One of the most unique things about Latter-day Saints is that we don’t believe in a traditional hell. Now, don’t get me wrong. We do believe in a hell, just not an eternal, agonizing, fire-and-brimstone-forever hell.
Our hell has an end. And after that, those who were in that hell will graciously be allowed into heaven.
Did you know that? Did you know that we don’t believe in an eternal hell like the other churches do? While yes, we do have a lot in common with other churches–especially as the world grows more and more wicked and godless–but we for sure have some huge and significant differences. Our beliefs about the afterlife are some of the biggest differences that separate us from the other denominations.
There’s a lot about this life that we don’t know, like why some people are born in places and circumstances that make it extremely difficult to accept the gospel. But we do know that as long as these people don’t commit the unpardonable sin, they will be saved.
Yes that’s right. EVERYONE will be saved unless they are a son of perdition–even if they never got baptized, never went to an LDS meeting, or never read so much as a single passage from the Bible. Everyone is going to be saved. Christ is that powerful. He does have the power to forgive sins just as much as He has power to heal physical ailments (see Mark 2:3-12). No one will be lost from His saving power unless they commit the one sin from which He cannot save them.
That’s what we believe. While atheists like to point out how unjust God must be to banish all people who don’t accept Christ in this life to an eternal hell, the scriptures and prophets of Mormonism ensure that all people, even the atheists, are going to heaven. Period. Did you hear that, Richard Dawkins? Even you, buddy, are going to heaven.
D&C 19 (Milk)
Received in March of 1830, D&C 19:1-24 holds some important truths relative to this matter. While there have been many interpretations of this revelation, I’m going to give mine.
In this section, God basically says the following: “I never said that people who don’t repent will suffer for all of eternity. I never said there’s no end to hell. The scriptures call it ‘endless torment’ but I never said it would actually be endless. It’s written ‘eternal damnation’ so that it scares people a little bit and prompts them to repent. Let me explain it a little, since you’re chosen and I want you to enter into my rest.
“My name is Endless. If I dish out punishments, then they are Endless punishments because they came from me. Therefore Eternal punishment equals God’s punishment, and Endless punishment is the same as God’s punishment. The Endless part has more to do with who’s administering the punishment rather than with the duration of it.
“But hey, don’t go around telling people about this. They need the milk before they can have the meat. I still want people to repent so they don’t suffer like I did. And if you go around telling people that hell isn’t a forever thing, they may perish for lack of repentance. So go, preach nothing but repentance and don’t show this to anyone until it’s the right time.”
That’s what I get from D&C 19, anyway. Please know that I don’t paraphrase the Savior’s words in sacrilege, but in an attempt to understand. And of course, my interpretation could be completely wrong. But let’s continue.
D&C 76 (Meat)
The next important piece of the puzzle comes from D&C 76, received by Joseph Smith in 1832. It’s here that the Lord finally reveals what I think is the “meat” he hints at in D&C 19. And this meat, like most meat, is really, really good news.
The good news: Everybody will be saved in heaven no matter what. No matter what you believe, where you were born, what church you went to, what you think about evolution or the age of the earth, what gender you are, your sexual orientation, profession, social class, who you voted for, your favorite movie, amount of weekly screen time, … no matter what, you are going to heaven. And it’s through the grace, power, majesty, and love of Jesus Christ that makes it possible. If that’s not the best news you’ve ever heard, then I don’t know what is!
“This is good doctrine. It tastes good. You say honey is sweet and so do I. I can also taste the spirit and principles of eternal life, and so can you.”Joseph Smith (7 April 1844) (1)
That’s what we learn in section 76–that everyone will be saved with only one exception: the sons of perdition. We won’t go into that mystery here, but from what I understand, it’s pretty dang hard to become a son of perdition, so don’t worry about it too much. You’re going to heaven, pal. Of course, you may not go to the Celestial Kingdom, but you are still bound for a kingdom in HEAVEN–be it Terrestrial or Telestial–and thus you will be in heaven.
Which brings up an interesting question:
Isn’t anything but the Celestial Kingdom a form of Hell anyway?
Growing up in the Restored Church, I saw everything below the Celestial as Hell, especially the Telestial Kingdom, the place where I was told the murderers, thieves, and adulterers would go. I’m probably not alone in this thinking. Did you ever look at the Telestial as a Hell? But the truth is that the Telestial Kingdom is heaven. It’s a region of Heaven. Joseph Smith saw that “the glory of the telestial … surpasses all understanding; And no man knows it except him to whom God has revealed it” (76:89-90). The Telestial Kingdom, folks, is awesome. Way better than anything we know on this earth. Doesn’t sound like much of a hell to me. (2)
But there’s a catch, and here we can see how D&C 19 comes in. The people who go to the Telestial “are they who are thrust down to hell”, and “who shall not be redeemed from the devil until the last resurrection, until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have finished his work” (D&C 76:84-85; see also Matthew 18:33-35). Remember how in D&C 19 the Lord says that “every man must repent or suffer,” and if they choose not to repent, their sufferings will “be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not”? God Himself suffered these same things so that we wouldn’t have to, if we would just repent. Those who don’t repent will have to go to hell to suffer, but it won’t be permanent. Remember, God never said there would be no end to the torment. And now, with the three degrees of glory, we know there definitely will be an end to the suffering. Hell is not eternal. Christ, who is mighty to save, will, as Joseph Smith taught “[save] all the works of his hands” (D&C 76:43). Even the Book of Mormon teaches that in the end and through the Holy One of Israel’s power, “hell must deliver up its captive spirits” (2 Nephi 9:12, my emphasis).
