Are animals damned?

[The Folk Prophet]

7 minutes ago, Traveler said:

 I believe that the commandment to love others as ourselves is a commandment to get along with idiots. 

I think this is probably the core of where we disagree. Well...maybe. I mean it depends, obviously, on what one means by "idiots". Someone who just isn't that intelligent is different than someone who is going about intentionally trying to tear down the gospel in one manner or another. "Idiots" isn't really a good term to use. Those who battle against right. I don't mean to say that in every case thrashing them is the right choice, though to your earlier point, I am significantly more likely to go there online with pseudo-strangers than in person. Sometimes when I choose to do so I believe it is right. I know it can be sometimes (in principle). But I'm not talking just about being rude to someone who's less intelligent. I do that too sometimes. Shame on me in those cases. When someone is working to hurt the church or the gospel or otherwise though --- they are working against what it good, right, and true, whether intentionally or not. In those cases, the means whereby I tend to judge myself is as follows: -- if I am angry and prideful and have the twisting in my gut as I type then I'm likely in the wrong every time. When I am calm, rational, and consciously choosing to respond as I do by way of battle for the right -- well.... I don't know that proves anything, but I know that my intentions are good and right, and if my means are imperfect, I learn day by day as I strive to become more the man the Lord would have me be. But I am not convinced by all the sappy, hippy, can't-we-all-just-get-along-ness that's so trendy now-a-days. Some battles need to be fought or they are lost for the failure to fight...and battle is bloody sometimes.

I have no theoretical qualms with someone calling me out on my bad behavior. Others have done it. Sometimes I respond poorly to it. Sometimes I change my attitude and soften my approach. Sometimes I harden my approach and believe it to be the right course. I could be mistaken in all these cases. But what I do not accept is some blanket idea that any time I'm in a fight (and not getting along with some...um...."idiot"...who's trying to tear down the church) it's because I'm not following Jesus.

As I said before, thank you for the reminder. I do tend to go at it harsher than I should or want to with many subjects/principles, etc. That is not good. But when I choose to stand up and fight to defend the church or the gospel, I CHOOSE to, by way of honor, right, duty, integrity, and at the great risk of being despised, scorned, mocked, disrespected, etc.

I know very well what many people think of me. I don't like being thought of that way. But I cannot lay down because of what others think of me. I stand for what I know to be right and true and good.

[Rob Osborn]

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

My lack of respect is for your view. From what else I know of you from other posts, you are a good man, and mostly supportive of gospel principles and righteousness. Your view on this matter is egregious and will lead to harm and despair for you and for any others you persuade because it centers on the debased premise that the church and the living prophets and apostles are wrong -- at best confused and at worst bumbling nincompoops. You stand on your virtual Rameumpton proclaiming how you fly while everyone else is lost in the mud, mocking and showing scorn for the concepts of humility and the need to trust in and follow our living prophets' and apostles' teachings and guidance. I make no apology for my approach to cutting that view down and showing its evil nature. It is abhorrent. My tone and condescension towards that view is intentional. Your view qualifies for it. I am boldly calling out an evil view -- the view that we should abandon the teachings of our church in favor of our own personal interpretations of the scriptures. My purpose is not to convince you. You, on this matter, are a stubborn, blind, foolish lost cause, and will remain so until you accept the importance, right, power, authority and means whereby the Lord delivers His truth through our living prophets and apostles. But as for others who might be swayed by the deceptive and pleasing-to-the-carnal mind idea that their own intelligence and ability to work out matters is superior to the teachings of our living prophets and apostles that you are promoting -- there is, perhaps, some hope for them.

Im not sure I want to even respond but in honest humility I must defend myself from your attacks. Its incredibly difficult to dialogue with someone such as yourself who is constantly of a condescending nature towards others. Its completely not Christ-like at all. Nevertheless...

I fully support the prophets and apostles, and all other leaders. In this one instance, that of the plan of salvation, I firmly believe that my conclusions are correct. I have humbly sought for the truth for many years. In this process I have come to have a greater and deeper appreciation for the prophets, especially Joseph Smith! I stand firmly with Joseph Smith. Now, that doesnt mean that his conclusions and mine on this one topic make us enemies or anything of the like. We all are after the truth.

