Repentance after death

[askandanswer]

10 hours ago, askandanswer said:

And if their is a point at which a person's position, destination and direction are permanently influenced by sinful conduct, that would seem to suggest that there are limits to the infinite atonment and that perhaps it is not quite as infinite as some would like.

Your comments reinforce the idea that the limits to the atonement are not its power to save, but more to do with people's willingness to use/apply it. Its power is infinite, people's willingness to accept it is finite.

[estradling75]

36 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

Your comments reinforce the idea that the limits to the atonement are not its power to save, but more to do with people's willingness to use/apply it. Its power is infinite, people's willingness to accept it is finite.

That is the definition of Son of Perdition... Someone when fully understanding of what Christ offers and can do... And then chooses to Refuses it all.   Its not that Christ can't save them... its that they do not want to be saved 

[The Folk Prophet]

8 hours ago, wenglund said:

Let's test your analogy a bit, shall we?  

Let us suppose that the prison consisted of a vast mountain range with plenty of game for hunting, lakes stocked with plenty of fish, cells that were more like comfortable cabins  on lakes and streams, with refrigerators constantly stocked with your favorite food and beverages, big screen TV's with your most beloved sports and entertainment, and ample leisure time to spend doing all the recreational things you want. It is just that you are confined to the mountain range.

Then consider that freedom represents responsibility (something easily forgotten these days), that consists of Home Teaching each other and those in prison 24/7?

You really think there wouldn't be quite a few people who would prefer prison over freedom, and self-select to go there?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

FWIW, I consider this analogy flat wrong.

Wickedness NEVER was happiness.

What a great way to sell religion. Would you rather hunt, fish, watch TV, have leisure time and eat...or go out and work to the bone the rest of your existence?

Would you rather retire when you're old or work until your die?

Would you rather hurt all the time or be comfortable?

Etc.

As a comparison to the "degrees of glory"....bull. I don't buy it. Nor do I even buy it in this life. Selfish, self interest, me myself and I, pleasure seeking, is NOT happiness.

How's about we try something akin to: would you rather be a dog or a human? As a dog you get fed by others and lie around and sleep all day. But,  you know...you're a dog. As a human you have to actually provide for yourself and stuff, but you're, you know...a human.

Even that comparison probably fails...because my guess is that the difference between a Telestial being and a Celestial one is likely more vast than the difference between a dog and a human.

I suspect that some people would, indeed, choose to be a dog instead -- and have learned to believe they actually enjoy eating their own feces. Meanwhile such people are always miserable.

The KEY problem to this sort of analogy is, as I have said, WICKEDNESS NEVER WAS HAPPINESS.

Wickedness is the absence of righteousness.

What this analogy seems to be saying is that those who choose to NOT serve God or their fellow man, because they prefer leisure time, will be happier because they prefer wickedness.

But wickedness...reiterated again...NEVER WAS HAPPINESS!

Edited April 28, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

12 hours ago, askandanswer said:

And if their is a point at which a person's position, destination and direction are permanently influenced by sinful conduct, that would seem to suggest that there are limits to the infinite atonment and that perhaps it is not quite as infinite as some would like.

I believe we have some perfect examples in the scriptures. One that comes to mind is the brass snake on a staff that the Israelites only had to look upon to be healed. It would heal ANYONE. It's power to heal was infinite. But the condition was to look. Those who chose not to look CHOSE not to look.

It's like saying, "Here's water. It's power to quench thirst is complete." And then some dying-of-thirst moron says, "No thanks. I'm thirsty, but I don't like water." And then when they die someone tries to claim that water doesn't have the power to quench thirst after all because if it truly had the power to do that, it would have done so without the person drinking it.

Really?

Edited April 28, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

8 hours ago, zil said:

There are many activities which, if I had to do them (at all, frequently, more frequently), I would think myself in hell - just imagining the tedium, drudgery, difficulty, or whatever of them would make me cringe.  And, there are other things that I think I would enjoy doing for a very long time (these generally will not earn you a living).  I see no reason why this concept would not hold true for beings of different glories.  The celestial could not be satisfied doing telestial stuff.  The telestial would think the celestial stuff is too difficult or whatever.

I find this to be untrue based on my experience.

I have found, for example, in my past life, that certain things were a "hell" for me...but they were things that God commanded me to do. So I stepped up and did them out of duty and obedience. Over time, I have grown and changed and have been filled with the Spirit and some of those things are now great sources of joy to me.

I do not believe or accept this philosophy that things God has PROMISES will bring a fulness of joy don't apply to some people. I just don't buy it. God's promises apply to all people, if they will but sacrifice, endure, work, suffer, take up their crosses and follow Him, etc.

Do we think Jesus's suffering was something he enjoyed? And yet he knew that the "tedium, drudgery, difficulty", pain, suffering, agony, bleeding from every pore, etc., was the will of God and would be worth it. He chose because He knew better than our mortal, selfish, lazy selves do.

People who give into their lazy, selfish, unwilling, natural selves do not find happiness at the end of the proverbial rainbow.

