Are animals damned?

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, wenglund said:

Well, that is welcomed progress. However, are you not capable of grasping that things are somewhat defined by their relationships to other things , and that stand-alone definitions may be inadequate for full understanding?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

In order to truly grasp the gospel message one must be grounded in strong doctrinal principle. One of the paramount problems with LDS doctrine is that the definitions of gospel doctrines is not grounded upon principle. You can see this in how the definitions have seemed to change with every new generation that comes along. One of the reasons I love the Book of Mormon so much is that it is very easy to understand. All of the basic doctrinal principles are laid out and easy to understand. And, they are true. For instance, in order to be saved from the eternal hell one must repent, be baptized, and endure to the end. Thats a doctrinal principle and a fact. There is no getting around that principle. No man who is accountable can be saved from hell without baptism. But, it appears, that that principle isnt really believed anymore, that a person can still gain salvation without baptism. In order to make all that work though someone had to go through and start modifying doctrinal principle. The end result is absolute confusion. For instance, it used to be, and according to the BoM, that only one definition was needed for tge word "salvation". Now look-

https://www.lds.org/topics/salvation?lang=eng

 

Edited March 21, 2018 by Rob Osborn

[Rob Osborn]

21 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Well, now...that is the question, isn't it?

From outer darkness? From sin? From sorrow? From damnation? From being "dammed"? From the Telestial kingdom? From the Terrestrial kingdom? From Satan's wiles? From physical death? From punishment? From not being together forever with our eternal spouses? From imperfection? From stupidity?

The question was in reference to those who receive salvation. They are "saved" from damnation.

[Rob Osborn]

47 minutes ago, changed said:

I just want to convince myself that all will be made alive - I want to have hope that heaven is not a nightmare - I want to have faith that g-d is loving and powerful enough to actually wipe away - not just some, but all tears.

Thats why I believe our understanding of "heaven" is wrong, and in a paramount way.

[The Folk Prophet]

23 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The question was in reference to those who receive salvation. They are "saved" from damnation.

Damnation from what?

[Rob Osborn]

Just now, The Folk Prophet said:

Damnation from what?

The damnation of hell. There is no other damnation. All who receive salvation (it being the opposite of damnation) are saved from damnation. If one is saved they are saved from being otherwise damned. There are many scriptures that testify of this reality. No one can be both saved and damned. Its either/or. If they are saved they inherit the kingdom of God and if they arent saved then they are damned to hell. That is what Christ meant in this teaching-

32 And this is my doctrine, and it is the doctrine which the Father hath given unto me; and I bear record of the Father, and the Father beareth record of me, and the Holy Ghost beareth record of the Father and me; and I bear record that the Father commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me.

33 And whoso believeth in me, and is baptized, the same shall be saved; and they are they who shall inherit the kingdom of God.

34 And whoso believeth not in me, and is not baptized, shall be damned." (3 Nephi 11:32-34)

[person0]

9 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

salvation (it being the opposite of damnation)

I just did a quick thesaurus search and 'Salvation' and 'Damnation' are not listed as antonyms to one another:

[The Folk Prophet]

50 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

The damnation of hell.

I didn't ask what to. I asked what from.

I know you're not really capable of understanding, but I'm asking just to see where it leads. You don't seem capable of answering the question at all though. I thought I'd at least get a circular answer (as in "damnation from salvation"), because I figure that's about as far as your brain will actually stretch. But you didn't even answer the question at all. Your puerile mentality cannot seem to look beyond the idea of salvation and damnation being concrete states, as if they're the same as being black or white, positive or negative, etc.

But both of the words are not concrete states. You cannot just be "saved" or just be "damned" without a from, and the circular idea of saved from damned or damned from saved doesn't actually answer the question. It's like asking, "where did you come?" from and the answer being "from where I came". Well that doesn't really answer the question, now, does it. If someone says, "I was saved" and another asks, "saved from what", one could reasonably answer in a myriad of ways...depending on, you know...what they actually meant. I was saved from drowning. I was saved from paying taxes. I was saved from having to take a crappy job. I was saved from a burning building. Etc.