If the Telestial isn’t hell, then the Terrestrial definitely won’t be hell either. You thought the Telestial would be awesome? Well, Joseph said “the glory of the terrestrial … excels in all things the glory of the telestial, even in glory, and in power, and in might, and in dominion” (76:91).
About a month before he died, Joseph said, “I do not believe the methodist doctrine of sending honest men, and noble minded men to hell, along with the murderer and adulterer … but I have an order of things to save the poor fellows at any rate, and get them saved for I will send men to preach to them in prison and save them if I can. There are many mansions for those who obey a celestial law—& there are other mansions for those who come short of that law—every man in his own order.” (3)
There is a place in heaven for EVERYONE, depending on which law they live. You and I want to live the Celestial Law, but some people don’t and some people won’t, and that’s okay. It’s their choice.
So think about this: We don’t send out missionaries to rescue the masses from an eternal hell that they’re bound to if they don’t accept the Book of Mormon. We send them out to help people qualify for the celestial kingdom, to live up to their full potential and to receive the “fulness of the Father”. Terrestrial glory has access to the Savior, but the Celestial has access to the Father. (D&C 76:77)
Our family members and friends may make choices that appear to lead them away from the Celestial Kingdom, but they are still going to heaven no matter what. They won’t suffer forever. They will be happy. It’s not up to us to judge, but it is up to us to love everyone. And so that’s what we should do. If your neighbors refuse to meet with the missionaries or to come to the ward Halloween party for the umpteenth time, they’re not going to burn in hell for it–so just keep loving them anyway. Isn’t that what Christ asked us to do?: “This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you” (John 15:12). Honestly, that’s really the only thing that we can do: love one another.
“I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true;” Charles Darwin wrote, “for if so the plain language of the text seems to show that the men who do not believe, and this would include my Father, Brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished. And this is a damnable doctrine.” (4)
Charles, it seems, rejected Christianity, at least partially, because he thought to accept it meant his loved ones would be punished forever. That’s a hard doctrine to swallow. It really is a “damnable doctrine.” If only he had known the truth that Joseph Smith was preaching across the Atlantic through sections 19 and 76–the truth that even his unbelieving father, brother, and all his friends wouldn’t have to suffer for all eternity, but could all eventually enter into heaven by the grace and power of Christ. Let’s not forget that, as Joseph Smith said, “God glorifie[s] himself by saving all that his hands ha[ve] made whether beasts, fowl fishes or man.” (5)
My challenge to you, dear reader, is to judge less and love more. You can’t determine the eternal destiny of anyone but yourself, so just treat people with kindness and love, and let God do the rest. Because of Him, we’re all headed for a glory far beyond anything we can imagine.
Sources and Notes
- For members of the Church viewing the Telestial Kingdom (and anything other than Celestial) as hell, see: https://www.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/hf8qb2/a_problem_with_the_afterlife_especially_the/?utm_source=amp&utm_medium=&utm_content=post_body
- Joseph Smith (12 May 1844), http://signaturebookslibrary.org/essential-joseph-smith-49/
- BONUS QUOTES ABOUT HELL NOT BEING ETERNAL>>> Elder James E. Talmage stated: “During this hundred years [of Church history] many other great truths not known before, have been declared to the people, and one of the greatest is that to hell there is an exit as well as an entrance. Hell is no place to which a vindictive judge sends prisoners to suffer and to be punished principally for his glory; but it is a place prepared for the teaching, the disciplining of those who failed to learn here upon the earth what they should have learned. True, we read of everlasting punishment, unending suffering, eternal damnation. That is a direful expression; but in his mercy the Lord has made plain what those words mean. ‘Eternal punishment,’ he says, is God’s punishment, for he is eternal; and that condition or state or possibility will ever exist for the sinner who deserves and really needs such condemnation; but this does not mean that the individual sufferer or sinner is to be eternally and everlastingly made to endure and suffer. No man will be kept in hell longer than is necessary to bring him to a fitness for something better. When he reaches that stage the prison doors will open and there will be rejoicing among the hosts who welcome him into a better state. The Lord has not abated in the least what he has said in earlier dispensations concerning the operation of his law and his gospel, but he has made clear unto us his goodness and mercy through it all, for it is his glory and his work to bring about the immortality and eternal life of man.” (In Conference Report, Apr. 1930, p. 97.) https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/manual/doctrine-and-covenants-student-manual/section-19-the-gift-of-repentance.p10?lang=eng#p10
- President Oaks: “God’s doctrine shows that all of us are His children and that He has created us to have joy. Modern revelation teaches that God has provided a plan for a mortal experience in which all can choose obedience to seek His highest blessings or make choices that lead to one of the less glorious kingdoms. Because of God’s great love for all of His children, those lesser kingdoms are still more wonderful than mortals can comprehend.17 The Atonement of Jesus Christ makes all of this possible, as He “glorifies the Father, and saves all the works of his hands.” https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/10/35oaks.p15?lang=eng
28 thoughts on “Not Even Atheists Are Going to Hell Forever (D&C 19 & 76)”
atheists aren’t going to go to any kind of hell. The sadistic fantasies of theists are just that, hopes of vicious people who are upset someone dares disagree with them.
Christians certainly do love to invent different versions of their religion, making nonsense up in the guise of claiming some god told them how the others are wrong.
One of the purposes of this blog is to show how Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism, found a middle ground between the extremes of Young Earth Creationism and atheism. YECs say the universe is 6,000 years old. Joseph said many worlds have existed and passed away before this one. YECs say that God created animals specially. Joseph said that God made plans for changes to happen in the earth so the EARTH would bring forth animals. YECs say atheists will burn in hell forever for not accepting Christ. Joseph said no one will burn in hell forever. Atheists say God must be cruel to punish his children forever if they don’t believe in him. Joseph says God loves and will save everyone.