8 hours ago, zil said:

but coming to understand and agree that our assigned kingdom is indeed where we wish [deserve] to spend the remainder of our existence.

My view must need change the above word for accuracy's sake.

8 hours ago, zil said:

The idea that half of eternity

Um... That's an impossibility.

8 hours ago, zil said:

Personally, I think this won't be a problem for anyone because we've all been spending eternity choosing to stay within / reach toward our respective limits - the resurrection will just be the point at which we say, "Yeah, I'm not changing".  To quote Zane Grey, "Habit of years is strong as life itself."  And we've got an eternity of years cementing our habits.

This doesn't resonate with me. We know that in our pre-earth lives we were valiant. We've all, theoretically, chosen all eternity to follow God and the Savior as indicated by the truth that we kept our first estates.

 

Edited April 28, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

9 hours ago, wenglund said:

Let's test your analogy a bit, shall we?  

Let us suppose that the prison consisted of a vast mountain range with plenty of game for hunting, lakes stocked with plenty of fish, cells that were more like comfortable cabins  on lakes and streams, with refrigerators constantly stocked with your favorite food and beverages, big screen TV's with your most beloved sports and entertainment, and ample leisure time to spend doing all the recreational things you want. It is just that you are confined to the mountain range.

Then consider that freedom represents responsibility (something easily forgotten these days), that consists of Home Teaching each other and those in prison 24/7?

You really think there wouldn't be quite a few people who would prefer prison over freedom, and self-select to go there?

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Also...just for clarity's sake:

D&C 76:112

And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end.

[zil]

18 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I have found, for example, in my past life, that certain things were a "hell" for me...but they were things that God commanded me to do. So I stepped up and did them out of duty and obedience. Over time, I have grown and changed and have been filled with the Spirit and some of those things are now great sources of joy to me.

My first two sentences were (in my mind, but I didn't make that clear, so my fault there) about worldly activities.  (The idea being, "here's a non-spiritual idea, now let's set it parallel to the spiritual version".)  Of course if one comes to understand and do Godly things, they would bring joy, regardless of the difficulty.  I guess my point is that telestial people don't have the trust or faith that this will happen.  They look at those things with telestial, selfish eyes and say, "Man, why do that?  What do I get out of it?  Lot of work for nothing."  (Or something similar, or worse.)  As you've pointed out, it's hard to come up with an analogy that works here.

22 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

People who give into their lazy, selfish, unwilling, natural selves do not find happiness at the end of the proverbial rainbow.

Totally agree.

23 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Um... That's an impossibility.

Are you sure? Pretty sure half of eternity is eternity.

24 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

We know that in our pre-earth lives we were valiant.

Do you really believe we were all equally valiant?  I don't.  I think there was as wide a spectrum there as could be.

25 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

We've all, theoretically, chosen all eternity to follow God and the Savior as indicated by the truth that we kept our first estates.

The plan of salvation was presented at some point, thus, eternity prior to that point, we were not choosing to follow the Savior.  At some point prior to God's attaining godhood, we may or may not have been following him, but I'm not convinced we can say we were for all eternity (though it's possible, I suppose).

I believe it's entirely possible that some people have been choosing things which got them as far as mortality for what I will call ulterior motives.  I believe some people have been "going along with the crowd".  I believe some people have been choosing what seemed the best option because it seemed the best option more than because they were "all in".

I don't believe anything other than persistent pushing of one's upper limits toward the celestial will be enough to "endure to the end".  And I believe many have not been pushing persistently toward their upper limits so much as dragging along at their lower limits.  And I believe we've all been doing basically what we've been doing for eternity - that mortality amplifies this to an enormous degree, but not that the core of a person is somehow significantly different in inclination during mortality than it was previously.

I think some people are, and were, and ever have been more faithful, better (or lack of a better word), and that others have been less.

Quote

Alma 13:3 And this is the manner after which they were ordained—being called and prepared from the foundation of the world according to the foreknowledge of God, on account of their exceeding faith and good works; in the first place being left to choose good or evil; therefore they having chosen good, and exercising exceedingly great faith, are called with a holy calling, yea, with that holy calling which was prepared with, and according to, a preparatory redemption for such.

4 And thus they have been called to this holy calling on account of their faith, while others would reject the Spirit of God on account of the hardness of their hearts and blindness of their minds, while, if it had not been for this they might have had as great privilege as their brethren.

I don't think every pre-mortal spirit was equally faithful or diligent.  While some people may well "jump tracks", I think pretty much everyone has been making the same types or caliber of decision for all eternity.  (Which I suppose means that I believe telestial-quality decisions are good enough to get one born into mortality on this particular "telestial" world.)

(NOTE: This is all total speculation and probably laughable to an omniscient.)

[Guest]

13 hours ago, askandanswer said:

I'm a little bit curious about what exactly it is that prevents further progression. I wander if it is more to do with a set of rules built into the system and therefore administered by a rulemaker, or is it more to do with an inherent quality of being human. Or, more likely, some sort of combination.

I believe it is the nature of what we will be satisfied with.  In a free country, every one of us could be billionaires.  And many are jealous of those who are.  But the truth is that most are not willing to do what is necessary to get there.  And even if we were in our current state for the next billion years, we would never change.

