Outer Darkness: Nothing vs. Oblivion


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Well, first I gotta know what “His word” on this topic actually is. ;) 

The Book of Mormon certainly says a lot about universal resurrection; but it doesn’t seem to do so from a perspective that is fully aware of the perspective laid out in D&C 76.  Nor do I remember whether it guarantees that this resurrected state will be permanent for everyone.  And scripture generally sometimes talks in superlatives/absolutes that, when you really dig into them, are more like general rules to which unstated exceptions may apply.  

I’m not saying I couldn’t be convinced against my position via a marshaling of the relevant scriptural passages.  I’m just not ready to concede that the scriptures that are really on-point in this discussion rule out the scenario.

Well the relevant scriptures are Alma 11:45 and D&C 138:17.

Whereas what you're saying is theoretically correct, I think it a dangerous precedent to presume exceptions to scriptural plain-speak where no exceptions have been given or revealed. To what end would we randomly apply exceptions, and for what value?

The scriptures use the plain wording, concerning post resurrection, that the spirit and body are "never to be divided" and "never again to be divided". I see no reason why we should make any assumptions based on nothing but pure, random speculation, that this reality doesn't apply to some.

And whereas scriptures do speak of the idea that "endless torment" and the like are expressed as they are to work upon the hearts of the children of men (essentially -- put in those terms to scare the devil out of us...literally)...logically, why on earth would that apply to other instances of the words "eternal", "endless", "never," etc., when the promise of the resurrection given to all for having kept their first estates is a good thing and randomly taking it away, philosophically, both flies in the face of the statement "never to be divided", but also in the face of the free gift of immortality that has been promised. Moreover, how would that "work upon the hearts of the children of men" for their salvation?

Which, as I think of it, the scriptures that state things like:

" Even this mortal shall put on immortality, and this corruption shall put on incorruption, and shall be brought to stand before the bar of God, to be judged of him according to their works whether they be good or whether they be evil—" (Mosiah 16:10)

...and several others of a similar vein, also clearly speak to God's word on the matter -- unless we presume that immortality doesn't mean what it means -- as in "never to physically die again" -- as in "never to have the spirit and body separated again". If they can die again (have their bodies and spirits separated), then they are not immortal.

As to the Book of Mormon prophets not having the full "perspective as laid out in D&C 76", I say phooey on that.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Well the relevant scriptures are Alma 11:45 and D&C 138:17.

Whereas what you're saying is theoretically correct, I think it a dangerous precedent to presume exceptions to scriptural plain-speak where no exceptions have been given or revealed. To what end would we randomly apply exceptions, and for what value?

The scriptures use the plain wording, concerning post resurrection, that the spirit and body are "never to be divided" and "never again to be divided". I see no reason why we should make any assumptions based on nothing but pure, random speculation, that this reality doesn't apply to some.

And whereas scriptures do speak of the idea that "endless torment" and the like are expressed as they are to work upon the hearts of the children of men (essentially -- put in those terms to scare the devil out of us...literally)...logically, why on earth would that apply to other instances of the words "eternal", "endless", "never," etc., when the promise of the resurrection given to all for having kept their first estates is a good thing and randomly taking it away, philosophically, both flies in the face of the statement "never to be divided", but also in the face of the free gift of immortality that has been promised. Moreover, how would that "work upon the hearts of the children of men" for their salvation?

Which, as I think of it, the scriptures that state things like:

" Even this mortal shall put on immortality, and this corruption shall put on incorruption, and shall be brought to stand before the bar of God, to be judged of him according to their works whether they be good or whether they be evil—" (Mosiah 16:10)

...and several others of a similar vein, also clearly speak to God's word on the matter -- unless we presume that immortality doesn't mean what it means -- as in "never to physically die again" -- as in "never to have the spirit and body separated again". If they can die again (have their bodies and spirits separated), then they are not immortal.

As to the Book of Mormon prophets not having the full "perspective as laid out in D&C 76", I say phooey on that.

I think the scriptures you cite are examples of scripture not quite saying everything we want it to say, or not applying in every conceivable context.  Alma 11:45 refers to the resurrected as being no longer able to “see corruption”.  Are sons of perdition not corrupt?  D&C 138:17 speaks of individuals who receive a fullness of joy.  Do sons of perdition enjoy a fullness of joy?  

