My Sadness

[Traveler]

Why I am disappointed and why my disappointment increases from comments by those that believe in everlasting hell.

1. Contradictions with the gospel of Jesus Christ and the doctrine of the sacrifice, redemption and atonement of Christ. If someone believes in Christ and his sacrifice they realize that Jesus has already atoned or paid a ransom for all sins – there is nothing left to pay.

a. Believing that those cast into hell deserve it amounts to a horrible form of bigotry – especially if there is anyone less deserving than those that believe, a belief that anyone (other than one’s self) is deserving of hell; is if anything - qualifies a person for everlasting hell – which makes the believer in such a doctrine even more qualified than the person in hell (for as ye judge so shall ye be judged)

b. Believing in everlasting hell short circuits the doctrine of forgiveness. How can someone say they have really forgiven while they believe someone in everlasting hell ought to be there? It makes such forgiveness a hoax. You only have to forgive those you love to be around in heaven? (See Matt 5:46)

c. It makes living for G-d a selfish act and focuses only on the forgiveness of our sins– we repent of our sins and we are free - almost. But when I read, argument for an everlasting hell, suddenly I find that we are not free from sin and despite the fact Jesus paid for all sins we can still be hung up in heaven on the sins of others – unless we make them suffer forever in hell – only then can we be joyful and happy. This is really a big disappointment that anyone would think like this.

2. Believing in an everlasting hell makes G-d (and those that believe in him) sadistic demons that delight in torture.

a. Jesus has already paid the demands of justice concerning all sin so there cannot be a “just” reason for everlasting hell of suffering and torture.

b. Jesus pronounced G-d as good whose works are good – we can delight joyously in all the works of G-d. Delighting in the suffering and casting of anyone into an everlasting hell is the very definition of a demon to me and not worthy or any praise what-so-ever

c. There is no possible “benefit” to come from those cast into everlasting hell. If it was a matter of protecting the citizens of heaven, the hell bound could be placed in a similar place to earth (or some other place) without all the suffering and torture – for which there is no admitted good or beneficial purpose or reason. This is not an act of love – let alone the love of a G-d that gave his only begotten son.

3. It makes a mockery and a joke of the suffering and sacrifice of Christ. From the time Jesus left the last supper until he was resurrected with a glorified, pure, divine physical and everlasting body his total suffering for all sins for all the billions and billions of humans and all their combined sins amounted to no more than a few days of suffering. (less than 100 hours max). Yet one person cannot suffer enough with more torment for what little they (a one person of trillions) must suffer over a billion times a trillion years and even then the suffering could not have begun. A few days for everybody in the heaven club and forever and ever for one person not in the heaven club?

How can someone believe G-d will reward them beyond what they deserve when most (since few will find the way) will end up in hell from a G-d that would not allow any of then to ever benefit for any good that they did? I am disappointed – not just in such doctrines but the more in the arguments to justify it.

Sorry, please forgive me for putting this sorrow of mine into words. Most likely I will not sleep without the midnight hours overtaking me. I wish I could never hear such things. I could not ever enjoy heaven that I do not deserve while even the worse of humanity suffers everlasting hell – what possible act could deserve that? An improper belief in G-d? And if your belief is somehow wrong in this matter – everlasting hell is what you deserve? I have never heard a believer in everlasting hell admit to that one. The old it does not apply to me just to others that do not believe like me. I would rather have never existed that to have such knowledge and not be able to do anything ever to relieve even for a moment such suffering – deserved as it may be.

The Traveler

[Jason]

I don't believe in hell, period. Much less an everlasting punishment.

[the Ogre]

I don't believe in hell, period. Much less an everlasting punishment.

At least I wasn't the one with the trite comment to a very thoughtful post.

Aaron the Ogre

[Lord Vidoran]

<div class='quotemain'>

I don't believe in hell, period. Much less an everlasting punishment.

At least I wasn't the one with the trite comment to a very thoughtful post.

Aaron the Ogre

It's foolish to believe in heaven or hell, in my view. Why? Because both premises are not supported by any sort of factual evidence.

[pam]

<div class='quotemain'>

I don't believe in hell, period. Much less an everlasting punishment.

At least I wasn't the one with the trite comment to a very thoughtful post.

Aaron the Ogre

What trite comment are you referring to may I ask?

[the Ogre]

What trite comment are you referring to may I ask?

Take your pick. I make so many.

[pam]

<div class='quotemain'>

What trite comment are you referring to may I ask?

Take your pick. I make so many.

So you were referring to something you said?

[Jason]

Ogre,

I don't believe the theological implications of Universalism are "trite".

[the Ogre]

So you were referring to something you said?