Do you see what I’m getting at? Joseph Smith was revolutionary and even now, in 2021, he’s still showing that religion and science can and should peacefully coexist, because it’s all truth.
No evidence of LDS nonsense either, Ryan. What the LDS did what all creationist types do today, try to make their religion seem more valid by adding science to it.
It never happens the other way around.
Smith was a fraud just like every other theist who has made up their religion, and that includes every theist.
So what you’re saying is: Joseph Smith added natural selection to the creation account in 1842–a good 17 years before Darwin wrote Origin of Species? Joseph spoke of innumerable worlds existing before ours in 1830, 160 years before the first exoplanet was discovered? He postulated the existence of planets made out of crystal, 170 years before we learned that white dwarfs are crystallized globes?
Joseph may have added science to his religion to make it more valid—but how did he add so much science that hadn’t even been discovered yet?
Joseph Smith did not add natural selection.
We have this from the LDS “I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory [of evolution] of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. ”
Giordano Bruno also mention many worlds back in the late 1500s.
White dwarf stars are not “crystalized globes”. What total nonsense. They have cores of crystalized metals. Those aren’t clear or glass which is the nonsense Smith claimed. And there may be planets partly made of crystal but not as Smith claimed them to be, people make up lots of nonsense and might be right eventually. Even a broken clock might be right twice a day.
as usual, a theist takes the vague natterings of their magical books and tries to shoe horn them into science. “The angels do not reside on a planet like this earth; But they reside in the presence of God, on a globe like a sea of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord.” – yep, no seas of glass and fire. Glass isn’t crystal. Metallic crystals aren’t clear.
and you are just one more theist trying to pretend his religion is true by lying about how it “matches” with science.
““God has set many signs on the earth, as well as in the heavens, for instance; the oak of the forest, the fruit of the tree, the herb of the field; all bear a sign that seed hath been planted there; for it is a decree of the Lord that every tree, plant, and herb, bearing seed, should bring forth of its kind, and cannot come forth after any other law, or principle.””
funny how this shows Smith saying that there is no natural selection or evolution. This is where the lies of creationists fail when they want to pretend that a “kind” is a range of animals rather than just one type.
and hmm, oh look, the book of Abraham was invented between 1835 and 1842, when the ideas of natural selection and god as a programmer were popular, with Lyell, Darwin, Gould, Malthus, etc.
I don’t see how that Joseph Smith quote is anti-evolution. Isn’t it true that every organism reproduces after its kind? An animal always brings forth an organism of the same species. That’s a tenet of evolutionary theory. How is Smith saying otherwise? To me, this statement is more anti-creationism than anything since the only law by which things can come forth seems to be biological reproduction, just as evolution requires. No special creation happening here.
Yes the Book of Abraham was produced between 1835 to 1842, but can you prove that Joseph Smith was in correspondence with or a follower of Lyell, Malthus, or Darwin? Was he thinking of natural selection before Darwin published his theory? If so, that would be huge. To my understanding, yes, that things had evolved was commonly thought, but not that it was nature itself that caused the changes. That’s where Darwin’s contribution came in. Book of Abraham (ch. 4) teaches that changes in the earth brought about changes in living things. You could interpret that in different ways, but it’s been in there since 1842.
For white dwarfs being crystallized globes, see this 2019 article, where the lead study author himself says, “All white dwarfs will crystallize at some point in their evolution… This means that billions of white dwarfs in our galaxy have already completed the process and are essentially crystal spheres in the sky.” So, I could be misunderstanding what a “crystal sphere” is, but I’m wondering where you’re getting your information? (https://www.livescience.com/64453-white-dwarf-stars-turn-to-crystal.html)
Yes, Giordano Bruno mentioned many worlds centuries before Joseph Smith. Looks like both he and Joseph were right. Could be a lucky guess, but how many more lucky guesses would it take for Joseph to be a prophet?
And that anti-evolution quote “from the LDS” is NOT from Joseph Smith, nor is it in any way Church doctrine.
I understand your feelings towards theists, but I need you to understand that I’m not lying to anyone about my religion. Joseph Smith said what he said, and now it’s becoming clearer and clearer almost 200 years later that what he said is valid scientifically. I appreciate your comments and am happy to continue this discussion. It’s good to flesh things out on the blog. Feel free to comment on any other post on here as well. I definitely want my blog to be a place of discussion for YECs, atheists, and those in-between.
Your ignorance of evolutionary theory is telling. The fact that animals can birth animals with differences leads to speciation. So the ignorance of Joseph F. Smith doesn’t work.
The book of Abraham was invented between 1835 to 1842 from lies that Smith invented about common Egyptian papyruses. And I don’t need to prove that Smith was in “correspondence”. He could read, couldn’t he? “To your thinking” is meaningless since you believe a known liar and randomly make up your own meanings to try to validate your nonsense with science.
again, I’ve seen those articles about crystalized stars. That is not what Smith was describing. Crystal isn’t a mass of crystals. For all that theists whine about context, you sure have no problem in taking things out and ignoring what is really said. You need evidence for your religion and you are desperate to find it. Therefore, you try to make believe an ignorant man somehow magically know about things and you try to conflate a crystal sphere, with a sphere of crystals.
Just because someone can imagine something and happen to be right once does not mean that their other claims are true. Alas for you that quote is right from your leadership: By Water, and Blood, and the Spirit – Pearl of Great Price Central You have half a lucky guess from a known liar.
