DiscussMormonism.com

From a thread on the Mormon Dialogue board about the reasons for suffering and Outer Darkness, poster Le Sellers gave the following reply to a post I made:

I don't know who told you that their suffering cold have been worse, so that make God merciful. That's not the poijnt.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/550 ... 1209028429

This is the crux of the problem. They are not suffering in any kingdom. Even thouse in Outer Darkness are not suffering in the sense you are using the word. They have chosen to be in Outer Darkness because that is the place where they are most "comfortable". They choose to be with Satan rather than with God. The prefer to "reign in hel1 as opposed to serving in heaven. They would be miserable in heaven.

Now, the Lord has told us their fate is not good. It is so bad, in fact, that he does not show it to us for more than a moment because it is misery from our perspective. But, from theirs, they are happy.


The nature of God is to allow the results of agency to take place. He does not interfer when the person refuses to allow it.

Lehi

Am I missing something here, or has the need to defend Mormon doctrine at all costs just changed hell (i.e. Outer Darkness) from the worst place imaginable to a place where people can actually be happy?

Second, considering all of the arguments I've heard over the years to defend things like polygamy, Book of Abraham, etc., I really can't think of one that distorts LDS doctrine more than this one. I mean, to reinterpret the meaning of the ultimate hell in Mormonism into a place where people can be happy completely brutalizes the D&C in a way that I just find incredible.

Thoughts?

Check into the beliefs of this guy:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/swd/hh/index.htm

He taught that everyone chooses their own eternal reward.

He also taught celestial (eternal) marriage, but condemned polygamy.

keithb wrote:Am I missing something here, or has the need to defend Mormon doctrine at all costs just changed hell (i.e. Outer Darkness) from the worst place imaginable to a place where people can actually be happy?

Personally I think that's hilarously funny. It's absolutely contrary to anything any GA has ever said about hell.

If you want doctrine, don't go to MAD.

harmony wrote:Personally I think that's hilarously funny. It's absolutely contrary to anything any GA has ever said about hell.

Well, not completely contrary:

"God loves his offspring, the human family. His design is not simply to furnish happiness to the few here, called Latter-day Saints. The plan and scheme that he is now carrying out is for universal salvation; not only for the salvation of the Latter-day Saints, but for the salvation of every man and woman on the face of the earth, for those also in the spirit world, and for those who may hereafter come upon the face of the earth. It is for the salvation of every son and daughter of Adam. They are the offspring of the Almighty, he loves them all and his plans are for the salvation of the whole, and he will bring all up into that position in which they will be as happy and as comfortable as they are willing to be."

— Lorenzo Snow, Journal of Discourses 14:308 (14 Jan 1872); compare D&C 88:32

Nevo wrote:

harmony wrote:Personally I think that's hilarously funny. It's absolutely contrary to anything any GA has ever said about hell.

Well, not completely contrary:

"God loves his offspring, the human family. His design is not simply to furnish happiness to the few here, called Latter-day Saints. The plan and scheme that he is now carrying out is for universal salvation; not only for the salvation of the Latter-day Saints, but for the salvation of every man and woman on the face of the earth, for those also in the spirit world, and for those who may hereafter come upon the face of the earth. It is for the salvation of every son and daughter of Adam. They are the offspring of the Almighty, he loves them all and his plans are for the salvation of the whole, and he will bring all up into that position in which they will be as happy and as comfortable as they are willing to be."

— Lorenzo Snow, Journal of Discourses 14:308 (14 Jan 1872); compare D&C 88:32

Salvation is not the same thing as exaltation.

Outer Darkness/hell is an exaltation.

Am I missing something here, or has the need to defend Mormon doctrine at all costs just changed hell (i.e. Outer Darkness) from the worst place imaginable to a place where people can actually be happy?

Second, considering all of the arguments I've heard over the years to defend things like polygamy, Book of Abraham, etc., I really can't think of one that distorts LDS doctrine more than this one. I mean, to reinterpret the meaning of the ultimate hell in Mormonism into a place where people can be happy completely brutalizes the D&C in a way that I just find incredible.

I accept the doctrine that hell is a place and state of suffering. I don't think you are seeing an insidious change in LDS apologetics but rather evidence of a "Mormon mythology" someone has grown up with but has gone uncorrected.

It is only after the resurrection and in the kingdoms of glory that one receives relief from their stint in hell unless of course they inherit Perdition/Outer Darkness

I don't think you are seeing an insidious change in LDS apologetics but rather evidence of a "Mormon mythology" someone has grown up with but has gone uncorrected.

A trend towards assimilation of Swedenborgian theology? That happened a long time ago?

MCB wrote:

I don't think you are seeing an insidious change in LDS apologetics but rather evidence of a "Mormon mythology" someone has grown up with but has gone uncorrected.

A trend towards assimilation of Swedenborgian theology? That happened a long time ago?

Hardly. Swedenborg read the Bible and came up with his own conclusion about certain passages as did Joseph Smith. Nothing knew in this especially when it came to the kingdoms of glory.

why me wrote:Hardly. Swedenborg read the Bible and came up with his own conclusion about certain passages as did Joseph Smith. Nothing knew in this especially when it came to the kingdoms of glory.

Yes, I know that you think that Swedenborg was as much a prophet as Joseph Smith. <rolls eyes>

I don't think you are seeing an insidious change in LDS apologetics but rather evidence of a "Mormon mythology" someone has grown up with but has gone uncorrected.

A trend towards assimilation of Swedenborgian theology? That happened a long time ago?

Seems like almost everyone harbors various bits of "Mormon mythology" even today, especially antiMormons who need a strawman excuse for their apostasy. Hence we have the Church summarizing what constitutes doctrine.