Then there are some whose own beliefs are what keeps them down.  They blame everything and everyone else for their own plight.  So, it's not their fault that they are where they are.  So, they never try.  And no matter what anyone tells them, they're not going to change their minds about it.

And there are inherent weaknesses that would keep many down.  We see many real handicaps that some people have that seem insurmountable.  Then we see Nick Vujicic and marvel at the human spirit.

Edited April 28, 2018 by Guest

[The Folk Prophet]

56 minutes ago, zil said:

Do you really believe we were all equally valiant? 

No. But I do believe that some who were exceedingly valiant but had not yet been tried by faith behind a veil of forgetfulness will find that despite their eons of valiant-ness will have proven themselves by their mortal probation to be unworthy. Hence, I do not believe it is the eons that determine our place.

56 minutes ago, zil said:

The plan of salvation was presented at some point, thus, eternity prior to that point, we were not choosing to follow the Savior. 

Well, that's speculative. I speculate otherwise. But....

56 minutes ago, zil said:

but I'm not convinced we can say we were for all eternity

Sort of depends on what one means by "follow" I suppose. We certainly, in whatever state we were in, were subject to Him. We weren't in open rebellion against him (I speculate...rather reasonably, I believe).

56 minutes ago, zil said:

And I believe we've all been doing basically what we've been doing for eternity

I guess this is where we may not agree. I believe, being in a different state than we have ever been before, we may well act differently than we ever have before, which is why (at least partially) the entire mortal experience is necessary (along with the physical body attainment) in the first place.

56 minutes ago, zil said:

that mortality amplifies this to an enormous degree, but not that the core of a person is somehow significantly different in inclination during mortality than it was previously.

I believe you are right in some cases. I doubt this is universally true.

56 minutes ago, zil said:

I think some people are, and were, and ever have been more faithful, better (or lack of a better word), and that others have been less.

I believe this too. I also believe (as I said in the top reply of this post) that some who were less faithful will have proven themselves worthy of a higher reward by their faith and diligence in mortality, and some who were more faithful will show themselves worthy of a lesser reward by the inverse.

56 minutes ago, zil said:

While some people may well "jump tracks", I think pretty much everyone has been making the same types or caliber of decision for all eternity. 

I think Satan himself shows this to be untrue. I think there will be a great many who, at judgement day when they remember who they truly are, will find themselves in shock and horror at what they've chosen in mortality.

That they will confess that God's judgement are just is not the same as confessing they secretly wanted this all along.

56 minutes ago, zil said:

(NOTE: This is all total speculation and probably laughable to an omniscient.)

Probably true of a great many of our views.

Edited April 28, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎4‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 9:22 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

But D&C 76:112 specifically says otherwise.

Not exactly.  It does not say they are not in the Kingdom of Heaven, for they ARE in the Kingdom of Heaven.  However, they are in the Lowest degree of Heaven.  Hence, they cannot go to the Terrestrial and especially cannot go to the Celestial Kingdom in their Telestial bodies.  it only specifies that they cannot go where the lord and the Father dwell...but at the same time specifies that they are indeed in the Kingdom of Heaven...as servants of the Most High.

In this we have the Kingdom's of the Lord and the worlds thereof under his dominions...from the same section

Quote

  88 And also the telestial receive it of the administering of angels who are appointed to minister for them, or who are appointed to be ministering spirits for them; for they shall be heirs of salvation.

  89 And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the telestial, which surpasses all understanding;

  90 And no man knows it except him to whom God has revealed it.

  91 And thus we saw the glory of the terrestrial which excels in all things the glory of the telestial, even in glory, and in power, and in might, and in dominion.

  92 And thus we saw the glory of the celestial, which excels in all things—where God, even the Father, reigns upon his throne forever and ever;

  93 Before whose throne all things bow in humble reverence, and give him glory forever and ever.

  94 They who dwell in his presence are the church of the Firstborn; and they see as they are seen, and know as they are known, having received of his fulness and of his grace;

  95 And he makes them equal in power, and in might, and in dominion.

  96 And the glory of the celestial is one, even as the glory of the sun is one.

  97 And the glory of the terrestrial is one, even as the glory of the moon is one.

  98 And the glory of the telestial is one, even as the glory of the stars is one; for as one star differs from another star in glory, even so differs one from another in glory

verse 88 specifies that they are actually heirs of salvation.

And in context of 112 it says...

Quote

109 But behold, and lo, we saw the glory and the inhabitants of the telestial world, that they were as innumerable as the stars in the firmament of heaven, or as the sand upon the seashore;

  110 And heard the voice of the Lord saying: These all shall bow the knee, and every tongue shall confess to him who sits upon the throne forever and ever;

  111 For they shall be judged according to their works, and every man shall receive according to his own works, his own cdominion, in the dmansions which are prepared;

  112 And they shall be servants of the Most High; but where God and Christ dwell they cannot come, worlds without end.

 

Edited April 29, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[wenglund]

15 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

FWIW, I consider this analogy flat wrong.

Wickedness NEVER was happiness.

