This Week In Sunday School

[Doctor Steuss]

[...]

Perhaps the technologically adroit Dr. Steuss could provide a link, if he wishes?

Tah-dah!!

Cry Redemption

(Of course, you know that this entire thread could be merely an exercise in cavernous evil. )

Oh goody, goody! (You better not be toying with my emotions. You know how much I LOVE cavernous evil)

[consiglieri]

Thanks for posting the link.

I'm reading this article again.

Wow!

Good stuff!

And to think this has been in print for 17-years now.

Who'd uh thunk it?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

There is a pernicious trend in the church to redefine grace as so presented in the LDS Bible Dictionary.

The LDS Bible Dictionary is an interesting piece of work which I find is sometimes cited to as an unofficial fifth standard work.

Methinks when Bruce R. McConkie left the front door with Mormon Doctrine, he slipped in the back door with the Bible Dictionary.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Do you mean doing all that God wants us to do in order to be worthy of God's grace, or do you mean trying to do everything He wants us to in response to God's grace and by the power of God's grace? I think the latter would be closer to what consiglieri's getting at, although he is more than welcome to correct my understanding.

I am not posting to "correct your understanding" in this regard, but just to add that the concept of worthiness in the LDS Church may have expanded to take on too large a role.

Is it right that we should be living our lives in harmony with God's will in order to partake of the sacrament? I think so, and I think the Book of Mormon (as well as Paul) would agree with that.

Mormons talk about this as being "worthy" to partake of the sacrament.

Is it right that we should be living our lives in harmony with God's will in order to receive the priesthood? I think so. Mormons talk about this as being "worthy" to receive the priesthood.

Is it right that we should be living our lives in harmony with God's will in order to go to the temple? I think so. Again, Mormons talk about this as being "worthy" to go to the temple.

Is it right that we should be living our lives in harmony with God's will in order to go to heaven? I think so. Once more, Mormons talk about this as being "worthy" to go to heaven.

I think that, with all this talk of personal "worthiness" in the LDS Church, we may have tacitly misdirected the focus away from the grace of God, and put the spotlight on what we do as individuals, with the result that we end up talking more about what we have to do in order to be worthy.

In a way, this makes sense inasmuch as God has already provided his grace to us. There is nothing that we do in order to merit this grace. The only question is how we will respond to it, which is manifested in what we do.

The problem, I think, is that when we focus primarily on what we do in order to be "worthy" of this or that blessing, we may have inadvertently deemphasized the fact that we are not "worthy" of anything; that Jesus is the only one who is "worthy," and that there is none who is good, but God.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Earl]

And what compounds all of this is the D&C notion that we are only blessed (or only receive his grace) after we obey the law upon which the blessing (or grace) was predicated. ...ie, we earn our blessings, or we qualify for his love... how ever you want to say it.

The worthiness concept has had horrible consequences for the people of the church. My own children do not need to first qualify for my love, my devotion to them, my grace, and help to them. Temple worthiness as evidenced from a TR does not represent or measure your standing before the Lord... it only represents how loyal you are to the church. I think we teach incorrect principles in this regard...

In what way is eternal life a "gift" if we must first qualify for it?

I often hear that in LDS theology, Christ did not save us... he only made us saveable...

Earl

[LifeOnaPlate]

Are there any LDS out there who have modified their beliefs as a result of this thread?

I'd say it made me understand my beliefs better.

[Calm]

This definition speaks to grace as being the "enabling power". Thus the grace of Christ enables US to DO those things which WE need to DO to fulfill the requirements of the law.

I think it's the time of night, but I'm not seeing the problem with this. Isn't this the same as saying his Grace is what leads us to be obedient (through faith, repentance, etc.)

[SquarePeg48]

In most (if not all) previous discussions about grace in salvation with LDS, it often seems as though LDS are talking out of both sides of their mouth. I don't think this is intentionally misleading, but is a consequence of two conflicting/paradoxical streams of thought within LDS thought.

On the one hand, there is the "grace alone" aspect that is frequently seen in the Book of Mormon as well as selected talks by church leaders (as outlined by consiglieri and others here). On the other hand, there is the strong emphasis on works as a prerequisite to salvation, with salvation (read "exaltation") being seen as an entirely future event dependent on our own works and effort and self-perfection; there is no "past tense" to salvation at all. This is found in the more recent LDS revelations, including the D&C, and in more talks and publications by LDS leaders.