I do agree with you that when we get away from the apparent prima facie meaning of the scriptures we are we are wandering onto some tenuous ground; especially when by so doing we back away from an unambiguous Church teaching or use such a reading to justify sinful behavior.   On the other hand, to the extent that the prima facie reading seems logically internally inconsistent and the only ramification of re-interpreting the scripture is that I become free to consider previously-unconsidered approaches to a question that LDS doctrine and scripture explicitly decline to answer (i.e. the fate of sons of perdition):  I feel a little more comfortable experimenting with positions that may be minority views within the LDS culture.

I love your “work upon the hearts” point and think it’s a point that should be brought up more in many many doctrinal discussions like this one.  I would reply, in this context, that a) “all” may not be much of an overstatement, since relatively few seem to have the requisite knowledge to become children of perdition; b) “all” gives hope to humankind by reiterating the universal availability of such a reward even if an individual chooses to reject it; and c) “all” again gives hope by reiterating the magnitude of Christ’s atoning sacrifice as well as the scope of His victory over “death” (as the Nephites understood it).

In your discussion about “keeping the first estate” I get the feeling that your perspective is that the body is a gift or reward that even a son of perdition would want.  Are we sure of that, though?  What if a physical body only allows a son of perdition to feel pain more exquisitely?  Wouldn’t he be suffering even more than Satan himself, in the end?  Does Judas Iscariot deserve to suffer through eternity even more than Satan does?  And if the body came from that God who the son of perdition despises, continues to rebel against—and indeed, would kill again if only it were possible—then wouldn’t the son of perdition actually loathe his own body as a legacy from the God that he hates so much?  

On Mosiah 16:10:  I don’t deny the resurrection of the sons of perdition (which is all Abinadi’s statement is construed as meaning); I merely question the technics of what exactly that “resurrection of damnation” entails and what the final result of it is.  And in context, it isn’t clear that he’s talking about sons of perdition anyways.  Were the Noachian priests even eligible to become sons of perdition?

As for the perspective from which the BoM was written—I tried to be very careful in the way I phrased that.  The perspective and knowledge that the authors actually had; I do not know.  But they wrote their records in such a way as to give very little hint of the four-tiered salvation regimen that we get from D&C 76.  If the BoM prophets knew about the degrees of glory and the nuances of what it means to become a son of perdition, they seem to have taken pains to make sure that their immediate audience wouldn’t know about it—which then makes it problematic for us to try to use certain BoM passages as theological dog whistles to try to interpolate stuff into D&C 76 that the D&C text itself may not support.

Edited by Just_A_Guy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/28/2018 at 8:32 PM, Carborendum said:

I was tutoring my daughter in math and she asked an interesting question.  The set of "all real numbers"(-ꝏ, ꝏ) is essentially the opposite of the "Null set"(Ø).  Why isn't the null set the same as saying zero?  Why isn't zero (0) the opposite of infinity?

I had to explain why zero was not the same as the opposite of infinity in math.  But the 0 vs Ø intrigued me.  They are both a form of nothing.  But they're not the same thing.

I scratched my head at that one.  And it got me to thinking about the vast emptiness of space vs oblivion.  Is there really a difference between "nothing" and "lack of existence"?  I wonder then if the opposite of light is dark does not mean what we might think it means.  Is Outer Darkness really a state of existence?  Or non-existence?  Is oblivion even possible?  If oblivion is not possible, is "nothingness" possible?

I know that anything that didn't have a beginning will have no end.  So, is the existence of spirit (including all the souls going to O.D.) eternal?  Will it always be?  Could it be that they become nothing but still exist?

Zero is a concept that needs to be perceived where as NULL there is nothing there to perceive (or go another step, there nothing to do the perceiving).

Same with nothing and the lack of existence. I can say there is nothing, but to say their is no existence is impossible, as if there were in fact no existence, it would not be perceivable. 

Edited by Fether
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think the scriptures you cite are examples of scripture not quite saying everything we want it to say, or not applying in every conceivable context.  Alma 11:45 refers to the resurrected as being no longer able to “see corruption”.  Are sons of perdition not corrupt?  D&C 138:17 speaks of individuals who receive a fullness of joy.  Do sons of perdition enjoy a fullness of joy?  