At no time have I ever preached that I have received revelation verifying the truth of my research. In fact, I have repeated over and over that is the right of the prophets. Nevertheless, man himself is not prevented from using his own intellect to study things out in his mind and find the truth for himself. The distinction here is that we all can find the truth, wherever it is. What we cant do is declare upon the church what is truth, what should be taught, etc. We do have the right though to take our findings and present them to our leaders for confirmation. 

Our discussion here is one that hopefully leads to others seeking the truth also, if they are willing to see and hear.

At no time have I preached to others to divide themselves from the church or prophets to lead men astray as you claim. You dont know me nor my true character. You havent listened to me nor allowed yourself to be open to understanding. As soon as you see anything I disagree with from the church you automatically go into a crazy mode and start hammering on me and spreading lies about me and my intent. You refuse to hear or see the logic of my points. I have tried to show you where the problems exist from a principled standpoint but your blinders are on and its impossible for you to want to see or hear.

I may not be the best communicator in writing but every perdon whom I have physically discussed this topic with fully agrees with me. Perhaps my "voice" carries tge right conviction in it, I dont know. What I do know, and its personal (my Patriarchal blessing), is that it states that at a certain time in the future I will take my research and findings to the church leaders and receive confirmation from them which is their right to do. Now, perhaps my approach here is wrong and I shouls keep more of these things to myself but there is no denying that my patriarchal blessing states I have the gift to find these gospel truths out using my own mind. It is not my objective to drive anyone from the church or from truth. 

[estradling75]

Its very simple Rob...

What you teach does not equal what the Prophets of God have taught.  You agree with this.

It does not matter how sincere you are or how convinced you are that you are right.  You present a choice between following your teaching or following the Prophets you lose...  Every single time.  End of Line.

 

 

[Rob Osborn]

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:

Its very simple Rob...

What you teach does not equal what the Prophets of God have taught.  You agree with this.

It does not matter how sincere you are or how convinced you are that you are right.  You present a choice between following your teaching or following the Prophets you lose...  Every single time.  End of Line.

 

 

Okay, lets see. Is this teaching I have true or false-

All men must repent and be baptized and become purified or else they must be cast into outer darkness with the devil and his angels?

[estradling75]

21 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Okay, lets see. Is this teaching I have true or false-

All men must repent and be baptized and become purified or else they must be cast into outer darkness with the devil and his angels?

You have repeatably taught... that the Prophets of God have gotten it wrong and only you are "smart" enough to see the truth.  And that everyone (including the prophets) down in the muck except you.  You are wrong.  The Prophets of God are not in the muck, you are, and sure I am too.  That is why I am looking to them to help me out.  You should too.

And I am not going to answer a loaded question knowing that you only accept your definition of terms.

[Rob Osborn]

15 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

You have repeatably taught... that the Prophets of God have gotten it wrong and only you are "smart" enough to see the truth.  And that everyone (including the prophets) down in the muck except you.  You are wrong.  The Prophets of God are not in the muck, you are, and sure I am too.  That is why I am looking to them to help me out.  You should too.

And I am not going to answer a loaded question knowing that you only accept your definition of terms.

You made the claim I teach against what prophets have taught therefore I gave an example. If you want to retract your statement thats fine but if you insist I teach false doctrines then you are obligated to answer.

[Guest]

So, mosquitoes will be saved?  I don't know if I want to go to heaven if there are mosquitoes there.  That sounds like hell to me.

Anti-Mormon women have polygamy.  I've got mosquitoes.

[Colirio]

7 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

You made the claim I teach against what prophets have taught therefore I gave an example. If you want to retract your statement thats fine but if you insist I teach false doctrines then you are obligated to answer.

 

He told you exactly what you have taught that is false. 

 

What you gave was an obvious attempt at misdirection. 

[estradling75]

8 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

You made the claim I teach against what prophets have taught therefore I gave an example. If you want to retract your statement thats fine but if you insist I teach false doctrines then you are obligated to answer.