This interesting dichotomy comes from the origins of the church, as well. A strong thread that ran through the early LDS church was the New England Puritan heritage, with its strong emphasis on self-sufficiency and hard work; this bled over into theology, particularly through the BY era. The idea that we must "earn" our salvation and exaltation by our own good works also reflects a popular notion in Christianity as a whole: that somehow our works are put into a scale of some kind and weighed out at judgement time. If the good outweighs the bad, then voila! we are accepted into heaven. I heartily agree with the "rediscovery" of the Book of Mormon's teachings on grace, and have learned that submission to that grace is the only "work" that I do...not to minimize this work, for it is in some ways far harder than simply trying to "obey the commandments" on my own power.

[consiglieri]

Nice point, Sponge Bob Square Peg!

Submission is indeed, I think, the most difficult thing to do for the natural man.

Which is why I think the scriptures call him an enemy of God.

And the only way he can stop being an enemy of God is to submit to God.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Just a note to let the avid followers of this thread know that I did not teach about Christ's atonement, per se, in gospel doctrine class, as the Spirit led me to teach about Jesus' Farewell Discourse (John 13-16) and save the atonement until this coming Sunday.

As we discussed Jesus' Farewell Discourse in John 13-16 last week in Sunday school, we talked about one of the primary themes that God was in Jesus and Jesus was in God; that Jesus prayed (Jn. 17) that his disciples be one in him as he would be one in them; and finally extended it to all who believe in the words of his disciples.

Jesus speaks of salvation as a mutual indwelling between all the parties to the gospel.

He also gives a simile of the vine, calling himself the true vine; all those who are in a (covenant) relationship with Jesus are branches. The vine does not bring forth fruit. The vine brings forth branches. It is the branches that bring forth the fruit. But Jesus makes it clear that, unless the branches are attached to the true vine, they cannot bring forth fruit.

So if we as branches, grafted into the true vine of Jesus Christ, should bring forth good fruit; how is it that we can boast of the fruit we bring forth, seeing that it is produced solely as a result of our relationship with Jesus Christ?

It is because of this that I think justification, as well as sanctification, comes only in and through the grace and mercy of God.

Which means, I think, that works are of critical importance, but we can take no credit for them, "lest any man should boast."

This grace is not irresistable, however, and a number of scriptures indicate that branches can bring forth bad fruit. The result, however, is that they are hacked off the vine, gathered and burned.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Drewm777]

Great posts. Thanks guys.

[Revenant]

Hello Everybody,

I've read all of the posts of this thread, and I'm really trying to understand. Please help me see if I'm getting it or not.

I'm LDS and the thing that this thread is helping me realize is that our good works are made possible by the grace of God. It seems to me that the great companion of agency is grace. We can choose to do a good work, but would be unable to accomplish it without God's grace. There seems to be so much "chicken-and-the-egg" surrounding this business of grace and works. I am readily able to believe that we are saved by the grace of God. The Book of Mormon says that plenty. Obviously there are requirements to entering God's kingdom (obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel) and God's grace enables us to comply with them. As long as we are doing our absolute best to live the gospel according to our light and knowledge (which will never be perfect) then God's grace is sufficient to save us. (Moroni 10:32). But if we are not doing our absolute best and we don't merit salvation, that doesn't mean that God's grace is insufficent to save us, rather it means that we lacked the good works sufficient to enable God's grace to save us.

Is that right?

[consiglieri]

Hello Everybody,

I've read all of the posts of this thread, and I'm really trying to understand. Please help me see if I'm getting it or not.

I'm LDS and the thing that this thread is helping me realize is that our good works are made possible by the grace of God. It seems to me that the great companion of agency is grace. We can choose to do a good work, but would be unable to accomplish it without God's grace. There seems to be so much "chicken-and-the-egg" surrounding this business of grace and works. I am readily able to believe that we are saved by the grace of God. The Book of Mormon says that plenty. Obviously there are requirements to entering God's kingdom (obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel) and God's grace enables us to comply with them. NOW HOLD ON THERE BUBBALLOOEY!!! As long as we are doing our absolute best to live the gospel according to our light and knowledge (which will never be perfect) then God's grace is sufficient to save us. (Moroni 10:32). But if we are not doing our absolute best and we don't merit salvation, that doesn't mean that God's grace is insufficent to save us, rather it means that we lacked the good works sufficient to enable God's grace to save us.

