Are animals damned?

[Rob Osborn]

11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Wow.

I keep giving your ability to comprehend things the benefit of the doubt that, you know, you can. Of course there's been no evidence whatsoever of this, so I'm not sure why I keep giving you the benefit of the doubt.

I assure you, I am not the one with the hang-up here.

Let's me clarity as I would were I speaking to a child.

You said that the Joseph Smith quote didn't talk about damnation. That is right. It talked about salvation. You also said that it is black and white that salvation was from "damnation". We are saved from damnation. In your view these are fully opposite, door number one and door number two.

Do you follow?

Therefore (is that too big a word?)...um..... That means that if Joseph Smith believed that there was a fulness (I know that's a weird spelling, but it's the same as fullness) of salvation, clearly implying that there were varying degrees of salvation, that there are, by your own admission that damnation is in opposition to salvation, varying degrees of damnation.

Dang...I got too complicated. I'll try again.

That means that when you said that Joseph Smith's understanding of damnation was the same as yours that you are wrong. Because Joseph believed that there are many levels of salvation. And you do not. And the fact that you have freely admitted...um...you have said that damnation is the opposite of salvation means that Joseph knew that there are many levels of damnation. That is what we have been saying and what we believe. What you have been saying and what you believe is not what Joseph believed. It is clearly not the way Joseph looked at salvation and damnation. Or in other words, if there is a fulness of salvation then there is also a partial salvation. So either you believe there can be a partial salvation without there being a partial damnation or your view of salvation and damnation is not what Joseph taught.

Still too complicated?

You claim Joseph understood salvation and damnation like you do which looks like this:

But Joseph clearly explains it like this:

Unless its a "lesser" reward with partial condemnation. 

(Let me give you a little hint about dialogue before we proceed. Its not very gentleman like to be condescending)

I will ask one question- Do you believe Joseph Smith ever used "damnation" to describe a reward in heaven?

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

(Let me give you a little hint about dialogue before we proceed. Its not very gentleman like to be condescending)

If you don't need to be talked to like a child then show me you can understand better than one.

5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I will ask one question- Do you believe Joseph Smith ever used "damnation" to describe a reward in heaven?

Let me ask you a question: Are you capable of understanding that one can be both rewarded and condemned by the same action, and that when speaking of the reward one would call it a reward and when speaking of the condemnation one would call it condemnation and both are true?

[Rob Osborn]

17 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If you don't need to be talked to like a child then show me you can understand better than one.

Let me ask you a question: Are you capable of understanding that one can be both rewarded and condemned by the same action, and that when speaking of the reward one would call it a reward and when speaking of the condemnation one would call it condemnation and both are true?

You didnt answer the question. Do you believe Joseph Smith ever used the word "damnation" to describe a reward in heaven? (I'M JUST LOOKING FOR A SIMPLE YES OR NO ANSWER)

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

You didnt answer the question. Do you believe Joseph Smith ever used the word "damnation" to describe a reward in heaven? (I'M JUST LOOKING FOR A SIMPLE YES OR NO ANSWER)

Are you not smart enough to glean both the answer and the explanation for the answer from the question I asked?

[Rob Osborn]

3 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Are you not smart enough to glean both the answer and the explanation for the answer from the question I asked?

Oh, Im plenty smart. Im trying to get you to admit the truth that Joseph Smith never specifically used the word damnation in speaking of a reward of heaven. Im tryingvto show you, help you understand that regardless of how Joseph Smith viewed the various rewards or degrees of glory, he never, not once, ever used "damnation/damned" to describe any of those rewards or degrees of glory in heaven. So, I ask- can you show me, anywhere, where Joseph Smith changed his understanding of damnation, which in his day and understanding, always meant condemnation to hell?

[The Folk Prophet]

7 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Oh, Im plenty smart. Im trying to get you to admit the truth that Joseph Smith never specifically used the word damnation in speaking of a reward of heaven. Im tryingvto show you, help you understand that regardless of how Joseph Smith viewed the various rewards or degrees of glory, he never, not once, ever used "damnation/damned" to describe any of those rewards or degrees of glory in heaven. So, I ask- can you show me, anywhere, where Joseph Smith changed his understanding of damnation, which in his day and understanding, always meant condemnation to hell?

