u were talking about sex between married couple. Nevertheless, fornication is sex. What was I supposed to think about?

Now why would we dare not look up to our God? Could it because we reject the plan of happiness and found in the judgment that his judgments were just and we discover our awful state? Taking this out of context woul make all of us damned. I don't know about u, but I have no problem looking up to God. In fact, I need to.

Fornication is the definition of the act of having sex. Having sex is a choice.

Fornication is not a weakness. LOL. It is an act. The act can be judged. It is very specific. Very few people don't know what it is when they are doing it. God is the best example of righteous judgement. Even he, though he knows u are going to absolutely commit the sin, he doesn't judge until u actually commit the sin. The weakness to fornicate is in all of us. That is not the sin. Judging the weakness is unrighteous judgment.

How is this NOT the popular vote? It doesn't matter that you didn't actually vote. I used that term because we make these decisions by silent vote. You say it's the vast majority, but you don't actually know that. Well, we did in California on Prop 8, but it wasn't the "vast majority". It is not vast by any means and the vote that we have does not consider those who didn't or couldn't vote. I recognize that norms are established by the majority, most of the time. That's not my point. No. It's not. It's normal because a vast majority watch pornography. I am far more sensitive about your examples than I am about the same-sex attraction issue... I can't even get through a rough scan of them. Let's see where you went with it though... Hmm... it didn't go anywhere. I believe it is an act to point to the mote in another person's eye. Period. And that is a sin. The sin is on the judge. Judge the action, not the person. We have to live with the person. We don't have to live with the act, When the person acts, depending one what it is, we may not have to live with the person either, but until the person acts we have to live with them. We might as well learn to get along with them.

I realize this is arbitrary and your opinion, but establishing norms from anyone's personal perspective is never going to establish norm. Bell curves assume we have all the data, we don't. If we did, the percentage would actually be established based on the distribution of the data over the bell and the fact that we are using a bell curve means that the norm is established by what is popular, most frequent. That normal is what most be people do. That is not how we, in the church determine what normal is because, on a bell curve, normal is the absolute most minimum edge of the upper side of the grade. It is normal to abstain from coffee, tea and tobacco. It is normal to reserve sexual relations only between an man and a woman who have been legally and lawfully wedded, it is normal to be honest in our dealings with our fellow man, it is normal to pay an honest tithe with an actual measurement, a rule, that we can use as a guide as to what that means. On a bell curve, Mormons are not normal.

He doesn't need to, but he does. Why is that? Is it because it's normal? No. It's because he accepts what is wrong with you and doesn't judge that it's your fault or your parents or your life in the preexistence. Your abnormal condition, by his adjustment, is now his normal. It would not be so if he rejected your condition and tried to lay blame somewhere. This is an excellent example of coexisting and adjusting ourselves to what is wrong with the other person. We all make adjustments when we accept that what is wrong with the other person fits our norm. We make adjustments for disease and cope with it. We make adjustments for chemical imbalances though we don't always do well in making adjustments. We recognize that adjustments must be made in our understanding of it and ability to cope with it, but sometimes we fail. If there is a fix, then; sure use them. But if there isn't, then make adjustments.