Is that right?

I think you were going along swimmingly until the place I subtly marked in your post above, at which point your thought transmogrified into popular contemporary Mormon doctrine.

Your idea of grace and agency is a good one. According to my reading of 2 Nephi 2; God gave man agency in the garden of Eden by giving them a choice, a commandment, a penalty and an enticement to choose the wrong.

The choice was between the tree of knowledge and the tree of life.

After the fall, man faces the same choice, and is given agency to make that choice. If we choose the tree of life, represented by Christ, then we have used our agency wisely and correctly.

It is by grace that we are given this agency to choose, provided solely through the atonement of Christ.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Revenant]

I think you were going along swimmingly until the place I subtly marked in your post above, at which point your thought transmogrified into popular contemporary Mormon doctrine.

Your idea of grace and agency is a good one. According to my reading of 2 Nephi 2; God gave man agency in the garden of Eden by giving them a choice, a commandment, a penalty and an enticement to choose the wrong.

The choice was between the tree of knowledge and the tree of life.

After the fall, man faces the same choice, and is given agency to make that choice. If we choose the tree of life, represented by Christ, then we have used our agency wisely and correctly.

It is by grace that we are given this agency to choose, provided solely through the atonement of Christ.

Bubballooey?!

I'm still trying to make sense of it apparently. Let me try to restate, because I get the feeling that if I mention works at all the red flags will fly and I'm going to get a penalty. I learned about if/then clauses in basic English, and Moroni 10:32 says, "if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love god with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you." This statement I interpret to mean that there must be some sort of application of the gospel in our lives before the grace (the atonement) is activated unto salvation. That very application (love of God with might, mind, strength and denying ungodliness) can only be done according to one's agency through the grace of God, thereby activating the saving grace of the atonement. But without that exercise of agency (a "work") salvation is forfeit. I'm not saying that wise use of agency will save you in any degree. Indeed the perfect use of it will still not save you. Only God's grace can.

This same principle seems to be at work in Jacobs statement in 2 Nephi 10:24 where he says, "after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of god that ye are saved." After we are reconciled (whatever that entails for each individual) saving grace is activated in that life.

In Christ and the New Covenant Jeffery R. Holland says, "Obviously the unconditional blessings of the Atonement are unearned, but the conditional ones are not fully merited. By living faithfully and keeping the commandments of God, we an receive a fuller measure of blessings from Christ, but even these greater blessings are freely given of him and are not technically 'earned' by us. In short, good works are necessary for salvation, but they are not sufficient. And God is not obligated to make up the insufficiency."

Okay, how about now?

[mbh26]

I've read the doctrine of "saved by grace" and I can't say it motivates me to be a better person. Legalism on the other hand is a very strong motivation. For those that want to teach "saved by grace" that's fine. You have scriptures and interpretations. So do I. If it makes you a better person, and puts you on the path to where you want to be, than good for you, but it doesn't work that way for me. I think I understand the doctrine, but I've given up on feeling good about it. On the worst days when I hear it I simply feel cheated, on the best days I feel unmotivated to do anything outside my immediate self interest again. I understand that God is merciful, but you have to leave room for Him to be fair as well.

Your point about Alma the younger is a good one, but it doesn't make me feel any better about the whole idea. I still detest the evangelical doctrine and not because of who said it. I'm well aware that this doctrine pops up in the LDS church as well. I still don't like it, regardless of who preaches it.

Secondly, if what you say Consig is true, I really don't see why I have to completely accept the idea right now, especially if if makes me so upset. I'm sure when God correctly explains all the facts to me, I'll feel better about it. I don't think God's going to cheat me nor put me through pain that is not going to benefit me. That goes for everyone else in this world. Until it all comes to light, legalism works better for simple minded people like myself.

