Rich Man & Lazarus

[zil2]

16 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The thing is that it this is exactly what I've heard from some individuals, some of them on this forum.

They think they can go to hell for every sin under the sun.  And they can handle any punishment. But as long as it ends, they'll "get away with it."

Crazy people.  Very sad.  I think @Vort explained it very clearly.

[lonetree]

On a lighter note(?) this discussion has triggered a memory of one Star Trek(OS) episode where Kirk-Jeffrey Hunter, Shatner? found himself unable to stand even a few moments of the fabled traditional Hell-brought upon by either: one of those big-headed guys or his antagonist Gary Lockwood .

[Carborendum]

13 minutes ago, lonetree said:

On a lighter note(?) this discussion has triggered a memory of one Star Trek(OS) episode where Kirk-Jeffrey Hunter, Shatner? found himself unable to stand even a few moments of the fabled traditional Hell-brought upon by either: one of those big-headed guys or his antagonist Gary Lockwood .

That was in the pilot episode: "The Cage" (later adapted to "The Menagerie").

The big-headed guys were trying to break Captain Pike (Jeffrey Hunter) of his hunger strike.  They insisted that he eat their food elixir.  When he refused, they had him experience a fiery environment for a minute.  They said it was from a fable from his childhood.  I don't remember the word "hell" being invoked.

Pike proceeded to drink the elixir.

[lonetree]

45 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

That was in the pilot episode: "The Cage" (later adapted to "The Menagerie").

The big-headed guys were trying to break Captain Pike (Jeffrey Hunter) of his hunger strike.  They insisted that he eat their food elixir.  When he refused, they had him experience a fiery environment for a minute.  They said it was from a fable from his childhood.  I don't remember the word "hell" being invoked.

Pike proceeded to drink the elixir.

Okay-maybe it wasn't an allusion to Hell--maybe it was Daniel's fiery furnace.

[Carborendum]

8 minutes ago, lonetree said:

Okay-maybe it wasn't an allusion to Hell--maybe it was Daniel's fiery furnace.

No way of knowing.  The contextual clues were severely lacking.

[laronius]

Perhaps a little tangent but related:

D&C 19:20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit.

We often speak of the suffering of those in hell in terms of regret and guilt, an "only if" produced suffering. And I'm sure that is definitely part of it. But I am intrigued by the example the Lord gives here. We use the term death to describe a separation (i.e. spirit from body, man from God). The Lord here is saying, as I interpret it, your suffering will also be because of separation, of which separation from the Spirit is but a hint of what's to come. To me this is something more than regret.

We know that the light of God gives life to all things. So what happens to that spirit when that light is reduced or cut off completely (outer darkness)? This is like spiritually being placed in the Saharan Desert and being cut off from water. That is some very real suffering that strikes at our very being. 

[Jersey Boy]

On 6/23/2023 at 12:23 AM, Vort said:

I disagree somewhat with this interpretation. Christ's atonement frees us from the wages of sin, which wages are spiritual death. But if we do not avail ourselves of that gift, we will inevitably suffer the same horrific spiritual death that Christ himself suffered and overcame. But such suffering will not sanctify us; it is simply the price of our sinfulness, a  price that will not be paid by Christ until we accept his payment for us.

Some have understood the above verses of Section 19 as a proclamation that we ourselves must "pay" for our own sins if we don't accept Christ's atonement, but this is antidoctrinal. We are unable to pay for our own sins. Period. No amount of suffering on our part pays for anything. We are unclean and in a damned state, and we cannot be cleansed from that damnation save by the blood of Christ. There is no other way. And until we accept that atoning blood of our Savior, we, like Alma the younger, must suffer eternal damnation. I see no other reasonable interpretation for Section 19.

In accord with your correct understanding of Doctrine and Covenants 19, the reason why the suffering for sin of the sons of perdition truly is endless is because they utterly refuse to exercise faith in Christ and repent of their sins. The ‘unpardonable sin’ is the steadfast refusal to come unto Christ to obtain pardon. 

Edited June 24, 2023 by Jersey Boy

[Vort]

23 minutes ago, Jersey Boy said:

The ‘unpardonable sin’ is the steadfast refusal to come unto Christ to obtain pardon.