When we ask from what we are saved or from what we are damned the answer, to be of any use, has to be from or to a concrete state.

I understand that you have embraced the age-old pre-restoration Christian principles of heaven and hell as your model. So reasonably, and fairly, your answer should be saved from hell and damned from heaven, because it is nonsense to claim damnation is equal to hell, because one could, reasonably speaking, consider the idea of heaven a curse and very reasonably speak of being saved from going to heaven or damned to go spend eternity strumming a harp on a cloud (were that one's view of heaven). So at least if you answered "from heaven" it would be reasonable.

But the answers, damned to hell, as has been very well established, is incomplete, and demanding it is the singular model of truth is casting off the teachings of our living prophets. And we all know where that leads. ("we all", expect, of course, you).

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I already quoted the scripture. Do you want me to quote it again?

 

You didn't quote a scripture with the words "greater damnation" in it along with explicit indication that "greater" was only in reference to duration. So, I take it you can't produce even one scripture to support your claim.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 21, 2018 by wenglund

[Rob Osborn]

26 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I didn't ask what to. I asked what from.

I know you're not really capable of understanding, but I'm asking just to see where it leads. You don't seem capable of answering the question at all though. I thought I'd at least get a circular answer (as in "damnation from salvation"), because I figure that's about as far as your brain will actually stretch. But you didn't even answer the question at all. Your puerile mentality cannot seem to look beyond the idea of salvation and damnation being concrete states, as if they're the same as being black or white, positive or negative, etc.

But both of the words are not concrete states. You cannot just be "saved" or just be "damned" without a from, and the circular idea of saved from damned or damned from saved doesn't actually answer the question. It's like asking, "where did you come?" from and the answer being "from where I came". Well that doesn't really answer the question, now, does it. If someone says, "I was saved" and another asks, "saved from what", one could reasonably answer in a myriad of ways...depending on, you know...what they actually meant. I was saved from drowning. I was saved from paying taxes. I was saved from having to take a crappy job. I was saved from a burning building. Etc.

When we ask from what we are saved or from what we are damned the answer, to be of any use, has to be from or to a concrete state.

I understand that you have embraced the age-old pre-restoration Christian principles of heaven and hell as your model. So reasonably, and fairly, your answer should be saved from hell and damned from heaven, because it is nonsense to claim damnation is equal to hell, because one could, reasonably speaking, consider the idea of heaven a curse and very reasonably speak of being saved from going to heaven or damned to go spend eternity strumming a harp on a cloud (were that one's view of heaven). So at least if you answered "from heaven" it would be reasonable.

But the answers, damned to hell, as has been very well established, is incomplete, and demanding it is the singular model of truth is casting off the teachings of our living prophets. And we all know where that leads. ("we all", expect, of course, you).

If thats how you believe you cant even use the Book of Mormon then to state any part of your case because in the plan of salvation a person is "saved" from the damnation of hell, or in shorter terms- saved instead of damned. It really is that black and white. Read the Book of Mormon again, Im not joking.

[The Folk Prophet]

5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

It really is that black and white. 

If one chooses to cast of the living prophets and apostles then one can accept that. You have so you do. I have not and will not, so I cannot accept your preposterous premises.

5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

 Im not joking.

Read the teachings of the church as given by our living prophets and apostles again. I'm not joking.

Edited March 21, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[Traveler]

On ‎3‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 1:05 PM, changed said:

I actually believe bringing children into the world is a transgression, because spirits chose to come to earth without prior experience - without knowledge - without full agency, so in essence, bringing a child into the world can only be done through transgression, by fallen human beings.  ... a necessary step, but one that can only be done through a transgression.  

 

 

I agree that only mortal (fallen) persons that has transgressed are capable of having children – at least on this earth.  But I do not agree that having children is a transgression.  Likewise, only a person that has sinned is capable of repentance but that does not make repentance a sin.