What a great way to sell religion. Would you rather hunt, fish, watch TV, have leisure time and eat...or go out and work to the bone the rest of your existence?

Would you rather retire when you're old or work until your die?

Would you rather hurt all the time or be comfortable?

Etc.

As a comparison to the "degrees of glory"....bull. I don't buy it. Nor do I even buy it in this life. Selfish, self interest, me myself and I, pleasure seeking, is NOT happiness.

How's about we try something akin to: would you rather be a dog or a human? As a dog you get fed by others and lie around and sleep all day. But,  you know...you're a dog. As a human you have to actually provide for yourself and stuff, but you're, you know...a human.

Even that comparison probably fails...because my guess is that the difference between a Telestial being and a Celestial one is likely more vast than the difference between a dog and a human.

I suspect that some people would, indeed, choose to be a dog instead -- and have learned to believe they actually enjoy eating their own feces. Meanwhile such people are always miserable.

The KEY problem to this sort of analogy is, as I have said, WICKEDNESS NEVER WAS HAPPINESS.

Wickedness is the absence of righteousness.

What this analogy seems to be saying is that those who choose to NOT serve God or their fellow man, because they prefer leisure time, will be happier because they prefer wickedness.

But wickedness...reiterated again...NEVER WAS HAPPINESS!

Prior to responding to your well thought out post, I need to clarify: do you consider hunting and fishing and recreational activities to be wickedness or happiness?

Before answering, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the eternities are one continuous Sabbath day.  Does that alter whether hunting and fishing et. al. are wicked or not?

I ask because I am not sure you are seeing my point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎4‎/‎27‎/‎2018 at 11:25 AM, wenglund said:

Isn't eternal exclusion logically a means of preventing or limiting a person from progressing into God's presence and becoming even as he is? If so, then reasonably speaking dmnation is a dam.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

The definition of Damnation in the English language means eternal condemnation to suffering in Hell. 

The Telestial Kingdom is specifically NOT in Hell and many in the Telestial Kingdom have been saved from Hell.  We get this definition from the Greek and Latin...

This is why it differentiates those who go to their damnation and those who are saved from such, even when suffering it, by the Lord. 

If you IGNORE the English language and it's definition and how we came to this idea...well...then you go into arenas where you can say all sorts of things.

This is why I disagree with McKonkie on this.  He tried to create a NEW definition NOT defined in the Latin or English and correlate it with a Dam, which means something entirely different then the actual other word.  The reason it is considered a curse word is because it quite literally a curse upon someone in an attempt to send them to eternal suffering.

The Telestial Kingdom is part of the Kingdom of the Lord and one of the three degrees of glory...quite the opposite of eternal suffering in Hell.

Edited April 29, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[wenglund]

10 minutes ago, JohnsonJones said:

The definition of Damnation in the English language means eternal condemnation to suffering in Hell. 

The Telestial Kingdom is specifically NOT in Hell and many in the Telestial Kingdom have been saved from Hell.  We get this definition from the Greek and Latin...

This is why it differentiates those who go to their damnation and those who are saved from such, even when suffering it, by the Lord. 

If you IGNORE the English language and it's definition and how we came to this idea...well...then you go into arenas where you can say all sorts of things.

Aside from not directly addressing my reasoning, you seem to suffer under the same false notion as Rob that dictionary definitions are exhaustive and the final say for anyone using the the English language.

Were that the case, there would be no need for books, if not sections of libraries, devoted to explicating complex concepts like love, happiness, democracy, capitalism, socialism, music, art, light, meaning itself, etc. etc., They would be rendered useless. One could simply say, "just read the definition in the dictionary. " But, obviously, that would be silly.

Anyone with upper level collegiate experience, and especially post graduate degrees, particularly in the Humanities, will understand that when writing thesis papers or dissertation and the like, defining terms is critical, and dictionary definitions, if used at all, are simply a starting point, not the end all and be all--that is even assuming that all dictionaries agree exactly, in their definitions, which they don't..

None of this necessarily IGNORES the English language. To suggest otherwise is to IGNORE common sense and real world scholastic pursuits.

With the trading of insults now out of the way, would you mind responding to my reasoning?. Perhaps you can start by looking up the dictionary definition of "exaltation" to see if it fits your understanding of the term. Good luck with that.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

[JohnsonJones]

23 minutes ago, wenglund said:

Aside from not directly addressing my reasoning, you seem to suffer under the same false notion as Rob that dictionary definitions are exhaustive and the final say for anyone using the the English language.

Were that the case, there would be no need for books, if not sections of libraries, devoted to explicating complex concepts like love, happiness, democracy, capitalism, socialism, music, art, light, meaning itself, etc. etc., They would be rendered useless. One could simply say, "just read the definition in the dictionary. " But, obviously, that would be silly.

Anyone with upper level collegiate experience, and especially post graduate degrees, particularly in the Humanities, will understand that when writing thesis papers or dissertation and the like, defining terms is critical, and dictionary definitions, if used at all, are simply a starting point, not the end all and be all--that is even assuming that all dictionaries agree exactly, in their definitions, which they don't..