I do agree with you that when we get away from the apparent prima facie meaning of the scriptures we are we are wandering onto some tenuous ground; especially when by so doing we back away from an unambiguous Church teaching or use such a reading to justify sinful behavior.   On the other hand, to the extent that the prima facie reading seems logically internally inconsistent and the only ramification of re-interpreting the scripture is that I become free to consider previously-unconsidered approaches to a question that LDS doctrine and scripture explicitly decline to answer (i.e. the fate of sons of perdition):  I feel a little more comfortable experimenting with positions that may be minority views within the LDS culture.

I love your “work upon the hearts” point and think it’s a point that should be brought up more in many many doctrinal discussions like this one.  I would reply, in this context, that a) “all” may not be much of an overstatement, since relatively few seem to have the requisite knowledge to become children of perdition; b) “all” gives hope to humankind by reiterating the universal availability of such a reward even if an individual chooses to reject it; and c) “all” again gives hope by reiterating the magnitude of Christ’s atoning sacrifice as well as the scope of His victory over “death” (as the Nephites understood it).

In your discussion about “keeping the first estate” I get the feeling that your perspective is that the body is a gift or reward that even a son of perdition would want.  Are we sure of that, though?  What if a physical body only allows a son of perdition to feel pain more exquisitely?  Wouldn’t he be suffering even more than Satan himself, in the end?  Does Judas Iscariot deserve to suffer through eternity even more than Satan does?  And if the body came from that God who the son of perdition despises, continues to rebel against—and indeed, would kill again if only it were possible—then wouldn’t the son of perdition actually loathe his own body as a legacy from the God that he hates so much?  

On Mosiah 16:10:  I don’t deny the resurrection of the sons of perdition (which is all Abinadi’s statement is construed as meaning); I merely question the technics of what exactly that “resurrection of damnation” entails and what the final result of it is.  And in context, it isn’t clear that he’s talking about sons of perdition anyways.  Were the Noachian priests even eligible to become sons of perdition?

As for the perspective from which the BoM was written—I tried to be very careful in the way I phrased that.  The perspective and knowledge that the authors actually had; I do not know.  But they wrote their records in such a way as to give very little hint of the four-tiered salvation regimen that we get from D&C 76.  If the BoM prophets knew about the degrees of glory and the nuances of what it means to become a son of perdition, they seem to have taken pains to make sure that their immediate audience wouldn’t know about it—which then makes it problematic for us to try to use certain BoM passages as theological dog whistles to try to interpolate stuff into D&C 76 that the D&C text itself may not support.

 

The problem is that none of us know much about anything we try to talk about.  Empirically we do not even understand and define physical death very well.  We may think we know something but then whatever we think we know – if we are aware – we discover exceptions that demonstrates we are guessing at best.  And that is the empirical; that we can test and measure.  Then there is the spiritual that we think we understand by reading scripture and seeking revelation - but again, if we are aware – there are exceptions that either demonstrate we are again guessing or else we just say such thinking itself is heresy.

But the worse is; trying to figure out that which is spiritual that we think or are sure does not describe us.  Why would anyone choose to argue over things so obscure?  Can a resurrected Celestial being explore a Black Hole?  Can a spirit travers a Black Hole?  Is evil its own reward or must it be punished?

I think perhaps we are missing something far more important.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think the scriptures you cite are examples of scripture not quite saying everything we want it to say, or not applying in every conceivable context.  Alma 11:45 refers to the resurrected as being no longer able to “see corruption”.

Yes. They will be no longer able to see "physical" corruption, of which that verse specifically speaks.

58 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

D&C 138:17 speaks of individuals who receive a fullness of joy.

In context with Alma 11 it supports the idea of "no more divided" The fact that it's speaking, in this verse, of those in the first resurrection is immaterial in light of Alma 11.

59 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

On the other hand, to the extent that the prima facie reading seems logically internally inconsistent

What is logically internally inconsistent? Or are you speaking hypothetically?

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 On the other hand, to the extent that the prima facie reading seems logically internally inconsistent and the only ramification of re-interpreting the scripture is that I become free to consider previously-unconsidered approaches to a question that LDS doctrine and scripture explicitly decline to answer (i.e. the fate of sons of perdition):  I feel a little more comfortable experimenting with positions that may be minority views within the LDS culture.

Agreed. You'll note I'm not calling you to repentance. ;)

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

In your discussion about “keeping the first estate” I get the feeling that your perspective is that the body is a gift or reward that even a son of perdition would want.  Are we sure of that, though?

87.3% sure.

