Earning Salvation

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You asked:

Can you show where that wording is used in LDS canon?

No. As far as I know, it isn't there. As I pointed out, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young never seem to have used such wording.

[stemelbow]

I think in order to have a useful discussion on this topic we should define what it means to earn salvation.

For instance, Rhinomelon suggested on the other thread that justification takes place when "you turn away from your sins and your own attempts at human righteousness, and turn to God and rely completely on His grace for your salvation..." which could indicate to some that we must do something to be justified and if having to do something then our efforts to acquire us that gift. If they acquire it then they could also be in some sense said to be earned. Additionally anyone could argue that relying completely on God is exactly following his commandments. But since the concepts of justification and sanctification seem conflated here we must first wonder if there is much difference to LDS justification and evangelical justification. For LDS it doesn't even take as much as it does for evangelicals to be justified.

Let's go from there.

love,

stem

[Rob Bowman]

Pa Pa,

You're twisting. I didn't deny that Mormons believe they are dependent on grace for salvation. All I said was this: the usual teaching of LDS Church general authorities for more than a century has been that we must "earn" our individual salvation (eternal life, exaltation). How this is possible is another question.

[Sevenbak]

Sevenbak,

I'm guessing that most Mormons here would have access to resources that will provide the context of these quotations. My post was quite lengthy as it was; providing larger amounts of context for each quotation would have made it much longer.

Nevertheless, as the OP, to not provide the context only serves your purpose, and we know that that is.

I'll provide the context for the first one only, I suggest you do the same for the others, even if you only do it on your own enlightenment.

You snipped the following on #1. More likely you just cut and pasted it, and someone else snipped it.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Pa Pa,

You're twisting. I didn't deny that Mormons believe they are dependent on grace for salvation. All I said was this: the usual teaching of LDS Church general authorities for more than a century has been that we must "earn" our individual salvation (eternal life, exaltation). How this is possible is another question.

And I will bet that in each of the talks from which you quote mined the comment is in context with our reliance on the grace of God. This kind of thing my go well on anti-sites

[Zakuska]

There is so much more to this talk as well, on what it means to be a "savior on Mt. Zion" I suggest you read the whole thing.

And this verse...

Obadiah 1

21 And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the Lord

[David T]

And this verse...

Obadiah 1

21 And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the Lord

[Zakuska]

What do you understand the Mount of Esau is referring to in context?

Ephraim was given power over his brother by the birth rite. So the two mounts spoken of metaphoricallyh represent the descendants of these brothers. Manyt are declared of Ephraim in their Pat. Blessings.

[Rob Bowman]

Several Mormons here have charged that I deliberately omitted from my quotations from LDS Church authorities references to dependence on God's grace, or affirmations that even individual salvation (eternal life, exaltation) is a gift of God's grace. Again, my sincere intention was simply to keep the opening post of manageable length. But even in the short quotations I provided, there are references to these elements that I supposedly was trying to suppress. In fact, in my introductory comments, I stated that in LDS teaching, "This salvation is partly by God

[David T]

Ephraim was given power over his brother by the birth rite. So the two mounts spoken of metaphoricallyh represent the descendants of these brothers. Manyt are declared of Ephraim in their Pat. Blessings.

While I agree the phrase "Savior on Mount Zion" is a useful phrase, I can't see anything in Obadiah's original that would show he had any reference in the term to post-Christian era Ordinances for the Dead, which is how LDS have been accustomed to use it (as a proof-text). Certainly it's not a useful text in trying to convince those who don't already believe in the correctness of the current practice of its relevance.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Se

I'm sorry, but I think some of you are just using a standard anti-anti-Mormon template response instead of carefully and thoughtfully considering what I actually wrote.

Hahaha, that is a good one Rob.

[Sevenbak]

And this verse...