Must have been, but honestly, referring to The Traveler's post, I keep thinking Alma covered much of this ground in his conversations with his son Coriantumr (sp). I'm not as deep a thinker as The Traveler on this topic.

I however like what was said and I have to think about it some more (I do not respond to the traveler often as I am not expert in the subject matter brought up in those posts or I do not think my direct and simplistic thoughts would not compliment the antecedent post), I think my issue with Jason's comment was that he did not think. I know he is a religious pluralist at heart, but I wish he could have spent a little more time on what the post was about instead of trivializing it with street-fighteresque agnosticism.

The thought of a Hell is not a doctrinal topic I have thought about often. Its not a place/state-of-being I want to visit and instead focus on what it takes to avoid it. What is interesting is the extension of the non-static nature of the human soul to the state(s) of condemnation. I wonder if agency is a part of this same extension. I'm not sure. I have think about it some more.

. . . I don't believe . . .

I know, I've heard you say this before.

[Adomini22]

Everlasting hell............hmmm....interesting topic. In DC, it says it is everlasting hell because God is everlasting. Looking God in the face and seeing a glimpse of heaven, while not being able to reside there would be a sort of hell. Living with my old stepmother in any realm would be hell as well.... heck, I am convinced she could overtake hell and give heaven a scare.... ok, on a serious note...... living with regrets is a sort of hell. Some peoples lives here on Earth are hell, too. Yeah, if there is such a thing as good, there is such a thing as evil. If a place for good exists......... then a place for the bad exists. Science even shows that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. Yin Yang, etc. Light, darkness, etc. If hell doesnt exist, then neither does heaven. That means goodness doesnt exist then, right? Hey, what a thought! Now we can be the animals we were born to be. What else are we if this is it?

[Jason]

I think...

Does not equate with what I thought.

Making an assumption on my comment is narrow-minded. My comment was meant as an extension of Traveler's concerns, not as a "fight" against what, in other instances, I would contend is an obviously flawed doctrine.

. . . I don't believe . . .

I know, I've heard you say this before.

Can't help it. That's how I was trained in all those fast and testimony meetings.

I am not claiming to be agnostic. I am claiming that it is not true. Very different approaches. Please remember that.

(edited by CK to remove Lord whatever's comments)

[Dove]

Hell is kind of a fear ridden, interesting topic. As far as I understand the doctrine of the church to be, there really is no everlasting hell, only (gasp), outer darkness, which reallly scared the bajoobies out of me when I was growing up.

I thought the doctrine went something like this; when we are presented the truthfulness of the restored gospel, we can either accept it (and the Saviour) or suffer the consequences of not accepting the atonement in our lives. This means suffering for our sins that He has already suffered for. I'm not sure what the place is called in the scriptures, but I know it is temporary. After we have suffered for our sins, we are assigned the level of kingdome we were worthy for-and the glory from them is great.

I don't know, I think earth life is a really good example of what hell can be. There is so much pain and suffering here already.

More seriously, I do worry about the consequences of my actions while here on earth. I'm not so worried about going to hell as I am about not making back to my Heavenly Home, to be with our Heavenly Parents and siblings again.

In some ways, I think the concept of hell is a sham, something along the lines of whatever reigning powers there were keeping the common folk in check with threats of hellfire and damnation.

The Book of Mormon sure talks about it quite a lot.

[the Ogre]

Please remember that.

Why, do you remember what it is that others believe? Do you care? You often respond to intersting threads with the same thoughfulness as the little troll you quoted in your post.

You want me to care about your beliefs? Then reciprocate.

Or don't . . . but at least think about what is being said by the poster and/or the person who started the thread before throwing out some quick-draw comment cheapening a carefully constructed arguement.

[Adomini22]

Hell is kind of a fear ridden, interesting topic. As far as I understand the doctrine of the church to be, there really is no everlasting hell, only (gasp), outer darkness, which reallly scared the bajoobies out of me when I was growing up.

I thought the doctrine went something like this; when we are presented the truthfulness of the restored gospel, we can either accept it (and the Saviour) or suffer the consequences of not accepting the atonement in our lives. This means suffering for our sins that He has already suffered for. I'm not sure what the place is called in the scriptures, but I know it is temporary. After we have suffered for our sins, we are assigned the level of kingdome we were worthy for-and the glory from them is great.

I don't know, I think earth life is a really good example of what hell can be. There is so much pain and suffering here already.

More seriously, I do worry about the consequences of my actions while here on earth. I'm not so worried about going to hell as I am about not making back to my Heavenly Home, to be with our Heavenly Parents and siblings again.