I believe this is common to lds teachings. Those with physical bodies have dominion over those without. And, yes, it is a gift (reward?) for having kept our first estate.

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 What if a physical body only allows a son of perdition to feel pain more exquisitely?  Wouldn’t he be suffering even more than Satan himself, in the end?  Does Judas Iscariot deserve to suffer through eternity even more than Satan does?

Seems to me that, almost certainly, one who has failed to keep their 2nd estate after having kept their first will find greater regret than one who openly rebelled against their first estate. As to the physical body playing into "pain"...who knows. Possibly.

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And if the body came from that God who the son of perdition despises, continues to rebel against—and indeed, would kill again if only it were possible—then wouldn’t the son of perdition actually loathe his own body as a legacy from the God that he hates so much?  

Spectacularly unknowable!

Side thought: I don't know what the state of sons of perdition will be re: rebellion. Are they excluded from "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess?" Mosiah 16:1-2 says:

"The time shall come when all shall see the salvation of the Lord; when every nation, kindred, tongue, and people shall see eye to eye and shall confess before God that his judgments are just.

"And then shall the wicked be cast out, and they shall have cause to howl, and weep, and wail, and gnash their teeth; and this because they would not hearken unto the voice of the Lord; therefore the Lord redeemeth them not."

If we assume the unredeemed here mentioned includes, at the very least,  or means,  at the most, candidates for S.O.P. status, then...well...you see my point?

I'm really not sure...but my sense is that when the conquered are conquered (by which I mean Satan and his disciples) they too will confess Christ, His justice, His mercy, His dominion, His power, etc. -- even Satan. I don't know that I believe there will be any room for rebellion left.

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 Were the Noachian priests even eligible to become sons of perdition?

Unknowable.

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As for the perspective from which the BoM was written—I tried to be very careful in the way I phrased that.  The perspective and knowledge that the authors actually had; I do not know.  But they wrote their records in such a way as to give very little hint of the four-tiered salvation regimen that we get from D&C 76.  If the BoM prophets knew about the degrees of glory and the nuances of what it means to become a son of perdition, they seem to have taken pains to make sure that their immediate audience wouldn’t know about it—which then makes it problematic for us to try to use certain BoM passages as theological dog whistles to try to interpolate stuff into D&C 76 that the D&C text itself may not support.

Actually only a few individuals needed to take care what they wrote. Primarily Nephi and Mormon. And we have specific instances of both of these stating plainly that they were forbidden to write this or that.

As to the "dog whistles" interpolation what-have-you...well if it's mine or yours (or others who shall not be named at the present moment) then sure. If it's the leaders of our church then it's something else altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, zil said:

:D David Eddings is a great story-teller, no?  A wonderful mix of old-fashioned story telling and the new rule of "show, don't tell".

To be honest, that was the only book I've read of his.  And I believe it was a team effort with his wife.  So, I don't have anything to compare it to.  

Regardless, I thought the book was just the right balance of humor, philosophy, and intrigue.  But there wasn't really enough action. It did an excellent job of story telling.  But in the end, i just set the book down and thought,"Well, that was nice.  What's for dinner."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

To be honest, that was the only book I've read of his.  And I believe it was a team effort with his wife.  So, I don't have anything to compare it to.  

Regardless, I thought the book was just the right balance of humor, philosophy, and intrigue.  But there wasn't really enough action. It did an excellent job of story telling.  But in the end, i just set the book down and thought,"Well, that was nice.  What's for dinner."

You should try The Belgariad (volume 1 and volume 2) and The Malloreon (also volume 1 and volume 2) - they make up one big story - I think they're the best Eddings, and I have quite a lot.  I read somewhere that all his works are actually done in some part with his wife, but The Redemption of Althalus was the first where she got author credit.

And yeah, all his books are more light, fun reading than anything else.  That's one of the things I like about them - they make a good break from someone like Robin Hobb or Elizabeth Moon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, zil said:

What if our core self did not always have sentience?

In light of the way I personally read the scriptures and statements made by General Authorities, I have trouble believing this would be the case.  However, I recognize that there are those who read the same passages differently.

That said, in consideration of a newborn baby, and how little knowledge one possesses, I could imagine that at some moment in eternity with the extreme limitation to our knowledge, we could have been almost entirely incoherent, perhaps possessing little more intelligence than just instinct.  But, eh, who knows?  :dontknow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, person0 said:

I have trouble believing this would be the case.

