Suicide and Hell - LDS Answer 2018

[Heber13]

I saw this- lots of good things in it. I do agree though- they're avoiding a cause and talking about a symptom.

Have you watched "Believer"? It came out last week on HBO. I think Dan Reynolds did an excellent job for the most part.

I haven't seen it but saw DJ started a thread on it.

It's a sad topic.

And to add blame and judgment to it seems to hurt the suffering family more.

[BeJoyful]

I haven't seen a thread on it, I'll have to look.

I don't think blame is a useful concept in any death. My family is deeply affected by suicide, and no matter what, a family will always ask why, what could we have done differently, etc.

I didn't feel like Believer was blaming family at all. I didn't love the section with John Dehlin, as I felt like he exaggerated and demonized church policies more than necessary. But overall I felt like it was not placing blame as much as highlighting the need for change, if that makes sense.

I watched it with my 13 year old with louts of pausing to talk, I want to rewatch it without pausing. I do feel like Dan Reynolds emphasized his love for the church throughout it, though.

I saw this- lots of good things in it. I do agree though- they're avoiding a cause and talking about a symptom.

Have you watched "Believer"? It came out last week on HBO. I think Dan Reynolds did an excellent job for the most part.

I haven't seen it but saw DJ started a thread on it.

It's a sad topic.

And to add blame and judgment to it seems to hurt the suffering family more.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[Heber13]

I didn't love the section with John Dehlin, as I felt like he exaggerated and demonized church policies more than necessary. But overall I felt like it was not placing blame as much as highlighting the need for change, if that makes sense.

Yes...that makes sense. And I agree.

[DarkJedi]

I didn't love the section with John Dehlin, as I felt like he exaggerated and demonized church policies more than necessary. But overall I felt like it was not placing blame as much as highlighting the need for change, if that makes sense.

Yes...that makes sense. And I agree.

Agreed, I also am not fond of the Dehlin segment. On the other hand, Dehlin did align himself with the issue fairly early on and he is a recognizable name.

[BeJoyful]

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.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

[dande48]

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.

[Curt Sunshine]

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

[BeJoyful]

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

[BeJoyful]

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