Let's just say, for the sake of moving past it, that I entirely acquiesce to the idea that damnation has no varying degrees, and that we went with the full on Rob Osborn's one-and-only definition of the word damnation.

Where does that get us? You still reject the plan of salvation as taught in the church. What's in a word? So we call outer darkness "damnation and hell" and absolutely nothing else. Okay. Done. Acquiesced.

So...what? The degrees of glory other than the Celestial still stop us from progressing. There are still varying degrees of salvation. There is still only one state of a fulness of salvation and thereby a fulness of joy. There is still only one exalted, and then everything else...no matter how you "name" them. Of course you reject all this too. Don't you?

What are you trying to get at by proving your definition of "damnation".

Edited March 22, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[Rob Osborn]

2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Let's just say, for the sake of moving past it, that I entirely acquiesce to the idea that damnation has no varying degrees, and that we went with the full on Rob Osborn's one-and-only definition of the word damnation.

Where does that get us? You still reject the plan of salvation as taught in the church. What's in a word? So we call outer darkness "damnation and hell" and absolutely nothing else. Okay. Done. Acquiesced.

So...what? The degrees of glory other than the Celestial still stop us from progressing. There are still varying degrees of salvation. There is still only one state of a fulness of salvation and thereby a fulness of joy. There is still only one exalted and everything else...no matter how you "name" them. Of course you reject all this too. Don't you?

What are you trying to get at by proving your definition of "damnation".

Well, its certainly not "my definition" of damnation. Its the standard definition thats been in place for hundreds of years. Im only trying to stand in defense of it because the entirety of Jesus Christs gospel, its mysteries, etc, hinge off of correctly defining and understanding certain specific words used in the doctrine of the plan of salvation. If you get those few key words wrong one will entirely miss the doctrine of Jesus Christ and the plan of salvation. Right now, in our church, we have muddled things up quite a bit. This has led to misunderstanding doctrine, confusion, and even teaching false doctrines.

Rather than directly trying to show where our view of heaven and the three worlds of glory are wrong, and patently so, perhaps if we can go back to the basic foundational principles it will be easier for people to go "ah ha, I see it now, yes, that teaching we taught and understood was wrong that we thought was correct"

I've been researching this, writing papers, making charts, etc, for almost twenty years just to show where those small little details in our principles of understanding have created a series of entire cracks that is damaging the whole structure. It surprises most people that just having the correct understanding of a few simple words and terms like- salvation, damnation, spiritual death, second death, eternal life can and do change the entire paradigm understanding of the gospel and brings us closer to aligning with the plan of salvation as taught in the temple. Its truth in principle I am after. I know that with a firm set of principles, correct principles, in place, our doctrine of salvation and progression is beautiful and glorifying.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, its certainly not "my definition" of damnation. Its the standard definition thats been in place for hundreds of years. Im only trying to stand in defense of it because the entirety of Jesus Christs gospel, its mysteries, etc, hinge off of correctly defining and understanding certain specific words used in the doctrine of the plan of salvation. If you get those few key words wrong one will entirely miss the doctrine of Jesus Christ and the plan of salvation. Right now, in our church, we have muddled things up quite a bit. This has led to misunderstanding doctrine, confusion, and even teaching false doctrines.

Rather than directly trying to show where our view of heaven and the three worlds of glory are wrong, and patently so, perhaps if we can go back to the basic foundational principles it will be easier for people to go "ah ha, I see it now, yes, that teaching we taught and understood was wrong that we thought was correct"

I've been researching this, writing papers, making charts, etc, for almost twenty years just to show where those small little details in our principles of understanding have created a series of entire cracks that is damaging the whole structure. It surprises most people that just having the correct understanding of a few simple words and terms like- salvation, damnation, spiritual death, second death, eternal life can and do change the entire paradigm understanding of the gospel and brings us closer to aligning with the plan of salvation as taught in the temple. Its truth in principle I am after. I know that with a firm set of principles, correct principles, in place, our doctrine of salvation and progression is beautiful and glorifying.