So do I.

2 minutes ago, person0 said:

But, eh, who knows?  :dontknow:

Exactly.

At the end of the day, these are thought experiments.  When I do this with story ideas, I'll follow the story (in my mind) until the line has nowhere else to go.  If that makes a good ending, then I have a story.  If it doesn't make a good ending, I pick a spot to rewind to, make a change, and follow that until it ends.  If it weren't for the consequences of mortality, I suspect I'd do this almost exclusively. :)

What we're doing here is not so different - very few facts, a theory, follow it to see where it leads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, zil said:

What we're doing here is not so different - very few facts, a theory, follow it to see where it leads.

Yes, I agree!  Prior to this discussion, I had somehow always considered that I have always had sentience similar to my ability to think today.  However, the intelligent use of my sentience today, is greater than it was 5 and 10 years ago, and far greater than when I was a child.  If we are to believe (as we are taught) that we were 'reared to maturity' as spirit children of God, then I would imagine that we actually started out very unlearned and grew in intelligence and capability as we learned.  This is a new way to think about this I had not previously considered.  Now that it seems so obvious, I am shocked I had never considered it!  Which, Ironically, this experience in itself is further evidence that this theory could be legit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, zil said:

At the end of the day, these are thought experiments.  When I do this with story ideas, I'll follow the story (in my mind) until the line has nowhere else to go.

Nowhere.  Nowhen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, person0 said:

Yes, I agree!  Prior to this discussion, I had somehow always considered that I have always had sentience similar to my ability to think today.  However, the intelligent use of my sentience today, is greater than it was 5 and 10 years ago, and far greater than when I was a child.  If we are to believe (as we are taught) that we were 'reared to maturity' as spirit children of God, then I would imagine that we actually started out very unlearned and grew in intelligence and capability as we learned.  This is a new way to think about this I had not previously considered.  Now that it seems so obvious, I am shocked I had never considered it!  Which, Ironically, this experience in itself is further evidence that this theory could be legit!

Never grow old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam featured this topic
On 4/30/2018 at 10:58 AM, Traveler said:

I believe there are two distinct problems going on in this thread.  I will call the first – theoretical physics and the second – theoretical theology.

Theoretical physics is the attempt to explain empirical evidence that falls outside of all our known physical laws and principles.   For example – there has been some talk in this thread about Black Holes.  The problem is that the term Black Hole is something outside of all our understanding of the principle and laws that we have observed and defined in the physical (empirical) universe in which we think we live and defines our existence.   But beyond the event horizon of what we call a Black Hole is a complete and total mystery.   The mathematical model that we have developed with a great deal of sophistication applies so very well in the space-time that we empirically experience – falls apart, goes completely berserk and contradicts not just itself but everything else that we thought we knew.    

The scientist that face the conundrum of our universe in all their humility that we can muster - have calculated that, at a minimum – the sum total of all we understand amounts to no more than 5% of what we are smart enough to realize is out there as of now.  Theoretical theologians are not so humble – They think they have the answer to everything but explain nothing – sometimes worse than nothing by denying principles of empirical things we all experience as otherwise.  Some are so blatantly vile that they define ignorance as pure knowledge and blame all that cannot be understood or explained - as G-d and the nature of G-d.  Thus, they pronounce faith in G-d by glorifying their ignorance and the worship of their ignorance – which is a far cry from pure light and knowledge that they say defines their actual G-d and the way true believer worship Him.

That's all well and good.  Does that mean that we're not supposed to wonder?  I thought curiosity about what we don't know is the beginning of learning.  To simply ask a question and have brainstormed ideas about what could be or what could not be is something that human beings are supposed to do.  So, why not speculate?  Why not ask questions?  Why not "suppose" some impossible and fantastical, even miraculous things.

Doing so brings out the inner child in us.  And perhaps that is not such a bad thing since we are supposed to be as little children. Better yet, we are to be led by a child.  A babe, even.

Quote

I do not believe the light of G-d is electromagnetic radiation nor is the darkness that Satan loves so dearly the lack of electromagnetic radiation.  Just because G-d teaches something as a metaphor does not meant we understand the whole of it.  I am concerned that many – if they could see Satan and “outer darkness” would think it the Celestial Kingdom just because of the amount of electromagnetic radiation it may use up, expel and waist.