None of this necessarily IGNORES the English language. To suggest otherwise is to IGNORE common sense and real world scholastic pursuits.

With the trading of insults now out of the way, would you mind responding to my reasoning?. Perhaps you can start by looking up the dictionary definition of "exaltation" to see if it fits your understanding of the term. Good luck with that.

Thanks, -Wade Enlgund-

I have not tried to insult you...I merely pointed out that for 2000+ years prior to McKonkie's attempt to redefine the term...Damnation literally means Damnation.  It still does, in fact, mean the same thing it has always meant.  That is, it is a curse.  It means condemned to eternal torment in Hell.  The bible is Not vague on this, or is it something subtle.  This is probably why other religions get the idea that there ARE only two outcomes...Heaven or Hell.  In truth, that is correct, you either suffer eternity in damnation, or you are saved from Damnation in the Kingdom of Heaven.

To say otherwise is like pointing to a dog and trying to tell someone that it is actually a butterfly.  Just because you are trying to redefine it as something else does not change the meaning of the word.

It also specifies that being in the Telestial world means that someone has received salvation, as per the doctrine found in the Doctrine and Covenants (as pointed out above in 76:88), or as we understand, are heirs of salvation.

Salvation is the opposite of Damnation.  Mckonkie's idea was that Salvation ONLY meant Exaltation...but Salvation and Exaltation typically are used as two different terms in LDS culture (and this entire discussion is more a cultural aspect in many ways anyways).  Salvation means being saved...in this case saved from Physical and Spiritual Death.  Exaltation on the otherhand is receiving all that the Lord has and being able to progress eternally (many various ideas on this, but I think one major aspect is that you grow in glory through your progeny, or as you have spirit children and they grow, this increases your own kingdom and glory in accordance with them). 

I find it interesting your inferences about Higher Level education.  I'm not sure if you've caught what I do for a living...but that's really not here or there.  The IRONY of it though, could be seen as particularly hilarious.  In regards to your thoughts on definitions, some definitions change over time, but a thesis paper's purpose normally is NOT to change a definition of a word.  If it is going to that degree and the definition is not the heart of the thesis...that thesis may be in major trouble already.  Writing depends on a common understanding of words rather than someone trying to redefine the entire dictionary on their own.  Without this common understanding, we become like the tower of Babel. 

What one MIGHT do is to expand the understanding of a word, inclusive of various definitions that have been used in the past, specifying the intent with another definition common in the past or in a field that is uncommon in the general usage.  One may also have a redefinition as their thesis or an assignment of a word as such a thesis...but that would be the focus of the thesis rather than a arbitrary or side attempt at redefinition.

In this Light, I do not agree with Mckonkie in that aspect either.  His idea has been expressed by others as saying...they would be in Hell if they could not spend eternity with their spouse...family...etc, even if in the Telestial Kingdom or Terrestrial Kingdom.  Thus, the idea is that for them, this is a sort of Hell. 

However, I think this idea undermines the idea of the Telestial or Terrestrial, or even of this earth, for as soon as one's spouse or a family member dies...one would then have to say they are spending their days in Hell until they pass away themselves...which I find is counterintuitive to finding joy in the Gospel and the Lord while in our time on this Earth (of which the glory of the Telestial is supposed to dwarf...even though our Earth is supposed to be a Telestial World). 

In essence in trying to utilize this idea of being in Hell because of regret and loss because one does not make it to the Celestial and is instead in the Telestial or Terrestrial is trying to expand HELL into being included with the Kingdom of Heaven, or at least parts of it.  This is the excuse of why Damnation may apply to those who are found in the Telestial or Terrestrial Kingdoms...but it is also one that I personally do NOT AGREE with.  Damnation is the opposite of Salvation, and so in my opinion it makes no sense to conflate the two.

You may agree with it (Mckonkie's definition and idea on this particular thought), but it would be an aspect that we would have to disagree with each other on.

 

Edited April 29, 2018 by JohnsonJones

[Jersey Boy]

3 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

I have not tried to insult you...I merely pointed out that for 2000+ years prior to McKonkie's attempt to redefine the term...Damnation literally means Damnation.  It still does, in fact, mean the same thing it has always meant.  That is, it is a curse.  It means condemned to eternal torment in Hell.  The bible is Not vague on this, or is it something subtle.  This is probably why other religions get the idea that there ARE only two outcomes...Heaven or Hell.  In truth, that is correct, you either suffer eternity in damnation, or you are saved from Damnation in the Kingdom of Heaven.

To say otherwise is like pointing to a dog and trying to tell someone that it is actually a butterfly.  Just because you are trying to redefine it as something else does not change the meaning of the word.

It also specifies that being in the Telestial world means that someone has received salvation, as per the doctrine found in the Doctrine and Covenants (as pointed out above in 76:88), or as we understand, are heirs of salvation.

Salvation is the opposite of Damnation.  Mckonkie's idea was that Salvation ONLY meant Exaltation...but Salvation and Exaltation typically are used as two different terms in LDS culture (and this entire discussion is more a cultural aspect in many ways anyways).  Salvation means being saved...in this case saved from Physical and Spiritual Death.  Exaltation on the otherhand is receiving all that the Lord has and being able to progress eternally (many various ideas on this, but I think one major aspect is that you grow in glory through your progeny, or as you have spirit children and they grow, this increases your own kingdom and glory in accordance with them). 