 Get to your point. I already know that you believe your understanding of words is better than everyone else's. 

[Crash]

9 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, its certainly not "my definition" of damnation. Its the standard definition thats been in place for hundreds of years. Im only trying to stand in defense of it because the entirety of Jesus Christs gospel, its mysteries, etc, hinge off of correctly defining and understanding certain specific words used in the doctrine of the plan of salvation. If you get those few key words wrong one will entirely miss the doctrine of Jesus Christ and the plan of salvation. Right now, in our church, we have muddled things up quite a bit. This has led to misunderstanding doctrine, confusion, and even teaching false doctrines.

Rather than directly trying to show where our view of heaven and the three worlds of glory are wrong, and patently so, perhaps if we can go back to the basic foundational principles it will be easier for people to go "ah ha, I see it now, yes, that teaching we taught and understood was wrong that we thought was correct"

I've been researching this, writing papers, making charts, etc, for almost twenty years just to show where those small little details in our principles of understanding have created a series of entire cracks that is damaging the whole structure. It surprises most people that just having the correct understanding of a few simple words and terms like- salvation, damnation, spiritual death, second death, eternal life can and do change the entire paradigm understanding of the gospel and brings us closer to aligning with the plan of salvation as taught in the temple. Its truth in principle I am after. I know that with a firm set of principles, correct principles, in place, our doctrine of salvation and progression is beautiful and glorifying.

I am perplexed by these statements. Are the revelations and teachings of the latter-day prophets and apostles muddled up? Does the research, papers and charts on one person who is not ordained of God to receive revelations of doctrine in the last days trump those of His servants, the prophets? Are the false doctrines, cracks and false teachings of the degrees of glory (by Christ, Himself) in the Doctrine and Covenants being taught by latter-day prophets and apostles? Wherein are the degrees of glory wrongly taught in the church?

[Rob Osborn]

31 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

 Get to your point. I already know that you believe your understanding of words is better than everyone else's. 

Well, obviously this thread, and why it was started in the first place, is a direct result of a false understanding- "are animals damned?" It just shows how not having the correct understanding of key words leads to silly and confusing muddled doctrine. It makes us as LDS look bad too.

[Rob Osborn]

25 minutes ago, Crash said:

I am perplexed by these statements. Are the revelations and teachings of the latter-day prophets and apostles muddled up? Does the research, papers and charts on one person who is not ordained of God to receive revelations of doctrine in the last days trump those of His servants, the prophets? Are the false doctrines, cracks and false teachings of the degrees of glory (by Christ, Himself) in the Doctrine and Covenants being taught by latter-day prophets and apostles? Wherein are the degrees of glory wrongly taught in the church?

In general, yes, our doctrine is muddled to some degree (just look at the opening question of this topic for instance). We cant even properly define key words like "damnation" as is found in both the New Testament and Book of Mormon. Our doctrine concerning the three worlds of glory is not consistant with either the New Testament or Book of Mormon. Almost in its entirety, its because we have misunderstood certain key words and doctrines already revealed. Im not eevealing anything new, I do not have that right in the church to do such. However, that does not mean I cannot find discrepencies in our doctrine and point them out.

The three degrees of glory is an unfinished doctrine in our church. We actually have been revealed the true plan, we just arent tgere yet. We are stuck in a dogmatic cycle not understanding either tge Book of Mormon nor the temple. Both the temple and BoM compliment each other quite well. Where the misunderstanding is is found in our manual teaching of the three worlds of glory outside the temple versus the three worlds of glory as taught within the temple. They are not the same plan at all. Only when one properly understands the Book of Mormon and New Testament does the temple teaching align and showers forth the truth of how the three worlds of glory are to be understood. The Lord has already revealed the truth, we as a body in the church just havent connected the dots properly yet.