No one here brought up anything about electromagnetic radiation.  I can only guess that you threw in universal background radiation all on your own when i spoke of the vacuum of space vs. nothingness.  I never mentioned it had anything to do with it.

Perhaps you've heard of Aco and the Juggernaut?  Aco was a goddess that was lost to time.  She was the blackness behind empty space.  She wasn't evil. But she represented the thing that was there when nothing else was.  She wasn't the stars, the nebulas, nor even the interstellar dust.  And in today's science, she was not even the background radiation or even the alchemist's aether.  She was the black canvas upon which all other matter and energy rested.  She was the zero.

No imagine that Aco herself did not exist.  That is the null set I was talking about.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Carborendum said:

That's all well and good.  Does that mean that we're not supposed to wonder?  I thought curiosity about what we don't know is the beginning of learning.  To simply ask a question and have brainstormed ideas about what could be or what could not be is something that human beings are supposed to do.  So, why not speculate?  Why not ask questions?  Why not "suppose" some impossible and fantastical, even miraculous things.

Doing so brings out the inner child in us.  And perhaps that is not such a bad thing since we are supposed to be as little children. Better yet, we are to be led by a child.  A babe, even.

No one here brought up anything about electromagnetic radiation.  I can only guess that you threw in universal background radiation all on your own when i spoke of the vacuum of space vs. nothingness.  I never mentioned it had anything to do with it.

Perhaps you've heard of Aco and the Juggernaut?  Aco was a goddess that was lost to time.  She was the blackness behind empty space.  She wasn't evil. But she represented the thing that was there when nothing else was.  She wasn't the stars, the nebulas, nor even the interstellar dust.  And in today's science, she was not even the background radiation or even the alchemist's aether.  She was the black canvas upon which all other matter and energy rested.  She was the zero.

No imagine that Aco herself did not exist.  That is the null set I was talking about.

 

You bring up some very good points.  I agree speculation is the beginning of learning.  My point is not about speculation – my concern is with those that cannot differentiate between things they speculate and things they think they have learned to be true.  I openly admit to prejudices with the methods of many (for lack of a better term) I would call religious speculators.  The statement I made in concern was “they think they know everything but are unable to explain anything”.  Any acid head on LSD can speculate and think they see all kinds of answers – but at some point, we must deal with the “real world” or in other words – empirical evidence. 

Let me give a little example from history.  Over 150 years ago a brilliant scientist studied creatures in a relatively closed eco system called the Galapagos Islands.  He speculated that living creatures would change over time in order to survive better in their particular circumstance.  He called this change evolution.  He carefully documented his observations in a publication titled “Origins of the Species”.  Near the end of his publication he made a very interesting speculation and in essence asked the question – “wouldn’t it be interesting if humans and apes had a common ancestor?”

This little statement caused the greatest breach in servility between modern (mostly Christian) religion and modern science.  If there is any discussion about evolution many of religious prejudice will proudly pronounce that they do not believe in “Darwinian Evolution”.  I do not think that they understand that Darwinian evolution is the empirical observation that all living creatures will physically change and adapt to their circumstance – especially if it will enhance their chance of survival. 

I do love speculation – in fact I opened a very big door to speculation with a veiled question about how someone might be able to ascertain if they are wandering around in the Celestial Kingdom or Outer Darkness?  Looking around what would you expect to see in either place?  How would anyone speculate the difference between the two.  I then suggested if you base your ideas on light as we know it – you may be confused to know any empirical difference.  But you have been the only one to respond to that post but without a drop of what you expect to see differently – you may correct me if I am wrong – but it appears that your only desire was to engage me in what you thought was a flaw of mine????  Of which I have many and I am still not certain which flaw you wanted to engage?   Maybe it is my flaw in not knowing which flaw or flaws is the worse?

 

Maybe you just wanted to argue about nothing?  ;)

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

but at some point, we must deal with the “real world” or in other words – empirical evidence. 

Of course.  But we have to begin somewhere too.

Quote

Let me give a little example from history. 

We've already had several long threads about that.  So, I'll refrain from commenting.

Quote

I do love speculation – in fact I opened a very big door to speculation with a veiled question about how someone might be able to ascertain if they are wandering around in the Celestial Kingdom or Outer Darkness?

If you had actually asked a question, then I'd have been happy to join in a discussion.  But as it was framed, I found it to be within the stream of the comments you made about electromagnetic radiation -- which I responded to.

