- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
BeJoyful wrote:
Yeah- it made sense to utilize him, I just didn’t like how he handled it. I disagree with him on what excommunication means, in particular. He said it’s a condemnation to hell, which I don’t think there’s any doctrinal support of.
Dehlin emphasized the negative to prove a point, and that point was his main purpose. It might be a gray area (there are a lot of those in the Church), but I’d say it’s technically doctrine, just missing a few details. Excommunication takes away the priesthood, baptismal covenants, temple covenants, etc from the person, according to the Church. All of which is, according to the Church, required to be “saved”. So I’d be willing to say, according to Church doctrine, excommunication is a condemnation to hell (meaning spirit prison and a lower kingdom), which can only be reversed through repentance, re-baptism and the restoration of blessings. There are some technicalities I’m sure I’m missing, but I’d say that’s the general rule.
Dande48 is correct about the doctrinal result of ending up in a lower kingdom, if membership is not restored, but, if we are being technical and precise, Dehlin was flat-out wrong to call it being “condemned to Hell”. First, lots of people come back to the LDS Church after excommunication, and that alone contradicts the condemnation part. Second, using the word “Hell” conjures all kinds of images and assumptions for nearly all other Christians that we don’t teach at all. I am not saying a full doctrinal treatise would have been better, but a tiny attempt for basic clarity would have been much, much better. It isn’t hard to do. When dealing with topics like this, where we define something so differently than others, precision is important – and “condemned to Hell” is WAY too broad and inaccurate to be helpful
dande48 wrote:So I’d be willing to say, according to Church doctrine, excommunication is a condemnation to hell (meaning spirit prison and a lower kingdom), which can only be reversed through repentance, re-baptism and the restoration of blessings. There are some technicalities I’m sure I’m missing, but I’d say that’s the general rule.
That’s fair. But I think taking his audience into account is important for context here. Dehlin isn’t addressing Mormons here who know the concept of a lower kingdom and spirit prison isn’t the fire and brimstone that most non-Mormons associate with ‘hell’, but a general audience whose idea of hell is one of eternal suffering. That’s the impression I got, at least.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Old Timer wrote:Dande48 is correct about the doctrinal result of ending up in a lower kingdom, if membership is not restored, but, if we are being technical and precise, Dehlin was flat-out wrong to call it being “condemned to Hell”. First, lots of people come back I to the LDS Church after excommunication, and that alone contradicts the condemnation part. Second, using the word “Hell” conjures all kinds of images and assumptions for nearly all other Christians that we don’t teach at all. I am not saying a full doctrinal treatise would have been better, but a tiny attempt for basic clarity would have been much, much better. It isn’t hard to do.
When dealing with topics like this, where we define something so differently than others, precision is important – and “condemned to Hell” is WAY too broad and inaccurate to be helpful
Looks like we had similar thoughts, you hit the nail on the head
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.