Obadiah 1

21 And saviours shall come up on mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau; and the kingdom shall be the Lord

[Sevenbak]

Several Mormons here have charged that I deliberately omitted from my quotations from LDS Church authorities references to dependence on God's grace, or affirmations that even individual salvation (eternal life, exaltation) is a gift of God's grace. Again, my sincere intention was simply to keep the opening post of manageable length. But even in the short quotations I provided, there are references to these elements that I supposedly was trying to suppress. In fact, in my introductory comments, I stated that in LDS teaching, "This salvation is partly by God

[Vance]

Vance,

You asked:

No. As far as I know, it isn't there. As I pointed out, Joseph Smith and Brigham Young never seem to have used such wording.

Thanks for answering that.

Now, don't you think that fact may tell you something about your one sided description being "representative" of official LDS doctrine?

[CV75]

I am claiming, however, that we are on much firmer ground in asserting that the LDS Church teaches that salvation is earned than in denying it.

It depends on what you've earned for your definition of earned...

One definition is "to come to be duly worthy of or entitled or suited to; to make worthy of or obtain for". This is how we earn the greatest gift of all, eternal life, which is gotten without money money and without price, for it is obtained (EARNED) only through Jesus Christ (See #

Isaiah 55: 1, "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.")

Christ does make us worthy, entitled, suited, and able to obtain what He has to offer. All we do (which is a lot) is done through Him.

[Vance]

It depends on what you've earned for your definition of earned...

One definition is "to come to be duly worthy of or entitled or suited to; to make worthy of or obtain for". This is how we earn the greatest gift of all, eternal life, which is gotten without money money and without price, for it is obtained (EARNED) only through Jesus Christ (See #

Isaiah 55: 1, "Ho, every one that thirsteth, come ye to the waters, and he that hath no money; come ye, buy, and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk without money and without price.")

Christ does make us worthy, entitled, suited, and able to obtain what He has to offer. All we do (which is a lot) is done through Him.

Hey!!! Stop that!

You CAN'T use that definition, because if you do, the (Evangelical) Anti-Mormons won't have this to issue to browbeat Mormons.

The correct definition is;

EARN, to achieve or acquire something exclusively by your own efforts, without any outside merit, effort, influence or power.

[cdowis]

I didn't deny that Mormons believe they are dependent on grace for salvation. All I said was this: the usual teaching of LDS Church general authorities for more than a century has been that we must "earn" our individual salvation (eternal life, exaltation). How this is possible is another question.

OK, and this is a minor footnote in the history of the church, with no doctrinal implication.

You obviously know that the conventional definition (Evangelist) that "earn salvation"(meaning outside grace) differs significantly from the LDS definition. Obviously we no longer use that phrase so that there is no misunderstanding.

It's a matter of connotation. If you were to post this to those outside the church, it would obviously not be understood as we understand this phrase.

[wenglund]

...it depends on what you mean by salvation.

This is THE key qualifier, and it is important to keep this qualifier in mind so as to correctly understand the consistency among salvific statements not only made by latter-day leaders, but early-day leaders as well.

For whatever reason, Rob neglected to include some of the statements from early-day church leaders that either imply or explicitly refer to "earning" or "meriting" some form or aspect of "salvation". For example, let's look at several statements from the ultimate LDS Church leader, even Jesus Christ.

I don't think it coincidental that, when explaining the gospel of salvation, many of Christ's parables and metaphores were in regards to prevelant occupations at the time--i.e. the way that men EARNED a living. There is the parable of the Sower, Shepherds and lost sheep, Faithful Servant, Fishermen and their nets, Builders, Stewards, and most particularly the Laborers in the Vinyard--who earned their "salvation" by way of their labors, Merchants--who sold all and PURCHASED the pearl of salvation, Rich Farmer--where salvation comes by EARNING or STORING UP riches unto God, and Husbandmen--where salvation is based on how we TREAT the servant and son of the vineyard owner and whether we give him his due FRUIT.