 

The Traveler

[wenglund]

2 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

In order to truly grasp the gospel message one must be grounded in strong doctrinal principle. One of the paramount problems with LDS doctrine is that the definitions of gospel doctrines is not grounded upon principle. You can see this in how the definitions have seemed to change with every new generation that comes along. One of the reasons I love the Book of Mormon so much is that it is very easy to understand. All of the basic doctrinal principles are laid out and easy to understand. And, they are true. For instance, in order to be saved from the eternal hell one must repent, be baptized, and endure to the end. Thats a doctrinal principle and a fact. There is no getting around that principle. No man who is accountable can be saved from hell without baptism. But, it appears, that that principle isnt really believed anymore, that a person can still gain salvation without baptism. In order to make all that work though someone had to go through and start modifying doctrinal principle. The end result is absolute confusion. For instance, it used to be, and according to the BoM, that only one definition was needed for tge word "salvation". Now look-

https://www.lds.org/topics/salvation?lang=eng

 

Strong grounded gospel principles are a good thing.

Religious dogmatism and creedalism are not good. In fact, they are an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.

The difference between the two is that strong gospel principles are subject to change, particularly in terms of growth and development, and this based one of the strongest and most grounding principles of the gospel,--i.e. continued revelation and further light and knowledge.

Whereas, dogma is overly rigid and oft stuck (or "damned") in the ancient, pre-restoration past. Sound familiar?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

13 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Strong grounded gospel principles are a good thing.

Religious dogmatism and creedalism are not good. In fact, they are an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.

The difference between the two is that strong gospel principles are subject to change, particularly in terms of growth and development, and this based one of the strongest and most grounding principles of the gospel,--i.e. continued revelation and further light and knowledge.

Whereas, dogma is overly rigid and oft stuck (or "damned") in the ancient, pre-restoration past. Sound familiar?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

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.

[Traveler]

15 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Strong grounded gospel principles are a good thing.

Religious dogmatism and creedalism are not good. In fact, they are an abomination in the eyes of the Lord.

The difference between the two is that strong gospel principles are subject to change, particularly in terms of growth and development, and this based one of the strongest and most grounding principles of the gospel,--i.e. continued revelation and further light and knowledge.

Whereas, dogma is overly rigid and oft stuck (or "damned") in the ancient, pre-restoration past. Sound familiar?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

 

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

[Rob Osborn]

35 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

If one chooses to cast of the living prophets and apostles then one can accept that. You have so you do. I have not and will not, so I cannot accept your preposterous premises.

Read the teachings of the church as given by our living prophets and apostles again. I'm not joking.

So, you dont really believe tge Book of Mormon meaning its simple doctrine.

[The Folk Prophet]

2 minutes 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.

Off the top of my head I would refer you to Amulek and Zeezrom. And...as I think of it...Christ and the Pharisees and scribes. And Moses and Pharaoh. That's just off the top of my head. How do you reconcile "it harms everyone" with these examples?

Just curious.

My view: Not disputing with evil is to allow evil, which makes he/she who failed to dispute with evil culpable in that evil.

Now...granted, per your point...sometimes things are just misunderstandings. Sometimes things don't matter enough dispute (not being "evil" per se, even if they're a bit wonky). But as a broad, overreaching principle, I don't think this "no disputation" stands up when you're talking about everyone. When Christ commands His people to have no disputations it is plain to me that the objective is that all accept Christ, His will, His words, and His doctrines, and thereby we become one. It doesn't mean to roll over and show your belly at every evil idea.

[Rob Osborn]

Book of Mormon plan of salvation, in a nutshell: Repent, be baptized and be saved into the kingdom of heaven, or, disbelieve, fail to repent, and forever be damned to hell.

Thats the plain, simple plan of salvation the Book of Mormon teaches. Is it true? Absolutely. If one therefore bases all other doctrines on that fact one can know the mystery of all other points of the gospel plan of salvation. It will dispell myths such as it being possible to be saved from hell without baptism, and, that one can be damned in a degree of heaven.

[The Folk Prophet]

7 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, you dont really believe tge Book of Mormon meaning its simple doctrine.

As I've said before, and as I'll say again (actually...it's quite telling that you can't seem to keep this very basic idea in your head)...

I don't really believe YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Book of Mormon and what you believe it's simple doctrine means.

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, The Folk Prophet said:

As I've said before, and as I'll say again (actually...it's quite telling that you can't seem to keep this very basic idea in your head)...

