Bump.

Because a discussion of hell was raised in another thread.

Interestingly enough, the LDS church has a "heaven" (the Terrestrial area, a sort of middle kingdom) where there is no God.  You'd have to go to the "higher heaven" or Celestial area to be with God.

Bart, let me make a bit of a correction there.  The light of God can reach all degrees of glory.  God himself can also go down to lower degrees of glory if he wants -- he visited earth, after all.  But to "live" with God eternally, one must reach the highest glory.

It is true that what we consider the middle glory (or Terrestrial Kingdom) is probably about the same as what most Christians consider "heaven."  And that is where most Christians and good people will go, assuming they don't accept the covenants/ordinances necessary for exaltation in the highest kingdom after death.

Well, let me clarify. :)  I'm not saying that God can't go there, it's that he basically doesn't.  D&C 76:77 "These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father."

What is D&C?

Doctrine and Covenants, an important text for the Mormon faith.

In reply to katisara (msg # 340):

Doctrine & Covenants is our canon of modern day revelation to our prophets from Joseph Smith forward.

But I agree with Bart that while He can descend to lower degrees of glory, he rarely has reason to do so.  After final judgment particularly, why would he?

He cannot tolerate the least degree of sin, so the scriptures say, so I imagine it would be uncomfortable to be in His presence, to put it mildly, if you hadn't really accepted Jesus Christ and the Atonement in your life.

As I understand it, you cannot withstand his presence because of that, which is why a transfiguration is required for each "visit," like what happened with Jesus at Gethsemane, Moses and the burning bush, etc.

I'm pretty sure that is accurate as to mortal existence, but I am not quite sure if that applies to resurrected beings.  I don't want to be too speculative...

Let me preface this by saying that this post is my personal viewpoint, not my church's theology.

Well, I was just thinking of shame.  You know that moment when you're obviously wrong and you get caught with your hand in the cookie jar?  It's embarrassing, embarrassment that could be enough for you to feel physically sick or actually even feel some sort of mental anguish.  I don't think those types of resurrected people would find their bodies burning up in the presence in God, but they really wouldn't like it, they wouldn't be happy.

I think the Scriptures hint that all of us are going to feel that way immediately upon entering God's presence, but that the love of God and the power of the Atonement acting on our life will make God "remember our sins no more", or at least keep telling us that it's ok now.  Some people who actively denigrated that Atonement may not have the same level of reassurance coming from God, or may feel so ashamed that they just can't bring themselves to ever go near where God is.

I personally think that Hell is shame.  You blew off the final for that important class, failed it and the teacher put everyone's final grades next to their name on the door of the class.  The university and the professor are ok with you trying to take that class again (and I'm not talking about reincarnation here, this is just a stilted metaphor), but you know everyone else in that major knew you failed the class and that you're retaking it, and you just can't stomach everyone seeing you and knowing how badly you failed, so you just never go back.  That's what I think Hell is.  And I think that's why God doesn't go visit people in the "most glorious" LDS part of heaven, because he knows how hurt people are, he knows that there's nothing really he can do that point, and he doesn't want to cause more pain.

You know those people who screwed something up and they just can't be consoled?  I've had that happen at Scout camp before -- I've worked several summers at Scout camp, where some young person screwed up and everything's been cleaned up or fixed or whatever but that young person just can't let it go and is just in the "depths of despair", and doesn't want to go eat with anyone else because everyone else knows what happened.  In that situation, usually their leader just orders them to go eat with everyone and they see it's not that big a deal and everything tends to eventually go back to normal.

I've seen that same thing happen with adults, as well.  They feel offended, or ashamed, or whatever, and they leave and no matter how much they initially liked whatever it was, they're just never going to give it (or themselves) a second chance.

Anyway, that's what I think Hell is.

For the LDS version of Hell, where there's such a strong active component, I can agree with that.

However, in a more mainstream version, while I like that idea, there's a fundamental issue. Namely, that right now I am making the best decisions I can with the information available. If I end up going to Hell for not having enough faith in God, I know that I've done everything I reasonably can to come up with an answer. (Or to reframe it, if Christianity is wrong but Islam is correct, I know I read the Koran, I've prayed and thought on it, etc. That the reason I'm not Muslim and I end up in Hell isn't because I rejected Allah, but because there wasn't enough evidence there for me to establish a relationship in the first place.)

Having failed many courses in college, I can tell you I feel plenty of shame failing those I slacked through, but none at all for working my hardest and just not having enough background knowledge to cut it. If you do your best, you have no regrets, and no shame.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints perspective is that you should read the Book of Mormon, talk to missionaries, pray to God and ask, then join the church after you receive your answer. :)

So having read the BoM and prayed on it, I did not get compelling evidence that that is the correct Church. Should that warrant my going to Hell, I'd still think I'd made the right decision given the information available. I'm not going to blame myself for making the best decision available.

I asked the same question and was essentially told 'You didn't do it right.'