I find it interesting your inferences about Higher Level education.  I'm not sure if you've caught what I do for a living...but that's really not here or there.  The IRONY of it though, could be seen as particularly hilarious.  In regards to your thoughts on definitions, some definitions change over time, but a thesis paper's purpose normally is NOT to change a definition of a word.  If it is going to that degree and the definition is not the heart of the thesis...that thesis may be in major trouble already.  Writing depends on a common understanding of words rather than someone trying to redefine the entire dictionary on their own.  Without this common understanding, we become like the tower of Babel. 

What one MIGHT do is to expand the understanding of a word, inclusive of various definitions that have been used in the past, specifying the intent with another definition common in the past or in a field that is uncommon in the general usage.  One may also have a redefinition as their thesis or an assignment of a word as such a thesis...but that would be the focus of the thesis rather than a arbitrary or side attempt at redefinition.

In this Light, I do not agree with Mckonkie in that aspect either.  His idea has been expressed by others as saying...they would be in Hell if they could not spend eternity with their spouse...family...etc, even if in the Telestial Kingdom or Terrestrial Kingdom.  Thus, the idea is that for them, this is a sort of Hell. 

However, I think this idea undermines the idea of the Telestial or Terrestrial, or even of this earth, for as soon as one's spouse or a family member dies...one would then have to say they are spending their days in Hell until they pass away themselves...which I find is counterintuitive to finding joy in the Gospel and the Lord while in our time on this Earth (of which the glory of the Telestial is supposed to dwarf...even though our Earth is supposed to be a Telestial World). 

In essence in trying to utilize this idea of being in Hell because of regret and loss because one does not make it to the Celestial and is instead in the Telestial or Terrestrial is trying to expand HELL into being included with the Kingdom of Heaven, or at least parts of it.  This is the excuse of why Damnation may apply to those who are found in the Telestial or Terrestrial Kingdoms...but it is also one that I personally do NOT AGREE with.  Damnation is the opposite of Salvation, and so in my opinion it makes no sense to conflate the two.

You may agree with it (Mckonkie's definition and idea on this particular thought), but it would be an aspect that we would have to disagree with each other on.

 

In the matter of a mere moment, I performed a Yahoo search and found several quotes from Bruce R McConkie where he defines the word salvation, and his definition does no appear to rightly square with the definition of the word salvation that you attribute to him. Here is just one of the Bruce R McConkie’s quotes on the subject:

“We are ofttimes prone to create artificial distinctions, to say that salvation means one thing and exaltation another, to suppose that salvation means to be resurrected, but that exaltation or eternal life is something in addition thereto. It is true that there are some passages of scripture that use salvation in a special and limited sense in order to give an overall perspective of the plan of salvation that we would not otherwise have. (2 Ne. 9:1 – 27; D&C 76:40 – 49; 132:15-17.) These passages show the difference between general or universal salvation that consists in coming forth from the grave in immortality, and specific or individual salvation that consists of an inheritance in the celestial kingdom….

Since it is the prophetic purpose to lead men to full salvation in the highest heaven of the celestial world, when they speak and write about salvation, almost without exception, they mean eternal life or exaltation. They use the terms salvation, exaltation, and eternal life as synonyms, as words that mean exactly the same thing without any difference, distinction, or variance whatever.” (Bruce R. McConkie, The Promised Messiah (Salt Lake City: Deseret Book Co., 1978)

Having read McConkies mortal Messiah way back in 1978, I have known for 40 years that to him the scriptural terms salvation, exaltation and eternal life are synonymous and almost always mean the precisely the same thing. It will serve you well if you can provided a direct quote or two from Elder McConkie to substantiate what you claim he said.

Edited April 29, 2018 by Jersey Boy

[Jersey Boy]

Deleted

Edited April 29, 2018 by Jersey Boy

[The Folk Prophet]

7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Not exactly. 

Not exactly if you presume I meant something about "the kingdom of the Lord" in my response. I was referencing the separation part. Perhaps it would have been more clear if I had quoted it thus:

On 4/27/2018 at 7:59 AM, JohnsonJones said:

...not separated from him.  

"But D&C 76:112 specifically says otherwise."

 

In that the fact that "where God and Christ dwell they cannot come" indicates they are, indeed, "separated from him".

[The Folk Prophet]

7 hours ago, wenglund said:

Prior to responding to your well thought out post, I need to clarify: do you consider hunting and fishing and recreational activities to be wickedness or happiness?

Before answering, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the eternities are one continuous Sabbath day.  Does that alter whether hunting and fishing et. al. are wicked or not?

I ask because I am not sure you are seeing my point.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

My inference was that was ALL they would do.

I don't consider it wicked to go fishing. I do consider it wicked if someone spends all their time doing nothing but pleasure seeking and idles their days away in leisure.

Idleness is plainly wickedness as we are taught in many scriptures.