I’m sure you do need me to “understand” and agree with you. However, you are indeed lying about reality and your religion.
I’m not sure if there’s a language barrier here, but please allow me to go through some of your points again.
My “ignorance of evolutionary theory is telling”? Joseph Smith’s statement that plants only reproduce after their kind is completely consistent with evolutionary theory. Tomato plants don’t produce pepper seeds. They produce tomato seeds. Of course animals birth offspring with differences, but an animal will always be the same species as its parents, and its offspring will always be the same species as it is. That’s how evolution works. And that’s exactly what Joseph Smith said.
Are you suggesting that Joseph Smith–who lived from 1805–1844, and was an uneducated farm boy on the frontier of America–was a reader of Lyell, Malthus, and Darwin? Were their writings even available in America at that time? Somehow Joseph found it necessary to alter the creation account as seen in Genesis to include elements that fit quite nicely with natural selection and evolution (more than a decade before Origin of Species was published). If you can prove he did so because of the influence of Lyell, Malthus, and Darwin, that would be a big deal.
I admit I don’t understand your argument about white dwarfs. Do you think they are opaque? Are they black or dark? You accused me of trying “to conflate a crystal sphere, with a sphere of crystals.”–What are you saying here? About this topic, Joseph used terms like “globe like a sea of glass and fire”, “made like unto crystal” (D&C 130), and “sea of glass” (D&C 77). Where did Joseph Smith talk about “a sphere of crystals” versus a “crystal sphere” (which is what scientists are now calling white dwarfs)?
About Joseph Smith, you said: “Just because someone can imagine something and happen to be right once does not mean that their other claims are true.” He was right more than once. My blog is full of examples. In 1841, Joseph Smith said that this earth was made out of pieces of other planets or globes that had been destroyed. Was that just a lucky guess? I wrote about it here: https://sitatcit.home.blog/2020/04/13/that-time-joseph-smith-said-the-earth-was-made-of-planets/ . Can you explain how he knew this long before science could back it up? Doesn’t sound like a very “creationist” idea to me.
You weren’t clear why you were referencing the “By Water, and Blood, and the Spirit – Pearl of Great Price Central” article. Can you elaborate?
Joseph Fielding Smith was a leader of my Church, yes, but I do not consider his views on evolution as binding. They are not doctrine. He was not President of the Church when he wrote his anti-evolutionary books. And while President, he was silent on the issue.
And about the Book of Abraham being a fraud, there’s a lot of nuance there. Check out more articles on Pearl of Great Price Central for that topic. If it’s a fraud, then Joseph guessed pretty luckily about natural selection in the creation when he wrote Abraham chapter 4.
I appreciate our discussion, and I would appreciate it if you stopped calling me (and Joseph Smith) a liar. Just refute my points with evidence. Thank you.
I will not stop calling liars what they are. Unless you can support your claims, you are caught in making false claims for your own benefit e.g. a lie.
I always try to support my claims with evidence. But it goes both ways–You can’t just call Joseph Smith a liar and leave it at that. Support it with evidence.
About Joseph Smith saying this earth was made out of pieces of broken up planets or globes, see my post here: https://sitatcit.home.blog/2020/04/13/that-time-joseph-smith-said-the-earth-was-made-of-planets/. The consensus on how the earth formed today per scientists is that many small planets (including Theia) collided, broke up, and morphed into a bigger planet, Earth. And of course all the heavier elements of the earth were made in stars (globes) that exploded and broke into pieces.
About the existence of crystal spheres in the universe, see my posts (1) https://sitatcit.home.blog/2021/02/07/how-the-earth-really-could-become-a-sea-of-glass-according-to-science/ and (2) https://sitatcit.home.blog/2020/09/02/crystal-glass-and-diamond-worlds-of-fire/. Scientists now know (quite recently) that there are billions of crystallized spheres in our own galaxy as white dwarfs. I’m still confused about your arguments about what you think Joseph meant when talking about globes like glass and fire and crystal, so feel free to elaborate.
About Joseph Smith adding natural selection to the creation account, see my posts (1) https://sitatcit.home.blog/2019/05/10/let-us-prepare-the-earth-natural-selection-in-the-scriptures/ and (2) https://sitatcit.home.blog/2019/07/02/the-creation-account-vs-science-do-they-agree/. He changed all the right words in Genesis 1 to make Abraham 4 fit perfectly with our *modern* understanding of natural selection. Words like organize, prepare the earth to bring forth, cause to come forth, etc. He removed the “creationist” language like “God created” and replaced it with “the Gods prepared the earth to bring forth”. Joseph published this in 1842, and to suggest that he was a reader of Darwin and Lyell is astonishing. Please provide evidence for that if you can.
Please read the linked posts and comment on any or all. Let me know your arguments against them. Is there enough evidence, is it good evidence, etc?
I have supported my points with evidence. The papyrus that Smith claimed to be his nonsense were nothing but fragments of common ancient Egyptians books. They did not say what he falsely claimed they did. So he is a liar.
Again, a theist tries to make believe his religion describes reality when that is not the case at all. The elements are from supernovae which are not stars that “broke into pieces”. It’s rather cute on how desperate theists are for evidence for their nonsense that they go out of their way to lie about what their supposed prophets really said and what reality is. It’s great that even you admit that the claim is contradictory, one saying planets and one saying globes. A globe is not a star and a planet is not a star, Ryan. “Earth has been organized out of portions of other Globes that has ben Disorganized.”” And this “This earth was organized or formed out of other planets which were broke up and remodelled and made into the one on which we live.”aren’t the same but nice example on how religion is invented by people who hear something that makes no sense.