The Church clearly teaches that in Heaven there are Three Kingdoms or Degrees of Glory.  This is the teaching you claim is wrong.  This is were you say that prophets are in the muck.  This is where you are clearly and profoundly wrong.  The fact that you dishonesty try to represent your claims as something else is simply another reason not to try to answer your loaded questions.

[Rob Osborn]

11 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

The Church clearly teaches that in Heaven there are Three Kingdoms or Degrees of Glory.  This is the teaching you claim is wrong.  This is were you say that prophets are in the muck.  This is where you are clearly and profoundly wrong.  The fact that you dishonesty try to represent your claims as something else is simply another reason not to try to answer your loaded questions.

I gave the specific question because most of the back and forth in this dialogue has dealt specifically with the meaning of damnation and the saved/ damned dichotomy. If you dont want to answer the question thats fine but realize that all of the principles I put forth to back the claims I make are correct according to the revealed word of God through his holy prophets as found in scripture. 

I know it may sound outlandish from a Mormon perspective that I dont believe in a three "world" heaven but I do believe in the three glories in heaven, just that my belief is those glories are on one world, not three. 

One of the principles of truth I have been trying to show forth on this thread is that in order to be saved from the eternal hell one must repent and be baptized. Our scriptures teach the truth in that principle and law. Repentance without baptism means nothing. Baptism is the gateway into accessing salvation from hell. One must enter into that gate if he has hope of being saved from hell.

In no thing am I incorrect with that teaching. It wasnt a loaded question at all. It just seems that no one really is willing to see the logic and truth I am bading my beliefs from. Its like your refusal to answer my one simple question. I feel you honestly are apprehensive about answering because you know the principles (such as baptism being an essential ordinance to be saved) I am speaking about are correct on the one hand but on the other knowing that there is some fuzzieness that does exist in our doctrine. To be safe you choose not to answer because in answering it nay open the door to showing what I am getting at has some truth. If I am wrong please tell me.

[estradling75]

18 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I gave the specific question because most of the back and forth in this dialogue has dealt specifically with the meaning of damnation and the saved/ damned dichotomy. If you dont want to answer the question thats fine but realize that all of the principles I put forth to back the claims I make are correct according to the revealed word of God through his holy prophets as found in scripture. 

I know it may sound outlandish from a Mormon perspective that I dont believe in a three "world" heaven but I do believe in the three glories in heaven, just that my belief is those glories are on one world, not three. 

One of the principles of truth I have been trying to show forth on this thread is that in order to be saved from the eternal hell one must repent and be baptized. Our scriptures teach the truth in that principle and law. Repentance without baptism means nothing. Baptism is the gateway into accessing salvation from hell. One must enter into that gate if he has hope of being saved from hell.

In no thing am I incorrect with that teaching. It wasnt a loaded question at all. It just seems that no one really is willing to see the logic and truth I am bading my beliefs from. Its like your refusal to answer my one simple question. I feel you honestly are apprehensive about answering because you know the principles (such as baptism being an essential ordinance to be saved) I am speaking about are correct on the one hand but on the other knowing that there is some fuzzieness that does exist in our doctrine. To be safe you choose not to answer because in answering it nay open the door to showing what I am getting at has some truth. If I am wrong please tell me.

You are wrong.  I have no desire to engage you because you have shown absolute no willingness to consider that anyone else might have studied, pondered and prayed, if they in anyway disagree with you. And I am (and I understand many others are too) tired of pounding my head against the wall of your obtuseness in the matter.

[Rob Osborn]

4 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

You are wrong.  I have no desire to engage you because you have shown absolute no willingness to consider that anyone else might have studied, pondered and prayed, if they in anyway disagree with you. And I am (and I understand many others are too) tired of pounding my head against the wall of your obtuseness in the matter.

So, thats how it is eh? You want to tell me how wrong I am but refuse to engage in conversation when I ask why? Its pretty simple- is baptism a requirement to be saved from hell eternally? Be honest, if I am wrong show me where.