The truth is that I spent a lot of time wondering why you injected the EM point to the discussion.  I was only guessing why.  There was no way that I could interpret from what you wrote that you were offering a hypothesis for people to speculate upon.  You asked no questions.  And the statements you made didn't seem to apply to anything we'd been discussing.  So, without that bridge of explanatory segue, the "implied question", I'm afraid was lost.

Quote

 Looking around what would you expect to see in either place?  How would anyone speculate the difference between the two.  I then suggested if you base your ideas on light as we know it – you may be confused to know any empirical difference.  But you have been the only one to respond to that post but without a drop of what you expect to see differently – you may correct me if I am wrong – but it appears that your only desire was to engage me in what you thought was a flaw of mine????  Of which I have many and I am still not certain which flaw you wanted to engage?   Maybe it is my flaw in not knowing which flaw or flaws is the worse?

So, here are some questions.  Thank you.

There's the way I envision it.  I think of light and dark simply because that is the imagery we get from scriptures.  Then there's the literal.  The text itself says that even the Telestial "surpasses ALL understanding."  If we then consider the Terrestrial is another order of magnitude above that.  Then the Celstial again above the Terrestrial, well, it doesn't take too long to figure out that we simply can't imagine it. 

When things are that far beyond our understanding it is very tempting to say either

A) It is so far beyond our understanding that we might as well not try. OR
B) As mortals, we try to make sense of anything we hear, read, see, experience.  If it is beyond our understanding, we try anyway.

What we are promised is that the glory of God in any of the three kingdoms will be a level of happiness.  (The Plan of Salvation was originally called the Plan of Happiness).  Outer darkness is a state of eternal misery.  Then we have all sorts of other descriptions that are more imagery than definition.  It is the imagery that gives us something to focus on as we seek the Spirit for further light and knowledge on the subject.

All the imagery about Outer Darkness is a feeling and an idea.  But no definition.  And the converse is true of Exaltation.  The definition of a "mystery" is not simply "something that mortal man cannot comprehend."  It is "that which requires the Spirit to be made understandable."

When I make statements or ask questions about weird things, I honestly don't hope anyone thinks I'm making a declaration of doctrine.  This thread is an example.  I simply find "another image" that fits with the imagery the scriptures provide.  So, I look at that and invite others to look at that.  And maybe, just maybe, the Spirit can reveal something just a bit more to help us understand that which cannot be understood any other way.

Quote

Maybe you just wanted to argue about nothing?  ;)

LOL.  I'll tell you a true story.  After I posted it I wondered if anyone would compare my OP to Seinfeld.  -- in case you aren't familiar, it was popularly touted as the "show about nothing."

And truthfully, yes.  I wanted to talk about "nothing".  I thought that was pretty clear.  :) 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/30/2018 at 3:32 PM, Fether said:

Zero is a concept that needs to be perceived where as NULL there is nothing there to perceive (or go another step, there nothing to do the perceiving).

Same with nothing and the lack of existence. I can say there is nothing, but to say their is no existence is impossible, as if there were in fact no existence, it would not be perceivable. 

As i recall, Brigham Young had said something about Sons of Perdition eventually ceasing to exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Carborendum said:

That's all well and good.  Does that mean that we're not supposed to wonder?  I thought curiosity about what we don't know is the beginning of learning.  To simply ask a question and have brainstormed ideas about what could be or what could not be is something that human beings are supposed to do.  So, why not speculate?  Why not ask questions?  Why not "suppose" some impossible and fantastical, even miraculous things.

Doing so brings out the inner child in us.  And perhaps that is not such a bad thing since we are supposed to be as little children. Better yet, we are to be led by a child.  A babe, even.

To me, this is in large part what life is about--i.e.  venturing beyond the ordered and know into the potential of chaos and the unknown--the space for new creation.

This story (to borrow from @zil's astute conceptualization) is played out archatypically in numerous scriptures, not the least of which is Adam and Eve being expelled from the order of the Garden into the chaos and unknown of fallen earth, which is where they became as the Gods, knowing good from evil.

It is likewise manifest in the story of Abraham, who was commanded to leave the order of his home and go out into the potential chaotic and unknown of the wilderness.

So, too, with Moses and the exodus of Isreal from Egypt to the promised land, and Lehi and his family's journey from Jerusalem to the new world, as well as Brigham and the saints departure from Nauvoo towards the West, all types and shadows of spirit children departing from heaven and coming to live in mortality on earth, if not also leaving the known of earth life and venturing into the relatively unknown of the afterlife.