I don't really believe YOUR INTERPRETATION of the Book of Mormon and what you believe it's simple doctrine means.

What you are really saying is you dont believe Joseph Smiths interpretation of the Book of Mormon. His understanding of damnation is identical to mine.

[The Folk Prophet]

Just now, Rob Osborn said:

What you are really saying is you dont believe Joseph Smiths interpretation of the Book of Mormon. His understanding of damnation is identical to mine.

I'm pretty sure I was clear. I'll repeat because you seem to have some inability to understand:

I don't believe YOUR interpretations.

You don't have much of a handle on what Joseph Smith actually taught. For example:

“The question is frequently asked, ‘Can we not be saved without going through with all those ordinances, etc.?’ I would answer, No, not the fullness of salvation. Jesus said, ‘There are many mansions in my Father’s house, and I will go and prepare a place for you.’ [See John 14:2.] House here named should have been translated kingdom; and any person who is exalted to the highest mansion has to abide a celestial law, and the whole law too.”

“All men who become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ will have to receive the fulness of the ordinances of his kingdom; and those who will not receive all the ordinances will come short of the fulness of that glory.”

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm pretty sure I was clear. I'll repeat because you seem to have some inability to understand:

I don't believe YOUR interpretations.

You don't have much of a handle on what Joseph Smith actually taught. For example:

“The question is frequently asked, ‘Can we not be saved without going through with all those ordinances, etc.?’ I would answer, No, not the fullness of salvation. Jesus said, ‘There are many mansions in my Father’s house, and I will go and prepare a place for you.’ [See John 14:2.] House here named should have been translated kingdom; and any person who is exalted to the highest mansion has to abide a celestial law, and the whole law too.”

“All men who become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Jesus Christ will have to receive the fulness of the ordinances of his kingdom; and those who will not receive all the ordinances will come short of the fulness of that glory.”

Okay, I dont see anywhere there where he states they will be damned.

[The Folk Prophet]

3 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Okay, I dont see anywhere there where he states they will be damned.

Who said what then?

3 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

If thats how you believe you cant even use the Book of Mormon then to state any part of your case because in the plan of salvation a person is "saved" from the damnation of hell, or in shorter terms- saved instead of damned. It really is that black and white. Read the Book of Mormon again, Im not joking.

 

[Rob Osborn]

19 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Who said what then?

 

I dont get what you are saying. I think the hangup is that you believe the Book of Mormon uses "damnation" to mean stopped in ones progression. But, that isnt correct. 

[Rob Osborn]

Lets change things up a bit because I think I know of a way this makes sense. Lets take a scripture such as-

28 Therefore, prepare ye the way of the Lord, for the time is at hand that all men shall reap a reward of their works, according to that which they have been—if they have been righteous they shall reap the salvation of their souls, according to the power and deliverance of Jesus Christ; and if they have been evil they shall reap the damnation of their souls, according to the power and captivation of the devil. (Alma 9:28)

Lets substitute the word "damnation" with "condemnation" here. Condemnation is defined as- 

"The action of condemning someone to a punishment; sentencing." 

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/condemnation

Does this make more sense? We could thus read the pertinent part as-

if they have been righteous they shall reap the salvation of their souls, according to the power and deliverance of Jesus Christ; and if they have been evil they shall reap the condemnation of their souls, according to the power and captivation of the devil.

My point here is to show that damnation carries no amount, even in the slightest of degrees, a reward. God does not thus condemn any soul to a reward in heaven.

Put another way, no person, who is saved from hell is rewarded with a condemnation. A person is justified by law. Any person going to heaven thus merits their reward based on ibedience to that law. They cannot be condemned by tgat law as tgey are justified by that law. Neither is the law of rewards in heaven any measure of sentencing to punishment.

Edited March 22, 2018 by Rob Osborn

[The Folk Prophet]

44 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I dont get what you are saying. I think the hangup is that you believe the Book of Mormon uses "damnation" to mean stopped in ones progression. But, that isnt correct. 

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:

27 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

God does not thus condemn any soul to a reward in heaven.

Unless its a "lesser" reward with partial condemnation. 

Edited March 22, 2018 by The Folk Prophet