Obviously there is balance and we, as a people, do not believe we should NEVER have a moment to sit leisurely and watch the sunset while fishing, or take an hour or two to watch a movie, or sit down to play a game with friends, or engage in "sports" -- hunting or basketball or what-have-you. But the implication of your post seemed to be that people who spent all their time doing that (clearly engaging in the idleness that the scriptures warn us against) will find greater happiness in that wickedness than they would if they did as the Lord commands, putting aside their natural selves, interests, and desires to serve God, despite the fact that, yes, to the carnal self, fishing and hunting and leisure time in the cabin are more pleasant.

You were not implying, it struck me, that anyone who enjoys fishing is Telestial material...and I wasn't responding as if that were the case. You seemed to be implying that those who chose fishing over God (which is, plainly, a wicked choice), would find greater happiness in the end from that wicked choice.

[The Folk Prophet]

8 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

The definition of Damnation in the English language means eternal condemnation to suffering in Hell.

Is it exclusively that?

I don't think so.

For example: we'll use Merriam-webster.com

Damnation is defined as: the act of damning : the state of being damned

and damning's 2nd definition is :: causing or leading to condemnation or ruin - presented some damning testimony

Are we really meant to believe that that "damning" testimony is referring to testimony that condemns them to suffer in Hell?

Even looking at some quotes on damnation it is clear that in English the word is used more broadly than only to mean "eternal condemnation to suffering in Hell".

"All sins tend to be addictive, and the terminal point of addiction is damnation." - W. H. Auden

"The lack of a sense of history is the damnation of the modern world." - Robert Penn Warren

"Sometimes there is absolutely no difference at all between salvation and damnation." - Stephen King

"Great and good men and women stirred sugar into their coffee knowing that it had been picked by slaves. Kind, good ancestors of all of us never questioned hangings, burnings, tortures, inequality, suffering and injustice that today revolt us. If we dare to presume to damn them with our fleeting ideas of morality, then we risk damnation from our descendants for whatever it is that we are doing that future history will judge as intolerable and wicked: eating meat, driving cars, appearing on TV, visiting zoos, who knows?" - Stephen Fry

"My life used to be boring. A damnation here, a curse there, with an occasional blight or two to break routine...' - Jim (Katie MacAlister)

"If we had a reliable way to label our toys good and bad, it would be easy to regulate technology wisely. But we can rarely see far enough ahead to know which road leads to damnation. Whoever concerns himself with big technology, either to push it forward or to stop it, is gambling in human lives." - Freeman Dyson

"War is not its own end, except in some catastrophic slide into absolute damnation. It's peace that's wanted. Some better peace than the one you started with." - Lois McMaster Bujold

"Ye who made war that your ships Should lay to at the beck of no nation, Make war now on Murder, that slips The leash of her hounds of damnation; Ye who remembered the Alamo, Remember the Maine!" - Richard Hovey

Edited April 29, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Damnation is the opposite of Salvation, and so in my opinion it makes no sense to conflate the two.

This has been, of course, explained ad nauseum, but...

It's not conflating the two any more than saying strength is the opposite of weakness. Does that mean everything that is strong has no weakness whatsoever and everything that is weak has no strength whatsoever?

[Just_A_Guy]

On 4/28/2018 at 7:47 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

FWIW, I consider this analogy flat wrong.

Wickedness NEVER was happiness.

What a great way to sell religion. Would you rather hunt, fish, watch TV, have leisure time and eat...or go out and work to the bone the rest of your existence?

Would you rather retire when you're old or work until your die?

Would you rather hurt all the time or be comfortable?

Etc.

As a comparison to the "degrees of glory"....bull. I don't buy it. Nor do I even buy it in this life. Selfish, self interest, me myself and I, pleasure seeking, is NOT happiness.

How's about we try something akin to: would you rather be a dog or a human? As a dog you get fed by others and lie around and sleep all day. But,  you know...you're a dog. As a human you have to actually provide for yourself and stuff, but you're, you know...a human.

Even that comparison probably fails...because my guess is that the difference between a Telestial being and a Celestial one is likely more vast than the difference between a dog and a human.

I suspect that some people would, indeed, choose to be a dog instead -- and have learned to believe they actually enjoy eating their own feces. Meanwhile such people are always miserable.

The KEY problem to this sort of analogy is, as I have said, WICKEDNESS NEVER WAS HAPPINESS.

Wickedness is the absence of righteousness.

What this analogy seems to be saying is that those who choose to NOT serve God or their fellow man, because they prefer leisure time, will be happier because they prefer wickedness.

But wickedness...reiterated again...NEVER WAS HAPPINESS!

It seems to me that you may be assuming that people are still “wicked”, to some degree, once they have been resurrected as Terrestrial or Telestial beings.  I recognize that Amulek strongly suggests this in Alma 34 (do not procrastinate repentance to death, the same spirit will rise with you in the resurrection, etc).  But Amulek may well have been speaking from a limited perspective that excluded the knowledge we gain from D&C 76.  Do we really think that people in the Telestial Kingdom are still lying, stealing, and fornicating?  Do we think that a Terrestrial “ministering angel” will still be putting off his ministerial errands until the last possible minute?  Do we believe that denizens of either kingdom will still be trying to schmooze their way into a Celestial-type existence?