[wenglund]

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, you must believe the Book of Mormon is dogma. No one has changed its meaning. It still stands as the same witness with its message the same for both Joseph Smiths day and ours. It appears however we have, within our church, created a certain dogmatic approach to gospel understanding. Its so bad we dont even like to bring up Book of Mormon passages without changing its meaning to fit that dogmatism we have created.

Nope. You are more than a little confused.

While the recorded words of the Book of Mormon will not change over time, the book, itself, is a part of a dynamic cannon of scripture, and is a critical link in a long series of ongoing revelation and doctrinal development. There are a number of things revealed in the Book of Mormon that were new doctrine in its day..

For something to be dogmatic would necessitate being highly resistant to developmental change and modern revelation in its own day--you know, kind of like what we see coming from you.

Thanks, -=Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

8 hours ago, Traveler said:

 

I think one of the big problems we have in a forum like this – as well as discussions about religious things is that regardless of what the spirit has make known to any of us – we can only express our opinions to whatever truth we think we know and understand to others.  These expressions are interpreted by others as they wish and want and may or may not have that much to do with what we tried to express in the first place.   I guess what I am trying to say is that anyone that wants to argue a point and create disputations can do so – But it is my opinion that disputations are a tool of the devil and not the spirit of G-d.  The reason that disputations are such an effective tool is that it does not matter who starts it – it harms everybody that engages.

 

The Traveler

I think there is a difference between disputations and reproving betimes.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[person0]

6 minutes ago, wenglund said:

betimes

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/betime

No retort intended, just a link for contextual informational purposes for anyone else reading.

Edited March 22, 2018 by person0

[The Folk Prophet]

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, obviously this thread, and why it was started in the first place, is a direct result of a false understanding- "are animals damned?" It just shows how not having the correct understanding of key words leads to silly and confusing muddled doctrine. It makes us as LDS look bad too.

Nonsense. You're point is to bait people into agreeing to your definition of words so you can prove that the living prophets and apostles are wrong, to tear down the church as it stands and to make it into your church where everyone gets in line with your doctrinal views.

[Rob Osborn]

7 hours ago, wenglund said:

Nope. You are more than a little confused.

While the recorded words of the Book of Mormon will not change over time, the book, itself, is a part of a dynamic cannon of scripture, and is a critical link in a long series of ongoing revelation and doctrinal development. There are a number of things revealed in the Book of Mormon that were new doctrine in its day..

For something to be dogmatic would necessitate being highly resistant to developmental change and modern revelation in its own day--you know, kind of like what we see coming from you.

Thanks, -=Wade Englund-

Hum...how long has the temple doctrine been revealed concerning the plan of salvation? It is supposed to be the most current understanding, and most correct doctrine we have concerning the plan of salvation. But, why dont we teach that plan? Why do the two plans clash? I dont care what you want to call it but that is the very definition of dogmatism. The endowment was supposed to streamline and bring us up to date with the plan. We are stuck though in an old paradigm we cant let go of. Thats dogmatism.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Nonsense. You're point is to bait people into agreeing to your definition of words so you can prove that the living prophets and apostles are wrong, to tear down the church as it stands and to make it into your church where everyone gets in line with your doctrinal views.

Nonsense. Thats a ridiculous unwarranted claim. My hope is that we awaken and come to our senses and truly understand the plan of salvation because what we have is highly contradictive.

[The Folk Prophet]

4 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Nonsense.

I don't think you understand the meaning of this word.

3 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

ridiculous

Likewise.

3 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

unwarranted

And likewise.

8 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Hum...how long has the temple doctrine been revealed concerning the plan of salvation? It is supposed to be the most current understanding, and most correct doctrine we have concerning the plan of salvation. But, why dont we teach that plan? 

We don't teach your twisted interpretation of it.

9 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Why do the two plans clash? 

They do not. You are simply incapable of understanding this.

12 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I dont care what you want to call it but that is the very definition of dogmatism. 

You being too blind or unintelligent to see and understand the plain evidence given doesn't have any bearing on reality. You throwing out "dogma" accusations is about as useful as leftists throwing out "bigot" accusations because they don't have an actual argument based on actual evidence.