If Smith was right in this “ I remarked to my family and friends present, that when the earth was sanctified and became like a sea of glass,” then you are lying in this “What if Joseph was right, but it’s not the Earth that becomes the celestialized crystal sphere, but the Sun?” You just rewrite what Smith says and then declare that he “really meant” something else. What incompetent attempts at deceit.
You aren’t confused, you just don’t want to admit that you are entirely wrong with your attempts to rewrite what Smith says to make it fit reality.
Your post are still false and re-reading them won’t make them true. It’s a great example again of theists making up nonsense. It’s great when theists have to change their magic books they claim come from their god. They still do the same thing now when they need to pretend that their god “really” meant some scientific concept. You have no evidence so there is not enough evidence. All you have are theists retconning their first false claims.
Did you actually read my blog posts, or did you just skim the first couple of paragraphs to find some quotes out of context? You wanted evidence—it’s in the body of those posts.
You seem to get caught up on semantics quite a bit. If stars that go supernova don’t “break into pieces”, then what do they do? Break into atoms? Break into particles? They break up into something, that’s for sure. Yes, there are two records of what Joseph said on 5 Jan 1841. One person recorded the word “planets”, the other recorded the word “globes”. What’s the difference? It’s apparent that Joseph used the words “planet” and “star” interchangeably at times (see Abraham 3). Doesn’t make him wrong—it just makes him an early 19th-century man. They didn’t have the same understanding of the cosmos (or the same definition of “planet”) as we do in 2021. The fact that we have two accounts of what he said that day, and that they largely agree on substance, adds historical validity to the episode.
If you had read on about the earth being made like unto crystal, you’d see what I mean. Joseph spoke of globes like a sea of glass existing. He said the earth would become like crystal. Scientists now are saying that the Sun will turn into a crystallized sphere (a white dwarf), and that the earth will likely be ripped apart and become part of that white dwarf. In other words, our earth will probably become part of a crystallized sphere. Do you have anyone else in the 1840s coming any closer to that in their predictions of the destiny of our solar system?
You can’t seem to get past the Book of Abraham controversy. Yes, Egyptologists agree that what’s written on the papyrus doesn’t match what’s written in the Book of Abraham. There is definitely more nuance to that, as your quote states (where is that from, btw?). But you can’t use that as an argument against everything: “Joseph can’t be right about X because he was wrong about Y.” Forget about how the book came about, and let’s discuss what the man said. Most of the things I’m claiming here don’t even come from the Book of Abraham, so you can’t keep using that as your “evidence”.
I’m still waiting for your explanation of how natural selection-type language made it into Abraham chapter 4. And don’t say it’s not natural selection because “Joseph Smith was a liar.” Was he reading the works of Darwin before Darwin published them? Was he reading Lyell? Was Joseph pointing out that Genesis was wrong? Was Joseph accepting ideas contrary to the Great Flood of Genesis? Was Joseph decidedly incorporating non-creationist principles into his religion to make it look more authentic? Remember, he died in 1844 in frontier America.
You said, “You have no evidence so there is no evidence.” If you’re not willing to consider the evidence I’ve presented in these blog posts, or if you’re just going to dismiss it based on semantics, then we really don’t need to continue this discussion. I’m all for discussion, but we can’t keep coming back to “Joesph was a liar… you’re a liar… you’re a theist so everything you say is designed to justify your beliefs… your attempts are incompetent… etc.”
Regardless of how the Book of Abraham came about, Joseph Smith taught many other (extra-Book-of-Abraham things) that seem way ahead of his time. The question is: Was he a prophet, or was he lucky guesser? You want to answer that by saying he was a liar and nothing he guessed was right, but you have yet to show me that his guesses were wrong. Show me with evidence that his guess about the earth being made from other planets was wrong. Show me with evidence that his words about earth becoming like unto crystal is wrong. Show me with evidence that he changed the creation account in Abraham 4 to match what he’d read from Darwin, Lyell, and Malthus. I’ve proposed these things, but so far you’ve only been able to come up with “stars aren’t globes,” “crystal spheres aren’t spheres of crystals,” and “Joseph Smith lied about the papyri.” You have to do better than that.
I read your posts. You have provided no evidence. You have made claims that have no evidence to support them. But nice try to make false claims about me to try to avoid your failure.
Again, Ryan, you try to make believe that some ignorant fraud “really” meant that stars go supernova. Having no idea what that meant back then, he literally meant stars are solid objects that break into pieces. You try to assume a knowledge that took a 100 years to get was magically known by trying to redefine words that we know how were used in context back then.
If you don’t know what the difference between planets and globes are, you are quite willfully ignorant and need a dictionary very badly. But, of course, that is all your nonsense depends on, more false claims.
Yep, Smith used planet and star interchangeably, like any ignorant fool might do. We did know the difference between stars and planets back then. We knew that planet reflect light. Stars make it. It’s hilarious that you try to excuse such ignorance. The two quotes do not agree. One can see that in plain English. But again, you already know that since you try to claim that somehow the literal sentences agree on “substance” when they do not. You already know they do not say the same thing. Mistakes do not give historical validity to anything. That’s the same nonsense that Christians use to excuse how screwed up their gospels are with their various contradictions.