I rather think that the Terrestrial and Telestial, through the refinements of this life as well as events in the hereafter in conjunction with an undeniable knowledge of Christ’s role and plan, will finally live “after the manner of happiness”; and the fact that people are no longer sinning against each other in that sphere—combined with all the beauties of nature and whatever else God sees fit to create in those realms—might make those kingdoms into pretty sweet gigs.  But that’s a double-edged sword, because they will also finally have an understanding of what they *could* have become—whilst similarly acknowledging that they have not fitted themselves for that sort of existence.  And I rather suspect that the ones who keep fighting the system and would be inclined to deceive God into giving them more than they deserve, when all is said and done, aren’t going to be in a kingdom of glory at all—that’s what perdition is for.

Edited April 29, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[The Folk Prophet]

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It seems to me that you may be assuming that people are still “wicked”, to some degree, once they have been resurrected as Terrestrial or Telestial beings.

No. I am assuming that because they won't be wicked they won't be spending eternity in idleness and selfish pursuits. Thereby I deny the logic that those who prefer idleness in this life will spend eternity being idle.

[Just_A_Guy]

12 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

No. I am assuming that because they won't be wicked they won't be spending eternity in idleness and selfish pursuits. Thereby I deny the logic that those who prefer idleness in this life will spend eternity being idle.

Is idleness sinful per se, or is it sinful because at this point in time God’s plan for us involves our being active?

If “ministering angels” are all Terrestrial and lower-order Celestial beings, then what ministry will be available for the Telestial to participate in?  And if there is no such ministry for them, then why not be idle (while still being cognizant that work would be far more rewarding if only there were any to be done)?

Edited April 29, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[estradling75]

12 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

It seems to me that you may be assuming that people are still “wicked”, to some degree, once they have been resurrected as Terrestrial or Telestial beings.  I recognize that Amulek strongly suggests this in Alma 34 (do not procrastinate repentance to death, the same spirit will rise with you in the resurrection, etc).  But Amulek may well have been speaking from a limited perspective that excluded the knowledge we gain from D&C 76.  Do we really think that people in the Telestial Kingdom are still lying, stealing, and fornicating?  Do we think that a Terrestrial “ministering angel” will still be putting off his ministerial errands until the last possible minute?  Do we believe that denizens of either kingdom will still be trying to schmooze their way into a Celestial-type existence?

I rather think that the Terrestrial and Telestial, through the refinements of this life as well as events in the hereafter in conjunction with an undeniable knowledge of Christ’s role and plan, will finally live “after the manner of happiness”; and the fact that people are no longer sinning against each other in that sphere—combined with all the beauties of nature and whatever else God sees fit to create in those realms—might make those kingdoms into pretty sweet gigs.  But that’s a double-edged sword, because they will also finally have an understanding of what they *could* have become—whilst similarly acknowledging that they have not fitted themselves for that sort of existence.  And I rather suspect that the ones who keep fighting the system and would be inclined to deceive God into giving them more than they deserve, when all is said and done, aren’t going to be in a kingdom of glory at all—that’s what perdition is for.

This...  Death does not cause a change in our spirits, the resurrection does not cause a change in our spirits.  Accepting and using the Atonement of Christ does.  It is designed to do exactly that.

I disagree with the idea that some postulate that some people are redeemed from Hell by some power other then the Atonement of Jesus Christ.  I believe the story of Alma the Younger's conversion is a demonstration of how this works and what it takes.  The difference between a Son of Perdition and a Telestial glory holder isn't the amount of suffering they needed to be clean... The difference is who finally accepts the conditions of release from said suffering (Aka Christ).

[The Folk Prophet]

11 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Is idleness sinful per se, or is it sinful because at this point in time God’s plan for us involves our being active?

To me that's like asking if stabbing yourself in the eye is sinful per se.

Harm is harm. Wickedness is wickedness because it is not happiness. Not because it is arbitrary.

I will grant that some "rules" are applicable to this life. And I would dare say that the painful part of labor is related to that. But it seems fairly sound that those who lie around lazy all the time are harming themselves in the name of the pursuit of happiness, not doing that which brings happiness.

Which is interesting to think about. It may well be reasonable to presume that the limitation on the happiness of the telestial/terrestrial glories is directly related to the limitation on their ability to labor.

Understand though...the idea I reject is that every kingdom will find a "relative" personal level of "fulness of joy" based on what they personally find joy in.

We don't really know whether Telestial beings will be lazy or not, honestly. We're trying to discuss things we have absolutely no understanding of whatsoever and so some of the --- scratch that --- all of the analogies fail.

But the plain principle does not. There is only one glory where there will be a fulness of joy. Based on that I reject the concept that some will not be in the Celestial kingdom because they would not have a fulness of joy there. If they had been willing, they would. I reject the "we are who we are eternally and we're just trying to figure out who we are so we'll be where we're the happiest" kind of philosophies. We are who we choose to be.