In some ways, I think the concept of hell is a sham, something along the lines of whatever reigning powers there were keeping the common folk in check with threats of hellfire and damnation.

The Book of Mormon sure talks about it quite a lot.

I see your point. And I agree. In LDS, only those that make their calling and election sure, or receive a personal witness and KNOW for a fact of the truth and openly fight against it, and openly shame Christ, yeah, those are going to outer darkness. But most of us wont get that chance here on earth. Only very few people have recieved that personal witness and calling and election made sure. This might belong in a different post, but it relates to the above.

[Jason]

Why, do you remember what it is that others believe?

I am not the fool who presumptuously proclaimed the belief of another...only to be wrong.

Do you care? You often respond to intersting threads with the same thoughfulness as the little troll you quoted in your post.

Often? Care to back that up with some numbers? Considering just how little I do post here now-a-days, I only comment on threads that are worthwhile. Traveler, bless him, thinks more in ten minutes than you probably do all day. Your contributions to this thread are absolutely nill.

You want me to care about your beliefs?

I don't remember insinuating that I wanted you to care about anything I believe. What on earth gave you that idea?

Or don't . . . but at least think about what is being said by the poster and/or the person who started the thread before throwing out some quick-draw comment cheapening a carefully constructed arguement.

Again you presume I did not think about his post before offering a short side-comment about Universal Salvation.

Are you somehow capable of reading my thoughts and determining just how much time I spend reading a given thread or post? Pray tell, what mysterious powers of omniscience do you possess?

[Adomini22]

We are so off topic.... he he

[gabelpa]

It's amazing whast happens when you feed the trools... new rule.. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS

On the topic of Hell, yes, there is Outer Darkness, and I think more of us are going there than we think. As for the rest of us, I believe we create our own Hell, one of shame and disappointment. One where we know we could have done better, yet have wound up stuck, or stopped. To not reach my full potential, knowing I had sold myself short, that would be my own Hell.

-Gabelpa

[Adomini22]

It's amazing whast happens when you feed the trools... new rule.. DON'T FEED THE TROLLS

On the topic of Hell, yes, there is Outer Darkness, and I think more of us are going there than we think. As for the rest of us, I believe we create our own Hell, one of shame and disappointment. One where we know we could have done better, yet have wound up stuck, or stopped. To not reach my full potential, knowing I had sold myself short, that would be my own Hell.

-Gabelpa

Nice post. If more are going to Outer Darkness than we think, then thats kind of scary. It is said that you are judged after what you know, so if they KNOW and are on their way to OD.... um... so be it...

[CrimsonKairos]

Apparently, I over-taxed the site's ability to use the "quote" function repeatedly. Everything in italics is from Traveler's post.

Before I begin, let me say that we are dealing with very metaphysical and mysterious doctrines that are difficult to clothe in words. If I misread your comments Traveler, I'm sorry and just ignore what follows. However, I think there may be some substantive differences in our viewpoints and hence, I offer the following observations.

If someone believes in Christ and his sacrifice they realize that Jesus has already atoned or paid a ransom for all sins – there is nothing left to pay.

Christ may have offered a sacrifice for everyone's sins...but that doesn't mean he's automatically going to be everyone's Advocate. In D&C 45:3-5, Christ tells us who he will Advocate for: those who believe on his name. Christ's suffering, blood and death only have power to blot out the sins of those who possess godly sorrow and repent. Those who refuse to submit and repent have no claim on mercy.

Furthermore, if those stubborn sinners will literally never repent, then there must be an everlasting punishment to match their sins. No one cuts corners with salvation.

a. Believing that those cast into hell deserve it amounts to a horrible form of bigotry

Not necessarily. I believe those who are cast into hell deserve it because God has cast them into hell. In other words, whatever He says or does, I say should be done. Because He deems it right to cast some souls into hell, I believe they deserve it...not the other way around.

How can someone say they have really forgiven while they believe someone in everlasting hell ought to be there? It makes such forgiveness a hoax.

You're confusing hate with righteous judgment. Just because I comprehend someone's sins, and know they deserve whatever God metes out to them, that doesn't mean I hate them. You can love someone and still sustain God's judgments as just and fitting.

God can dispense punishments--even everlasting punishments--and still be our loving Father. It's the difference between a father losing their temper and spanking their kid's butt black and blue, and a father explaining to their kid what rule they broke, why it's wrong, and then spanking their kid in a firm but controlled way.

...despite the fact Jesus paid for all sins we can still be hung up in heaven on the sins of others – unless we make them suffer forever in hell – only then can we be joyful and happy.