There are other parables in which Christ teaches the salvific principle of merit: Hidden Treasure--where a field is PURCHASED so as to obtain the treasure of salvation, Unjust Judge--where salvation is granted as a result of unrelenting petitions, Friend at Night--where salvation is granted not because the petitioner is a friend, but because of his impudence, Ten Virgins--where salvation was merited based on the lamps being filled with oil, Great Banquet--where salvation was merited based on people responding to the invitation and clothing themselves properly, Barren Fig Tree--where salvation is lost because of lack of salvific fruit, Talents--salvation is merited based on utilizing for good the talents that God has given us.

In contrast, the Savior also spoke to aspects of salvation that are not earned or merited: Parable of the Growing Seed, Two Debtors.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[zerinus]

Is this going to be another hit and run affair? I guess we will soon find out.

Do Mormons believe they must earn their salvation? The answer to this question is: It depends on which Mormons you ask, and it depends on what you mean by salvation.

LDS Church doctrine distinguishes general salvation from individual salvation. General salvation means that everyone will be resurrected from the dead and given

[Zakuska]

Zerius... I'd also like to submit the following verses for consideration...

1 Jn. 3: 22

22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.

Do we not ask God for salvation? AND forgiveness? AND mercy?

Heb 5

8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Salvation for those who "Obey"?

Romans 2

4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;

6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:

7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:

8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;

10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:

11 For there is no respect of persons with God.

Notice those who recieve Eternal life are those that OBEY God and keep his commandments. Not those the give him lipservice.

2 Thess 1

3 We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth;

4 So that we ourselves glory in you in the churches of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and tribulations that ye endure:

5 Which is a manifest token of the righteous judgment of God, that ye may be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which ye also suffer:

6 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;

7 And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

8 In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:

9 Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

10 When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

11 Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:

12 That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

Please notice that abounding charity, good actions and enduring tribulations is what is making them "worthy" of the Kingdom of God. Why no mention of Jesus blood here and the emphasis on good actions? if good actions have no bearing what so ever on our eternal distination as Evangelicals claim?

[Pahoran]

Do Mormons believe they must earn their salvation? The answer to this question is: It depends on which Mormons you ask, and it depends on what you mean by salvation.

And by this transparent ploy, you justify quote mining in support of your polemical agenda, and trying to pass it off as "religious research."

As I recently had occasion to point out to one of your co-religionists: There is such a thing as civil interfaith dialogue, and it works like this:

You speak for your faith tradition, and not ours;

We speak for our faith tradition, and not yours.

That's the only way it can ever work.

Are you brave enough to engage in actual dialogue with actual Latter-day Saints, or are you too afraid to do that, so you have to try to control both sides of the conversation?

Regards,

Pahoran

[Lightbearer]

Are you brave enough to engage in actual dialogue with actual Latter-day Saints, or are you too afraid to do that, so you have to try to control both sides of the conversation?

There is a thread that delves into this subject that for the most part is such a conversation (with both sides respectfully, for the most part, declaring their own contrasting beliefs.) It can be found here: Retaing a remission of sins

[Glenn101]

The bottom line is that we are saved by grace (Ephesians 2: 8 ) and judged by our works (Revelation 20:12-13). We will get nowhere without both.

Glenn

[Rob Bowman]

Zerinus,

You make some assertions to which I would like to respond, and I certainly would have no problem refuting your criticisms of my arguments, but I think, especially in view of your opening paragraph and your stubborn refusal to retract your rude "hit and run" criticism, that I will rather choose not to engage in further discussion with you. Perhaps I can do more for constructive, civil dialogue that way--by showing a clear preference for discussions with polite members of your religion, of which there are several here.

Is this going to be another hit and run affair? I guess we will soon find out.

[zerinus]

Zerinus,

You make some assertions to which I would like to respond, and I certainly would have no problem refuting your criticisms of my arguments, but I think, especially in view of your opening paragraph and your stubborn refusal to retract your rude "hit and run" criticism, that I will rather choose not to engage in further discussion with you. Perhaps I can do more for constructive, civil dialogue that way--by showing a clear preference for discussions with polite members of your religion, of which there are several here.

Nice dodge. You must think that everybody here is stupid except you. You are wrong.