[estradling75]

5 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, thats how it is eh? You want to tell me how wrong I am but refuse to engage in conversation when I ask why? Its pretty simple- is baptism a requirement to be saved from hell eternally? Be honest, if I am wrong show me where.

I have told you were you were wrong... but you refuse to see it.  And this is as simple as I can say it.  When ever you make the claim that the Prophets of God are Wrong (about a matter of church doctrine) you are wrong.  And I (and just about everyone else on this forum) will choose to follow and believe God's chosen Leaders.  I can't make it any clearer then that.

But since that is not want you want to hear I fully expect for you to continue your obtuseness.  So I am done

[anatess2]

22 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, thats how it is eh? You want to tell me how wrong I am but refuse to engage in conversation when I ask why? Its pretty simple- is baptism a requirement to be saved from hell eternally? Be honest, if I am wrong show me where.

Rob, there's nothing wrong with this statement.  The issue does not lie in this simple gospel principle.  The issue lies in the myopic view of the word Damned in concert with the word Saved.  That's why the conversation is going in circles because we're coming from two different nuanced usages of the word.  And the nuanced difference stems from our two different understanding of the degrees of glory.  This is what @estradling75 is referring to when he says you believe the prophets are wrong.  In our humble opinion, we believe your interpretation of the teaching in the temple is wrong because it is not what the prophets teach.

 And that's why I told you, this is not going to get resolved because we can't agree on the underlying principle, so the best route is to agree to disagree.

Edited March 29, 2018 by anatess2

[Rob Osborn]

22 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I have told you were you were wrong... but you refuse to see it.  And this is as simple as I can say it.  When ever you make the claim that the Prophets of God are Wrong (about a matter of church doctrine) you are wrong.  And I (and just about everyone else on this forum) will choose to follow and believe God's chosen Leaders.  I can't make it any clearer then that.

But since that is not want you want to hear I fully expect for you to continue your obtuseness.  So I am done

So, lets say one prophet says repentance and baptism is required to be saved from hell and another prophet says it is not a requirement, who is right?

[Rob Osborn]

16 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Rob, there's nothing wrong with this statement.  The issue does not lie in this simple gospel principle.  The issue lies in the myopic view of the word Damned in concert with the word Saved.  That's why the conversation is going in circles because we're coming from two different nuanced usages of the word.  And the nuanced difference stems from our two different understanding of the degrees of glory.  This is what @estradling75 is referring to when he says you believe the prophets are wrong.  In our humble opinion, we believe your interpretation of the teaching in the temple is wrong because it is not what the prophets teach.

 And that's why I told you, this is not going to get resolved because we can't agree on the underlying principle, so the best route is to agree to disagree.

This is where I see the issue though. I cant find anywhere in the scriptures where God damns those he saves. I cant find anywhere that states the kingdoms of glory are damnation. Nuances or not, it comes right down to understanding the scriptures in their plain text. I mean- if we are going to define a word like "damnatiin" with a certain unique definition then it must be based on sound logic and reasoning. But, it just doesnt qualify. To come to the conclusion that levels of glory in heaven are damnation need some explaining. The reason I keep bringing up the requirement of baptism as essential to salvation from hell is that the scriptures are very plain in that if one is baptized they are saved from damnation. So, if everyone Christ saves has to repent and be baptized, after they are cleansed they cannot be damned according to scripture. There is no scripture that thus states a person who Christ saves from hell is damned. Therefore, damnation, according to our religion, cannot possibly qualify as requiring the definition we give it as it isnt founded upon Christs teachings.

So, if this is in error, as I suspect it is, shouldnt we at least acknowledge that there is a discrepency?

[anatess2]

13 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

So, lets say one prophet says repentance and baptism is required to be saved from hell and another prophet says it is not a requirement, who is right?

Both are right.

It might be that our understanding of what the prophet actually said is wrong.

[estradling75]

20 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Rob, there's nothing wrong with this statement.  The issue does not lie in this simple gospel principle.  The issue lies in the myopic view of the word Damned in concert with the word Saved.  That's why the conversation is going in circles because we're coming from two different nuanced usages of the word.  And the nuanced difference stems from our two different understanding of the degrees of glory.  This is what @estradling75 is referring to when he says you believe the prophets are wrong.  In our humble opinion, we believe your interpretation of the teaching in the temple is wrong because it is not what the prophets teach.