You again lie with the nonsense about the earth being made “unto like crystal”. Glass globes aren’t crystals. Smith is claiming crystal as the nonsense of the crystalline spheres claimed in claims of “celestial spheres” a very old concept: Celestial spheres – Wikipedia Yep, the science indicates that the sun will become a white dwarf and the earth will likely be engulfed when it goes through its red giant phase. These again aren’t crystal spheres as Smith claimed. A crystal sphere is not the same as a sphere of crystals or a crystalized sphere. Glass is not a crystal, but it can be described that way since it is clear. Glass is non-crystalline amorophous solid. It can be made up of various elements, but it is not a crystal as are described when it comes to white dwarfs. Smith did not come even close to the predicting the destiny of our solar system. IT’s always fun when a believer decides that close enough is a “prophecy”. Shame your god can’t get it right and really be impressive.
It’s great that you want me to get past the fact that your supposed prophet lied. There is no more “nuance” than that. He lied to make up nonsense to tell others in order to pretend that his nonsense had some basis in ancient history. You are right one can’t say that someone is always wrong if they are wrong once. However, one can say someone is a liar if there is direct evidence of it for these things he claimed. And which quote? These ““ I remarked to my family and friends present, that when the earth was sanctified and became like a sea of glass,” then you are lying in this “What if Joseph was right, but it’s not the Earth that becomes the celestialized crystal sphere, but the Sun?””? those quotes come from your own blog, Ryan. No, not all what you claim is from the book of Abraham, but they are baseless nonsense nonetheless.
Nope, I won’t forget that Smith lied. Nice try though. It’s wonderful to see people who worship the same god that says never lie having no problem with this and desperately trying to hide it by their own lies of denial.
Now, we have “natural selection type” language claimed from you. AS I pointed out, the ideas of natural selection were already discussed in that time period. And funny how Smith still gets it wrong. And nice little try to invent a strawman to attack. Poor dear, I never said that there was no natural selection mentioned because Smith is a liar. There is no natural selection mentioned and Smith is a liar. Smith offers nothing true about how geology works, and he is as wrong as the nuts who claim a 28,000 foot deep flood that they never can explain when it happened. Do read Smiths actual biography and don’t try the nonsense that since Smith died in Illinois, hardly the “frontier” in 1844.
You’ve not provided any evidence, Ryan. A baseless claim is no evidence. I have no problem dismissing your baseless claims on the basis of facts, not “semantics”. You also find yourself lying again when you try to claim that I said that you were a liar because you are a theist. You are not doing well.
It’s so cute that again you want to deny that Smith lied about Egyptian papyruses saying anything about Mormon religious nonsense. There is nothing special about speaking about things that may seem before their time. Jules Verne did this and no god needed, just imagination. Happily, he wasn’t a liar who tried to impress ignorant people with common Egyptian papyri. And still more strawmen aka false claims about me to try to pretend my points have no basis.
Again, if you know anything about stellar aging, you would know that stars do not become spheres of crystal or glass. The science that you try to claim Smith predicted says he is completely wrong. I don’t have to do better than I have done at all. Smith made up the creation account he presented. He lied about the papyri. He never said spheres of crystals.
You still haven’t provided any evidence to refute my claims. My evidence is in each blog post, with links and sources at the end of each article. Your “evidence” seems to be just definitions of words, nomenclature, semantics, etc. I’m not sure you can make definitive statements about what Joseph Smith did or did not mean when he said things. I try not to do that either to his words, and then I look at what science says and compare the two. Of course I can’t prove anything, but I can show similarities and timelines.
You can talk all you want about definitions, but even if Joseph meant the earth was made out of planet globes instead of stars, he was still right—earth was made from pieces of other planets, according to science. I cover all that in the blog post.
And you are making no sense when you talk about “spheres of crystals”. I’m sorry. I don’t know what you’re talking about, or why you think Joseph Smith meant “spheres of crystals”. Are you saying no star will become a crystal sphere, even though modern scientists call white dwarfs “crystal spheres”?
But hey, clubshadenfreude, I’m open to suggestions. What evidence should I include to support my claims? I’m still waiting for you to provide evidence to the contrary.
poor Ryan, still no evidene, just baseless claims.
You really should invest in a dictionary. But merriam-webster.com is free.
It’s wonderful to see you again admit that Smith is incompetent and you have to keep adjusting your lies to try to fit my points.
Smith never mentioned “spheres of crystals”. That’s what science says that white dwarf stars can become. So thanks for admitting that the science has nothing do to with Smith’s claims of crystal or crystalline spheres.
It’s grand to see you also be too inept to realize I’ve quoted *you*.
No star will become a crystal sphere. They may become spheres consisting of crystals. And no modern scientist says stars will become “crystal spheres”. But do present a quote from a scientist saying this.
You can, right? Or are you lying again, Ryan?
If you go back to my comment here on 25 Feb 2021, I quoted Pier-Emmanuel Tremblay, a physicist at the University of Warwick, and lead author on the study of white dwarf crystallization. He said, “All white dwarfs will crystallize at some point in their evolution… This means that billions of white dwarfs in our galaxy have already completed the process and are essentially crystal spheres in the sky.” He also said, “In tens of billions of years from now, the universe will be made largely of dense crystal spheres.” (https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-stars-crystal-cores-20190111-story.html)
You said: “No star will become a crystal sphere. They may become spheres consisting of crystals. And no modern scientist says stars will become “crystal spheres”. But do present a quote from a scientist saying this.” Here’s your quote, and here’s my evidence that some stars do become “crystal spheres,” as modern scientists say they will.
A classic example of you ignoring the evidence I’m presenting in favor of spouting anti-religious (and anti-Ryan) rhetoric.
For the rest of my argument about the earth and becoming like unto crystal, see the post you keep pasting the same quote of mine from. Joseph said the earth would become “like unto crystal” or a “sea of glass”. From my knowledge, he never claimed the earth would become a crystal sphere, but LIKE unto crystal.