It's a nice tactic. But it's a logical fallacy. Your accusation holds no water.

17 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The endowment was supposed to streamline and bring us up to date with the plan. We are stuck though in an old paradigm we cant let go of. Thats dogmatism.

I find it moderately humorous that you're claiming we're stuck in an old paradigm while you keep arguing that the "standard definition thats been in place for hundreds of years" for damnation must be accepted.

[anatess2]

41 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Hum...how long has the temple doctrine been revealed concerning the plan of salvation? It is supposed to be the most current understanding, and most correct doctrine we have concerning the plan of salvation. But, why dont we teach that plan? Why do the two plans clash? 

They do not.

And that's the end of that discussion.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I don't think you understand the meaning of this word.

Likewise.

And likewise.

We don't teach your twisted interpretation of it.

They do not. You are simply incapable of understanding this.

You being too blind or unintelligent to see and understand the plain evidence given doesn't have any bearing on reality. You throwing out "dogma" accusations is about as useful as leftists throwing out "bigot" accusations because they don't have an actual argument based on actual evidence.

It's a nice tactic. But it's a logical fallacy. Your accusation holds no water.

I find it moderately humorous that you're claiming we're stuck in an old paradigm while you keep arguing that the "standard definition thats been in place for hundreds of years" for damnation must be accepted.

Well, we all see only what we are willing to see. And we wonder why Gods mysteries remain.

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

They do not.

And that's the end of that discussion.

Well, they actually do. Not necessarily in a bad sense but it does create questions.

[anatess2]

22 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, they actually do. Not necessarily in a bad sense but it does create questions.

That's your interpretation.

[wenglund]

10 hours ago, person0 said:

http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/betime

No retort intended, just a link for contextual informational purposes for anyone else reading.

Can you point me to one scripture that gives that definition of "betimes?"

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 22, 2018 by wenglund

[The Folk Prophet]

13 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

And we wonder why Gods mysteries remain.

I don't wonder any such thing.

14 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Well, we all see only what we are willing to see. 

What you see is that our living prophets and apostles are wrong and misguided and misguiding us, and that you are smarter than they are and have figured out things they haven't been able to.

We all see what we are willing to see indeed...even if what we are seeing is a fabrication stemming from our own hubris rather than being willing to humble ourselves and accept that the Lord leads His church and reveals His truths through the living prophets and apostles He has chosen to lead this work and guide us in our paths to find that truth.

You demand that our willingness to humble ourselves and accept the teachings of the church, and to even perhaps accept alternate non-traditional meanings of words, is dogmatic. Well I'll go with humbly "dogmatic" over I'm-smarter-than-the-prophets pride any day of the week.

Your intelligence level has no bearing whatsoever on your ability to find and know eternal truths. None. Only how you use the intelligence given you matters -- and the use of such gifts in order to truly lead us to further light and knowledge is entirely about submission to God's will, God's ways, and obedience to His ordinances and principles -- principles which include listening to and heeding the words and council of those God has anointed to be our teachers. That fact that you have some level of physical intelligence in mortality (relatively) has no effect on your ability to get greater light and knowledge.

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

Hum...how long has the temple doctrine been revealed concerning the plan of salvation? It is supposed to be the most current understanding, and most correct doctrine we have concerning the plan of salvation. But, why dont we teach that plan? Why do the two plans clash? I dont care what you want to call it but that is the very definition of dogmatism. The endowment was supposed to streamline and bring us up to date with the plan. We are stuck though in an old paradigm we cant let go of. Thats dogmatism.

The temple endowment has undergone multiple changes since it was first revealed, as also the garment. Unlike you, the Church continues to gain new light and knowledge about the new and everlasting.covenant. Unlike you, the church continues to PROGRESS in its understanding of spiritual things, and this in accordance with the Plan of PROGRESSION. In other words, the church is not damned in its grasp of spiritual truths, but progressing.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 22, 2018 by wenglund