I believe this is what it means to deny the Holy Ghost.

[Jersey Boy]

6 hours ago, Vort said:

I believe this is what it means to deny the Holy Ghost.

Yes, because denying the Holy Ghost is not only a turning away from God and an abandonment one’s sure and certain spiritual testimony that the gospel is true, but it also amounts to a rejection of the Holy Ghost’s witness that exercising faith in the redemptive power of Christ is the only way to receive forgiveness of one’s sins and thereafter obtain an inheritance in one of the three kingdoms of heavenly glory.

Edited June 25, 2023 by Jersey Boy

[prisonchaplain]

On 4/29/2023 at 7:49 PM, mikbone said:

...The Rich man is not named But Lazarus is, and the Rich man knows this beggar by name.  The family dogs accept him.  And the Rich man’s brothers also know Lazarus.  Was the Rich man punishing Lazarus and not just ignoring him?  ... I’m not really into discussions of socioeconomic equality.  And I don’t believe that the parable is part of Jesus’ political platform.

I've been taught that what Jesus shared with this episode was not a parable but an account. In parables Jesus supposedly never names his characters, but here He names Lazarus. If so, this actually happened to the rich man and Lazarus. My take away is to interpret this as mostly a historical lesson and as literally as possible. Thoughts?

[laronius]

8 hours ago, prisonchaplain said:

I've been taught that what Jesus shared with this episode was not a parable but an account. In parables Jesus supposedly never names his characters, but here He names Lazarus. If so, this actually happened to the rich man and Lazarus. My take away is to interpret this as mostly a historical lesson and as literally as possible. Thoughts?

I have wondered at times whether Jesus ever told a single made-up story in his life. I don't think there is anything that says a parable can't also be a literal account. But regardless, I don't have any problems believing this to be a factual account. Though I do wonder if the Lazarus we are familiar with was a beggar.

[prisonchaplain]

I just read an article on both Lazarus' from a Bible study site. It also argued that the account of the Rich Man and Lazarus was not a parable. Beyond mentioning specific names, Jesus neither interprets what happened nor adds a moral at the end. It is almost a certainty that this Lazarus was different from the one who was raised from the dead and became a target of the religious leaders. 

Edited July 9, 2023 by prisonchaplain

[mikbone]

On 7/9/2023 at 1:10 PM, prisonchaplain said:

I just read an article on both Lazarus' from a Bible study site. It also argued that the account of the Rich Man and Lazarus was not a parable. Beyond mentioning specific names, Jesus neither interprets what happened nor adds a moral at the end. It is almost a certainty that this Lazarus was different from the one who was raised from the dead and became a target of the religious leaders. 

I think the moral of the story is implied…

If you are a soulless heathen and treat your fellow man like garbage you might find yourself in an unsatisfactory situation in the afterlife.

Maybe reaching though.

[JohnsonJones]

On 6/23/2023 at 9:57 AM, zil2 said:

Not sure why the bold part would be there if "endless" was just another way of saying "no end".  Of course, I'm also pretty sure this is academic, unless one is thinking, "I can handle temporary Endless punishment, but I'm not willing to endure torment with no end, so I need to know which it is so I can make up my mind whether to repent."

A thought occurred to me as I read this thread.

Some have said that to be separated from their spouse because they only made it to the Telestial Kingdom would torment them for eternity.  They would no longer be punished with torment, but emotionally, if they can remember, it could be an endless punishment.  It is something they COULD have been, but didn't.

Is that torment with no end...or simply the torment ends, but the punishment (not being able to be what one could have been) as an endless punishment of one's own devising?

[mikbone]

7 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Some have said that to be separated from their spouse because they only made it to the Telestial Kingdom would torment them for eternity.  They would no longer be punished with torment, but emotionally, if they can remember, it could be an endless punishment.  It is something they COULD have been, but didn't.

And the only way to get our pre-mortal memories back, is to pass thru the veil.

Ether 3:13 And when he had said these words, behold, the Lord showed himself unto him, and said: Because thou knowest these things ye are redeemed from the fall; therefore ye are brought back into my presence; therefore I show myself unto you.