I’m happy to continue this discussion, but you have to address the evidence I present, and you have to stop the personal attacks. I have nothing against atheists. Seriously, live your life however you want to. But if you’re going to refute my claims, at least do so with some decency and respect. Despite what you’ve said multiple (probably 20 times) by now, I haven’t been lying about anything. It’s possible I have been deceived, but I don’t lie. If you wish, you can take it upon yourself to debunk every single thing on this blog—just do so without resorting to name calling and basing my your arguments on nitpicking of definitions. I have a dictionary. Thanks.
Globe: “something spherical or rounded: such as … : a spherical representation of the earth, a celestial body, or the heavens” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/globe)
as usual, you try to claim that Tremblay is saying what smith claimed. As usual, you ignore the parts of the article that don’t fit with your nonsense: “It is not possible to observe crystal structures in white dwarf stars directly, but it is possible to see evidence of the crystallization process, the authors said.”
No glass, just the prediction of spheres made of crystals, not what Smith claimed at all.
and again, Smith didn’t mean globes as in any old sphere. But nice try again to try to redefine what Smith said.
This is even better “From my knowledge, he never claimed the earth would become a crystal sphere, but LIKE unto crystal.”
and now you insist that stars form crystal spheres (they don’t) and then you try to claim that Smith only mean it was like crystal.
Do decide what nonsense you want so you don’t contradict yourself.
You deserve no respect, Ryan. No liar does, unless they are lying to protect a young girl and her family from nazis or something similar.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, looks like I can’t please you. Again, you just nitpick every little thing to try to make it look like you have evidence. How do you know what Smith meant? Where’s your evidence that he meant what you say? The scientist clearly said that some stars become “crystal spheres”, which is something you were so sure no modern scientist ever said. In fact, the universe will be largely populated with “dense crystal spheres” in a few billion years. Something no astronomer knew in the 1840s.
Obviously it’s not possible to observe crystal structures in white dwarfs directly. They’re kind of far away at the moment. But “it is possible to see evidence of the crystallization process.” I don’t see how this statement from the article proves I’m wrong. Crystallization is still occurring, we just can’t see the structure.
Now, if Joseph Smith had said in 1842 that no crystal spheres will exist in the universe, or that the earth will never be destroyed. THEN we would have a problem. But his words on this matter are consistent with what we now know.
If Smith had said that our earth hadn’t been created by pieces of other planets coming together, but instead by the supernatural hand of the Almighty, THEN we would have a problem. But his words on that matter are consistent as well.
If Joseph Smith had kept the Genesis creation account unchanged, and emphasized that God created the whales, instead of saying that the earth was prepared so that THE EARTH would bring forth whales, THEN we would have a problem. But he seemed to remove all Creationist language from the Abraham creation account.
You know, you argue like a villain monologuing in a super hero movie: “Your ignorance of evolutionary theory is telling… You need evidence for your religion and you are desperate to find it… What incompetent attempts at deceit… like any ignorant fool might do… You deserve no respect.”— It’s replete with dramatic flair, but lacks substance. Lacks evidence.
Your dictionary is not good enough evidence.
Clearly I’m not going to convince you, and you’re not going to convince me. Your arguments have not been compelling in the least. Joseph Smith said what he said—about many different topics—over 178 years ago with little explanation about what he meant, and now I’m trying to sort it out and compare it with science. No harm in that. If it offends you, come up with some actually good arguments, with real evidence (not just “Smith meant something else!”), or find another blog to troll. Like the original blog post states, Joseph Smith taught that even you, as an atheist, are going to heaven, so live your life as you please. I’m surprised that offends you so much. I honestly agree more with atheists than Young Earth Creationists. And I think Joseph Smith would have as well, on many points.—But who am I to declare what Smith would or would not have thought?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ryan, you falsely accuse me of “nitpicking”. I do not. I point out the complete failure of your nonsense. You try to imply that what I address are small problems. They are not.
It’s quite cute when you think you know what Smith “really” meant and then insist that no one else can. And no scientist has said that stars or planets become like glass or spheres of crystal. You try to imply, falsely again, that spheres of crystals are crystal spheres like glass.
You have no idea what crystals are, or what the crystallization process is considering how you think that they are like glass. Glass has no structure, crystals do. Unsurprisingly, Smith was as ignorant as you are.
I do enjoy that theists just make up nonsense and change what others claim is the unquestionable word of some god.
You are not trying to sort Smith’s lies out. You are trying to make up excuses why they should be considered true because you know your religion is full of nonsense as it stands.
Smith made up nonsense, including his heaven with magic planets, that good mormon men will get a planet of their own, etc. That he claims that atheists won’t go to hell is just as meaningless since you, and him, can’t even show the most basic claims about your religion true.
Theists make up their creation. You are no different than the young earth creationists.
It’s wonderful to see you now claim “But who am I to declare what Smith would or would not have thought?” when that is all you do in your blog when claiming that you know what Smith meant. Nice hypocrisy there, Ryan.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Joseph Smith uses words like “crystal” and “like unto a sea of glass” to describe the destiny of the earth. Scientists say the earth will become part of a white dwarf and that white dwarfs are “crystal spheres”. Your best evidence to show Smith is wrong is: “no scientist has said that stars or planets become like glass or spheres of crystal. You try to imply, falsely again, that spheres of crystals are crystal spheres like glass. You have no idea what crystals are, or what the crystallization process is considering how you think that they are like glass. Glass has no structure, crystals do.” Crystal and glass look similar in many ways. It’s not too far fetched for someone to look at crystal and mistake it for glass, or vice versa. Now, you raise an interesting question about what a crystallized white dwarf actually looks like on the surface. We can’t observe it. Would it look like crystal or glass? If you can find an answer to that and provide sources, I would be much obliged.