 And that's why I told you, this is not going to get resolved because we can't agree on the underlying principle, so the best route is to agree to disagree.

Exactly...  For example the Prophets and scriptures are very clear that baptism is a requirement.  So much so that many people baptize infant children.  In the Book of Mormon this caused the prophet Mormon to blow a gasket and preach that was not a requirement for little children.  So prophets say that it is required and prophets say that it is not, and they are ALL right but you have to accept and understand the nuances otherwise you'd think they are conflicting.

Same idea when a church leader says, "Salvation without Exaltation is Damnation"  If you do not understand the nuances of the words the phrase seems oxymoronic

[Rob Osborn]

1 minute ago, estradling75 said:

Exactly...  For example the Prophets and scriptures are very clear that baptism is a requirement.  So much so that many people baptize infant children.  In the Book of Mormon this caused the prophet Mormon to blow a gasket and preach that was not a requirement for little children.  So prophets say that it is required and prophets say that it is not, and they are ALL right but you have to accept and understand the nuances otherwise you'd think they are conflicting.

Same idea when a church leader says, "Salvation without Exaltation is Damnation"  If you do not understand the nuances of the words the phrase seems oxymoronic

Its a nice little catch phrase but there isnt one single scripture to back it up.

[anatess2]

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

This is where I see the issue though. I cant find anywhere in the scriptures where God damns those he saves. I cant find anywhere that states the kingdoms of glory are damnation. Nuances or not, it comes right down to understanding the scriptures in their plain text. I mean- if we are going to define a word like "damnatiin" with a certain unique definition then it must be based on sound logic and reasoning. But, it just doesnt qualify. To come to the conclusion that levels of glory in heaven are damnation need some explaining. The reason I keep bringing up the requirement of baptism as essential to salvation from hell is that the scriptures are very plain in that if one is baptized they are saved from damnation. So, if everyone Christ saves has to repent and be baptized, after they are cleansed they cannot be damned according to scripture. There is no scripture that thus states a person who Christ saves from hell is damned. Therefore, damnation, according to our religion, cannot possibly qualify as requiring the definition we give it as it isnt founded upon Christs teachings.

So, if this is in error, as I suspect it is, shouldnt we at least acknowledge that there is a discrepency?

It is only a discrepancy if "damnation" is myopically applied.  King David is one who is saved but also damned as he was so dear to God and should have been qualified for the Celestial Kingdom but isn't.

[Rob Osborn]

2 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

It is only a discrepancy if "damnation" is myopically applied.  King David is one who is saved but also damned as he was so dear to God and should have been qualified for the Celestial Kingdom but isn't.

I believe king David is in hell right now so yes, he is currently in damnation. But, if you are suggesting that he eventually gets saved from that hell and goes into dambation in heaven I would like to see the scripture saying so because I havent found it.

[Rob Osborn]

We often speak of the scriptures as our foundation to truth- its where we find the testimonies of truth of Jesus Christ and his gospel as taught through the ages.

Certain simple principles and truths exist. In my study I come accross scriptures such as this one-

26 But, behold, verily I say unto you, before the earth shall pass away, Michael, mine archangel, shall sound his trump, and then shall all the dead awake, for their graves shall be opened, and they shall come forth—yea, even all.
            27 And the righteous shall be gathered on my right hand unto eternal life; and the wicked on my left hand will I be ashamed to own before the Father;
            28 Wherefore I will say unto them—Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels. (D&C 29:26-28)

And I ask myself "what truth is gleaned from this passage?" Well, several things- there will be a resurrection and then a judgment and separation. In that separation God will separate all into two categories- those on his right hand which are the righteous to receive eternal life, and those on his left hand which are cast out who are the devil and his angels. I ask- is this the truth? Well, certainly it doesnt mention any other group so "yes" it must be true that all of the saved receive eternal life while anyone else is an angel to the devil and must be cast into the lake of fire and brimstone. Thus, I am perfectly correct in my teaching here- it cannot be refuted, unless of course, we say this passage is not truth. Where would that leave us?