I don't know that anyone on this site has taken such a stand on the issue. Did I miss something?

a. Jesus has already paid the demands of justice concerning all sin so there cannot be a “just” reason for everlasting hell of suffering and torture.

Not so. Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice capable of moving God to blot out our past sins. It's not an unconditional process. We must repent. We must deny ourselves of ungodliness. We must love as God loves. If we do not do these things, we have no claim on the mercy birthed by Christ's unjust death.

d. Delighting in the suffering and casting of anyone into an everlasting hell is the very definition of a demon to me and not worthy or any praise what-so-ever

Who said God delights in the suffering of others? I'm really confused as to where you're coming from. Just because God dispenses harsh justice does not mean He must receive pleasant stimulation from the unpleasant suffering the guilty undergo.

c. There is no possible “benefit” to come from those cast into everlasting hell.

Why would you insist that everything God does has to benefit somebody? God is a God of laws. Obedience is the first law of heaven. The disobedient who refuse to repent cannot just be magically pardoned because God is supposed to possess this unconditional love for His children. Sometimes punishing the guilty is merely about fulfilling the laws of heaven, and need not have anything to do with benefiting anyone.

If I understand your claim right, you are asserting that if God punishes someone for any reason other than to benefit them or someone else, then He is not a Being of goodness and love. If this is indeed your position, let me say that I denounce this assertion most ardently.

This is not an act of love – let alone the love of a G-d that gave his only begotten son.

And why did He send His only begotten Son? That whoever would believe in Jesus might not perish but have everlasting life. If someone refuses to believe in Jesus, or call on him for mercy, then they must forfeit any sliver of mercy they might have received had they repented.

Consider the story of Alma the Younger. He describes three days in a personal hell of torment and guilt. When did this hell end? When he called on the name of Jesus. I submit that if Alma hadn't called on Jesus for mercy, his personal hell would have continued, even if he had "woken" from his sleeping vision.

From the time Jesus left the last supper until he was resurrected...his total suffering for all sins for all the billions and billions of humans and all their combined sins amounted to no more than a few days of suffering...Yet one person cannot suffer enough...over a billion times a trillion years(?)

This goes to the very heart of my recent string of threads on how Christ's atonement brings remission of sins. It seems to me that you are viewing the atonement as more of a financial transaction type affair: We commit x number of sins, Christ suffers x number of spiritual whippings for those sins, the debt is paid, the creditor goes home happy, and we are released from debtor's prison.

I'm not going to dwell on the impossibility of this model of atonement (how does Christ forfeit blessings in our place, or go to hell in our place, or surrender spiritual sensitivity in our place, or become spiritually unclean in our place, etc...). Even assuming that is how the atonement works, debt is not the only issue. There's the little matter of spiritual filthiness. No unclean thing can permanently dwell with God.

We can suffer the punishment for our sins if we elect to ignore Christ's sacrifice for us. But we can't blot out our own sins, we can't make ourselves perfect without divine aid, and we cannot wash our garments clean in anything but the blood of the Lamb.

So even if someone pays their "debt" (again, not how I think it works), and they get out of "debtor's prison," that doesn't automatically make them clean and worthy of God's presence and richest blessings! Hence, there must be a place prepared for souls who--after suffering the punishment of their own sins--refuse to call on Jesus for Advocacy and Mediation. Such a place is what I mean by "hell" in the context of this thread (i.e. eternal damnation and all that jazz).

How can someone believe G-d will reward them beyond what they deserve when most (since few will find the way) will end up in hell from a G-d that would not allow any of then to ever benefit for any good that they did?

When we repent, cease our ungodly ways, love as God loves, and endure to the end, Christ photocopies his divine nature and staples it over our natural man. Christ makes us worthy. Christ shares his perfect obedience with us. That is why God rewards us beyond what we'd deserve on our own. The point is that those who make it to God's presence in celestial glory will not have gotten there on their own. Christ is the key, and no unrepentant soul can possess that key.

And if your belief is somehow wrong in this matter – everlasting hell is what you deserve?

Yes. I believe God has the power to provide us incontrovertible proof--in this life or the next--of His reality, of Christ's divine Sonship and role as Mediator, and of how to obtain mercy. So if in this life or the next you are given incontrovertible proof that you have disobeyed divine laws, that you have sinned, and that you must do certain things to obtain mercy...and if still you refuse to make the effort to repent and change...what, is God supposed to say, "Ah what the heck, I love everyone so I'm going to forgive you stubborn sinners over here even though everyone else had to repent and change their ways. Come one, come all, free food and drinks for everyone in My mansion!"

Maybe I'm mistaking your views...I certainly hope so. If my descriptions do indeed accurately reflect your views, then those views are as unjust as those you decry.