Joseph Smith says that the earth was made from pieces of “broken up” “planets” or “globes.” Scientists say that Earth was formed through the merger of protoplanets, planets, and dust from exploded stars. Your best evidence to show Smith is wrong is: “A globe is not a star,” and “If you don’t know what the difference between planets and globes are, you are quite willfully ignorant and need a dictionary very badly.” Because a globe is a sphere, and planets and stars are spheroidal, it makes sense that one would call other planets or stars “globes”. We don’t even know if it was Joseph Smith who used the word “globe”, since it comes from someone else’s notes of what Smith said that day. And we also can’t discredit his words merely because two different people wrote down his speech that day in two different ways. The overall message was the same about our planet being formed from pieces of other destroyed worlds. If you could find evidence (with sources) of anyone else teaching this before 1841, again, I would be much obliged.
It looks like all your arguments are based on the definitions of words (argumentum ad dictionarium?). That’s going to be a difficult way to show that Smith was not correct about these things because we can’t know for sure what he meant. All I can do is show the similarities between his words and those of science. If you can prove that the science is wrong, that’s great. Let me know, but use evidence and sources. If you can prove that Joseph Smith meant something else with his words, that would be great too. Just do so with evidence and sources. But that’s going to be hard to prove. A modern online dictionary likely won’t prove anything, as Smith is not a modern man. A dictionary from his days would be better, but still wouldn’t prove anything.
You said that Joseph was just making things up to make his religion more valid. Perhaps he was, but it sure seems to me like he made a lot of really good guesses really far in advance, as a prophet might. You would have to prove that he guessed all of these things wrongly–again, do so with evidence and sources–not a dictionary.
I admit that I need to work on not *declaring* what Smith meant—because we can’t really know. But if you read my blog posts, you’ll see that I try to be clear that I can’t prove what Joseph meant. I can only read the records we have of his words and compare them with science. Maybe I’m wrong—that’s okay. But you have to show with evidence that I’m wrong if you’re going to make declarations like you have. If not, please find a different blog to troll. Maybe go for a Young Earth Creationist blog.
I understand that you disagree not just with me, but with all theists. That’s OK. I don’t know if you spend this much time debating Young Earth Creationist blogs, but you have to admit—my blog is more in line with modern science than any YEC stuff. And that’s the beauty of Mormonism—we’re free to receive all truth, come from whence it may.
So I’ll give you one more chance to come up with some real, concrete, not-from-your-dictionary evidence that Smith made up all of this stuff and was wrong about it all. But if you continue the villain monologuing routine, discussion is over. Let’s be civil about this and drop the insults.
LikeLiked by 1 person
so, now we have you claiming that Smith was only describing things, not saying exactly what would happen. Nice excuses again, Ryan. You have repeatedly said that you are right and I am wrong. So much for your “maybe I’m wrong”.
Trust me, I couldn’t give a good damn about your giving chances. You’ve already failed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“In 1835, Smith encouraged some Latter Day Saints in Kirtland to purchase rolls of ancient Egyptian papyri from a traveling exhibitor. Smith said they contained the writings of the ancient patriarchs Abraham and Joseph. Over the next several years, Smith worked to produce what he reported was a translation of one of these rolls, which was published in 1842 as the Book of Abraham. The Book of Abraham speaks of the founding of the Abrahamic nation, astronomy, cosmology, lineage and priesthood, and gives another account of the creation story. The papyri from which Smith dictated the Book of Abraham were thought to have been lost in the Great Chicago Fire. However, several fragments were rediscovered in the 1960s, were translated by Egyptologists, and were determined to be part of the Book of Breathing with no connection to Abraham. The LDS Church has proposed that Smith might have been inspired by the papyri rather than have been translating them literally, but prominent Egyptologists note that Smith copied characters from the scrolls and was specific about their meaning.”
True, some Christian beliefs are as nonsensical as the idea that this universe happened by accident.
LikeLiked by 1 person
We have no evidence that the universe happened “by accident” aka randomly. The laws of physics can be just as “eternal” as your god and the universe would have no choice to come about as current cosmology has demonstrated.
So, how do you determine what Christian beliefs are “true” and which are “nonsense”? All Christians have different magical decoder rings to determine this, and none can show that their version is the right one.
You said ‘We have no evidence that the universe happened “by accident” aka randomly. The laws of physics can be just as “eternal” as your god and the universe would have no choice to come about as current cosmology has demonstrated.’
However, that is what the prominent scientists such as Richard Dawkins and the late Stephen Hawking seem to be in agreement on. Hawking and maybe others had postulated that this universe is just one of an infinite set of parallel universes in order to overcome the incomprehensibly great odds of this universe happening by accident. A theory that as of yet is untestable.
As for the eternal laws of physics, according to what I have read, they (as in the theory of relativity) break down with a “big bang singularity.” (“The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there,” Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology,) (https://richarddawkins.net/2016/03/no-big-bang-quantum-equation-predicts-universe-has-no-beginning/) The link is to an article postulating that the universe may just have always existed.
Science is a wonderful thing, but it has not come close to providing us with all of the answers, yet. Neither has religion, yet. I firmly believe that the two will converge at some point in time.
Of course, if I am right, I will be able to say “I told you so.” But if you are right, you will never know. (Insert smiley here.)