[anatess2]

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

I believe king David is in hell right now so yes, he is currently in damnation. But, if you are suggesting that he eventually gets saved from that hell and goes into dambation in heaven I would like to see the scripture saying so because I havent found it.

You used the word Hell.  The clearer term is Spirit Prison.  A temporary state.  Then you used the word heaven with the implication that it's the state after judgment, so it's not Spirit Paradise - the temporary state - but a final judgment.  The use of the word Heaven, in this post-final-judgment usage, is not clear because there are degrees of glory lumped into one heaven.

So, if you're just going to lump all degrees of glory as Heaven then yes, you are saved from Outer Darkness and saved into heaven.  But if you detail heaven into its 3 degrees of glory, you can be saved from Outer Darkness but damned from Celestial glory.  But see, you can't agree with that because your understanding of the 3 degrees of glory are different than ours.  

 

Edited March 29, 2018 by anatess2

[zil]

9 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its a nice little catch phrase but there isnt one single scripture to back it up.

The entirety of scripture backs it up.  Scripture is the words of prophets!  That's the definition!  Prophets did not cease to exist with Moroni or John the Revelator.

Quote

Section 68

Revelation given through Joseph Smith the Prophet, at Hiram, Ohio, November 1, 1831, in response to prayer that the mind of the Lord be made known concerning Orson Hyde, Luke S. Johnson, Lyman E. Johnson, and William E. McLellin. Although part of this revelation was directed toward these four men, much of the content pertains to the whole Church. This revelation was expanded under Joseph Smith’s direction when it was published in the 1835 edition of the Doctrine and Covenants.

1–5, The words of the elders when moved upon by the Holy Ghost are scripture; ...

1 My servant, Orson Hyde, was called by his ordination to proclaim the everlasting gospel, by the Spirit of the living God, from people to people, and from land to land, in the congregations of the wicked, in their synagogues, reasoning with and expounding all scriptures unto them.

2 And, behold, and lo, this is an ensample unto all those who were ordained unto this priesthood, whose mission is appointed unto them to go forth—

3 And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

The words of living prophets ("when moved upon by the Holy Ghost") are scripture just as much as the words of dead prophets are scripture.  Yet you reject the living in favor of (some of) the dead.  You talk about scripture as if the heavens were closed.  You're as bad as people who say, "A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible." (2 Nephi 29)

Quote

9 ... And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

10 Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written.

Yet you would shut the Lord's mouth and tell him not to reveal more, that if he chose not to reveal details to people in ages past, he must not reveal those details to people in this age.

Just because it is not written in ancient scripture does not mean it is not of the Lord (if it did, the majority of what the Church does today would have to be called wrong).  The scriptural teachings on exaltation, salvation, and damnation are in perfect harmony from Genesis 1 through General Conference October 2017 - if you include them all into your understanding.  But you just pick and choose so that your narrow understanding can be true, and speak ill of prophets who teach contrary to your interpretation (and yes, it is speaking ill of a prophet when you say he's teaching incorrectly about the three degrees of glory).  The "conflict" you see between ancient scripture and the teachings of living prophets is entirely made up in your head.  It does not exist in reality.

<sigh>

[Rob Osborn]

27 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

You used the word Hell.  The clearer term is Spirit Prison.  A temporary state.  Then you used the word heaven with the implication that it's the state after judgment, so it's not Spirit Paradise - the temporary state - but a final judgment.  The use of the word Heaven, in this post-final-judgment usage, is not clear because there are degrees of glory lumped into one heaven.

So, if you're just going to lump all degrees of glory as Heaven then yes, you are saved from Outer Darkness and saved into heaven.  But if you detail heaven into its 3 degrees of glory, you can be saved from Outer Darkness but damned from Celestial glory.  But see, you can't agree with that because your understanding of the 3 degrees of glory are different than ours.  

 

Has nothing to do with the three glories. There isnt a scripture that defines damnation as any part of heaven.