[Adomini22]

Long post, man. However, I am glad you posted it. You are 100% right regarding such, in my opinion.

[prisonchaplain]

Let me be upfront about saying I have yet to read the OP, so will comment on it later. However, a brief thought on the difficulty of the doctrine of eternal hell/punishment.

1. There is no question in my mind but that some who convert to the LDS faith from traditional Christian churches may do so, at least in significant part, because of discomfort about the doctrine of hell. The LDS approach is, without a doubt, more appealing in this age.

2. It is my understanding that Charles Taze Russell (founder of what is now the Jehovah's Witnesses) began his journey away from traditional Christianity because he could not accept the doctrine of hell.

3. Many Christians, including pastors, choose to simply not talk/teach/think about it.

I have chosen to address it for these reasons. IF hell is true, IF it is taught in Scripture, and IF the teaching is of an eternal place of punishment, THEN I must either embrace it as a place of God's justice, or I must reject God. I cannot alter my understanding of God to make him palatable to me. I must embrace/reject him for who he is.

Traveler obviously grapples with this deeply, and has come to believe that the "IFs" I've mentioned are not truths. For me, that is the essential question--not whether I enjoy, appreciate, personally agree with what I see God doing. I look forward to addressing Traveler's post directly soon.

[Dror]

IF hell is true, IF it is taught in Scripture, and IF the teaching is of an eternal place of punishment, THEN I must either embrace it as a place of God's justice, or I must reject God. I cannot alter my understanding of God to make him palatable to me. I must embrace/reject him for who he is.

PC, I agree with you in principle that we shouldn't try remaking God either in our own image or to make Him more palatable to us. However, I think the historical trend has been to make God appear less merciful and loving than He actually is. The Hebrew Bible for the first time starts to reveal glimpses of a God who is loving, kind, and wants to help the weak and oppressed. He brought the Israelites out of bondage not because they were righteous (they clearly weren't), but because they were oppressed and because He loved them. He chose them as a means of showing to the world His mercy. Jesus completed the process of revealing God when He suffered and died for us. It boggles my mind to think about what He did. He was God. He was innocent of any wrongdoing. He could have saved Himself. He could have punished others. He chose to suffer torture and death rather than make us suffer and die for sins we actually did commit. Jesus said that He only did what the Father would do. That means that God the Father Himself would have suffered torture and death rather than make us suffer for our sins. What's more, Jesus forgave His murderers while they were in the act of committing deicide. Like I said, it boggles the mind.

For thousands of years people had made gods in their own image, petty, jealous, and vengeful. For the first time in history (and the only one I can think of ever), a God was revealed in the New Testament who was just the opposite, a God no one could have dreamed up on his own.

It seems to me that people resist that new idea of a kind, loving, merciful God, at least to some extent. It seems as though they want a god who will exercise vengeance upon people who wrong them. Many of us want there to be a hell, a place of punishment where those who have hurt us will suffer for what they did.

Problem is, not one of us is innocent--we are all guilty of hurting others. We all deserve to suffer. Granted, there are different degrees of sin and wrong, but still we are all guilty.

Given that Jesus forgave deicide (His own murder) at the time it was being committed (they hadn't even begun to repent), it seems downright absurd for any of us to go around supposing that God might not forgive atheists, anti-Mormons who make fun of our temple ceremonies, or even apostates.

I do believe in hell, but that it is self-created, not something that God casts us into in order to wreak vengeance upon us.

Dror

[sixpacktr]

Dror,

I agree with most of your post, in that God is as merciful as he can be, but he is also just, and so he too is bound by rules.

There is a hell. There has to be. 1/3 of our HF's children are tasting that right now. There will be more (few, granted, but still there are some). Agency is the overriding force in the universe, right up there with faith, IMO, and there will be those that will bow the knee and confess Jesus is the Christ and say "but I don't want you to save me" and will be cast out. The Sons of Perdition will experience hell for eternity because they don't want the Savior to save them.

Repentance is the key. If we are repenting, we are worthy of forgiveness from our HF. If we are not, and are prideful, then we will reap the reward. God has to obey laws, just as we do, or he will cease to be God. He will save as many as want to be saved, even in the lower kingdoms. But some will refuse, and his hands will be tied.

[Annabelli]

From another view point (premortal-preexistence): Are we the third that fell with Satan. And the Heavenly Father has given the keys to his kingdom if we accept them. Otherwise, here we are and here we will be.

[sixpacktr]

From another view point (premortal-preexistence): Are we the third that fell with Satan. And the Heavenly Father has given the keys to his kingdom if we accept them. Otherwise, here we are and here we will be.

huh?