My favorite is, "you aren't ready."

It's the standard tactic (not just with the LDS church, but with other Christian systems as well)

God didn't answer your prayer?

You were:

- In sin.
- Not genuine in your prayer.
- The silence IS the answer.
- Your answer is coming, but not yet.
Etc.

The thing is, all or any of those could very well be true, but unfortunately they are completely indistinguishable from 'What you are speaking to does not exist' so it makes things rather tricky!
This message was last edited by the player at 21:12, Thu 27 Mar 2014.

That's true.  Ah well. :)

I thought we had the discussion that Mormons did not believe in Hell?

No one has the right to say why someone did or did not get an answer.  One of those reasons Doulos suggests might be true, or maybe not.  It is not a "tactic;" it is simply asking.

What you are not considering is this:  Those you have talked to HAVE received an answer, so they KNOW it's true.

But they also know it's a hard road.  Examples of this are all over the Bible.  God doesn't just give out these things like hotcakes.  You can only answer for yourself if you put in a soul searching deep enough, asked hard enough, studied enough, and were not cynical or otherwise doing it just for show.

But I can't think of anyone in the LDS church telling someone they are not ready or are too sinful.  Everyone trying hard enough is read, and church is here for the sinners, not the saints.  So that wouldn't make sense.  Mormons also would not say that silence is the answer; that would contradict what is stated in our Doctrine & Covenants, and the Book of Mormon, not to mention James in the Bible.

Listening to a podcast today that was discussing a man who woke up out of a coma who believed he had psychic powers.  Was able to predict the future (in his mind, and in the minds of some people who listened to him).  Was hearing voices that told him things.  He also HAS received words and KNOWS it's true.

The power of personal testimony is only powerful to certain types of people, and I'm not one of them - but some folks are easily swayed by personal stories, even they don't contain any substance in and of themselves.

That's understood, but to the individual you are speaking to, subjectively they feel they have received an answer.  Spiritual inspiration/revelation is subjective to the user.  The point is that those who have had (or believe they have had) such an awakening and the happiness and joy that follow it want others to share in that happiness and joy for themselves.

But much as attaining a state of Nirvana in Buddhism, it is not an easy journey, which is why faith is a verb, not a noun. :)

I understand that. Your closest equivalent I believe you said is the abyss? My memory fails me as to the term, but the point is, I understand. However, the question I was responding to used the term 'Hell', so I responded in kind.



I think there's a gap between the theory, and the practice. You're right, unless you're Jesus, you don't know why I didn't get an answer. However, very many people will provide their own. Unfortunately, some of those people may have some rank in their organization. (I'm not speaking of the LDS Church specifically, just broadly, as was Doulos.) It's frustrating to make an honest attempt, but then it's belittled because someone else feels like she needs to defend her faith; of COURSE God would answer if you were sincere. Clearly the problem is with you!

But I agree with you, that sort of response is inappropriate.



I'm going to dispute that, mostly because I've talked to a LOT of people. Most of the Catholics I know aren't Catholic because God came down and talked to them; they're Catholic because they were born to a Catholic family, and told they are Catholic and will always be Catholic. They may believe in God, but most of them have not had a watershed moment of indisputable proof like you have.

But otherwise I agree with your post, and I think it's a very important point for people struggling to find their faith.

A Heath Said:


I considered it, but I've also considered the possibility that they are insane or highly suggestible. Given the number of people that belong to a religion over any other religion ever, I've decided that either God has a sense of humor and is laughing as he randomly assaults people with BS, which kinda sounds like my type of god (even if he has a bull's head, is a woman, or exists as several entities... whatever), OR there is no deity controlling our lives.

I'm talking about from their position, so I get your point.  What I'm saying is to put yourself in their shoes and you will see why they behave the way they do.



I agree.  This is why this is the most personal thing a person can do or engage in.  It's hard work, and quite frankly, it's not anyone else's business because it is between you and God.  They should either (1) offer to help, if you want it, and (2) if you decide to join their church, then they probe a little to make sure they can accept you as a member (such as repentant, faith in Jesus or whatever).


I agree.  They would obviously fall outside the example I was referring to, so I think they are likely irrelevant to the line of argument.

By the way Heath, this is probably a good time to say thank you for representing your faith so well. That I didn't come away a convert doesn't change the fact that reading the BoM was time well spent, and I came away with a lot more respect for the LDS Church.

For those of you with kids, or who are responsible for teaching/bringing up people, whether or not they're your physical children, you may at times experience an "anguish of soul" when you feel that for whatever reason you've failed those children.  They misinterpreted something you said, made a bad mistake and you feel that it's partially your fault, or whatever, eventually it'll happen.

In another vein, I think the LDS idea of the "telestial kingdom" where murderers, etc., go is somewhat like "Hell" or the grey town in C. S. Lewis' The Great Divorce.  I think that's an excellent book, by the way.