Such is the intended journey within the mind.. As children (I love that analogy), we ought to thrill at the prospects of exploring what we don't know. Indeed, our continued maturation depends upon it. Getting out of the safe spaces of our brain and delving into the messy is the way of creativity and growth.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Carborendum said:

As i recall, Brigham Young had said something about Sons of Perdition eventually ceasing to exist.

 I would be very interested in a reference or more context.  Part of the understanding of empiricial is existance or that which is known to exist.  Many think that things spiritual are not empirical but that does not mean that things spiritual do not exist - Such a conclusion is a misdirection of the possible extent of meaning applied out of context.   Perhaps he thought that perhaps they do not empirically or physically exist (lose their physical bodies).  But that is different than their intelligence as defined in the D&C - no longer existing which would be a contridiction of being "eternal". Hopefully, you can follow this enough to distinguish it from a rabbit hole.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Traveler said:

Perhaps he thought that perhaps they do not empirically or physically exist (lose their physical bodies).

Pretty sure Brigham Young knew this:

Quote

D&C 131:7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;

8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

As for what he said and where, I don't know.  If I have time later, I'll try a search too, though I'll be guessing since I don't know what Carb might be referring to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, zil said:

Pretty sure Brigham Young knew this:

As for what he said and where, I don't know.  If I have time later, I'll try a search too, though I'll be guessing since I don't know what Carb might be referring to.

“They will be decomposed, both soul and body, and return to their native element. I do not say that they will be annihilated; but they will be disorganized, and will be as if they had never been; while we live and retain our identity and contend against those principles which tend to death or dissolution” (Journal of Discourses, 7:57).

“The clay that marred in the potter’s hands was thrown back into the unprepared portion to be prepared over again” (Ibid., 2:124).

 

This, of course, is not canon, not prophetic, and directly contrary to the scripture that plainly says no one know their fate, and even to those who have it revealed, it is shut up again. I'm quite confident that Brigham Young knew that. He's speculating. He knows he's speculating.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic
  • 1 month later...

We do not believe in annihilation of matter. Matter cannot be destroyed.

 

But it can be returned to its elemental state of chaos. I am led to believe that those who go to outer darkness, including Satan, will at some point be destroyed and become elemental spirit "particles". To be purified, and reborn into spirits of one kind or another. Recycled. God wastes nothing. The rebellious, who persist in fighting God and denying the Holy Ghost, will one day be cast back into the mill, like the marred clay vessel, to be refined and made into a new vessel.

2 Arise, and go down to the potter's house, and there I will cause thee to hear my words.
3 Then I went down to the potter's house, and, behold, he wrought a work on the wheels.
4 And the vessel that he made of clay was marred in the hand of the potter: so he made it again another vessel, as seemed good to the potter to make it.
5 Then the word of the LORD came to me, saying,
6 O house of Israel, cannot I do with you as this potter?  saith the LORD.  Behold, as the clay is in the potter's hand, so are ye in mine hand, O house of Israel.
7 At what instant I shall speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, and to pull down, and to destroy it;

(Old Testament | Jeremiah 18:2 - 7)

3 Retaining all power, even to the destroying of Satan and his works at the end of the world, and the last great day of judgment, which I shall pass upon the inhabitants thereof, judging every man according to his works and the deeds which he hath done.

(Doctrine and Covenants | Section 19:3)
 

 

Edited by David1c
add to it
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My GUESS, is that those who reject God and His works in this life, in the next life may be reduced back to the condition they were in before they first came into contact with God, where they will remain as unprogressed intelligences until our God, or another god, picks them up and tries again. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, the Scriptures I cited seem to bear this out.

God wastes nothing. He will keep purging his children until they become glorious and add honor to God--whether in this probation, or another. Thus God expands in glory forever and ever! Those children of God who become obedient to the laws of exaltation become like God, and are gods themselves. They are glorious, and God is exalted by having such progeny adding honor and glory to his family line and his name. Glory upon glory, kingdom upon kingdom with no end!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have thought, why would God fill up the universe with outer darknesses of rebellious spirits that live forever that way? Wasteful.

No, God will return the rebellious back to a chaotic, elemental state, and they shall be remade into other spirits, in another probation, another possibility for obedience and glory.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share