[Calm]

I would have said Rev did fine the first time around up until this very last point:

rather it means that we lacked the good works sufficient to enable God's grace to save us.

but this is only a problem IF he (she?) doesn't understand what the good works do for us. Just as "doing the best we can" is a sign of acceptance of grace as opposed to a sign that we are trying to earn our way--we are "doing the best we can" because of our love of God and our desire to express this through obedience and partial/half-hearted potential commitment indicates a less open embrace of the Spirit, the fact that we lack sufficient good works is a sign that we didn't accept God's grace fully. IOW, our trust and acceptance were lacking, we therefore didn't use the grace that was available to us and ended up 'short' of the good works we could have done otherwise. The absence of those good works isn't the fundamental problem, but rather the reason for that absence is what is at issue.

It seems to me this is what Rev is saying in his second post of clarification. He can correct me if I'm wrong.

And if others think I am incorrect on the doctrine of grace, they can provide their view as well.

My view of the judgment--our lives will be examined including our works to demonstrate just how far we've allowed ourselves to accept the grace offered throughout our development, but mostly at the end of our mortal lives (when we are about to put on immortality in my definition, not at the point of physical death) after we've come to a full understanding of the Gospel including all blessings that will be available to us through the inheritance of what God would grant us. This is what is 'weighed': do our acts, our works, our behaviour (internal and external) demonstrate that Christ is our Saviour or do they demonstrate that we lacked sufficient faith/trust in the Lord or possibly placed too much in ourselves (insisting on our Will, not His Will be done)?

It is what is in our heart that matters, but our behaviour will be a sure sign of this, the best sign if taken in proper context (which of course the Lord will do).

[volvoman]

It is my impression that Mormons tend to find repugnant any mention of "saved by grace" even though that doctrine is fleshed out in the Book of Mormon. I think it is time for the LDS to reclaim the concept.

Perhaps you could volunteer to be present in my class to observe the reaction, and to interpose your body in the way of vegetable projectiles as needed?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Consig,

We have always believed that we are saved by grace.... we also believe that we have to keep the commandments (the works) and together if after all we can do, the saving mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ is what eventually saves from an ignominious fate.

Let's get this straight here .... no one in the Church genuinely believes that we can by works alone, make it back to Father-in-Heaven. After all we can do, we are still imperfect and it is by the grace and love of Christ that we finally are accepted back into Their presence. In the Greek language, the word Grace really means a gift.......and that is essentially what the Atonement is....a gift to us that saves us ..... Grace is a gift.

So, don't get sweaty palms about saying that we are Saved By Grace.... No, it is not purely a doctrine of the SBC. In truth we may have slightly different understandings of what Grace implies but trust me.... we believe that we are saved despite our imperfections because Christ paid for our sins and if we accept His commandments and His way of living, then we can inherit all that the Father has.

Volvoman

[consiglieri]

And if others think I am incorrect on the doctrine of grace, they can provide their view as well.

My view of the judgment--our lives will be examined including our works to demonstrate just how far we've allowed ourselves to accept the grace offered throughout our development, but mostly at the end of our mortal lives (when we are about to put on immortality in my definition, not at the point of physical death) after we've come to a full understanding of the Gospel including all blessings that will be available to us through the inheritance of what God would grant us. This is what is 'weighed': do our acts, our works, our behaviour (internal and external) demonstrate that Christ is our Saviour or do they demonstrate that we lacked sufficient faith/trust in the Lord or possibly placed too much in ourselves (insisting on our Will, not His Will be done)?

It is what is in our heart that matters, but our behaviour will be a sure sign of this, the best sign if taken in proper context (which of course the Lord will do).

I would like to start out by thanking everybody who has contributed to this thread. I would also like to say that I am not setting myself up as the arbiter of what is right and what is wrong with regards to this issue. I consider this thread more of an exploration than anything else.

What you said here, Calmoriah, triggered something in my brain.

We as humans tend to look upon the outward acts to judge the inward hearts; mainly because we don't have the ability to actually look inside a person's heart.

God, on the other hand, does have the ability to look inside a person's heart. So perhaps the judgment does not really have very much to do with a review of the works that we performed while in this life, but rather consists in God simply looking into our heart to see what is there. It is possible that all he is looking for in our hearts is grace. I don't know, but maybe grace isn't something that is given piecemeal. I think that grace is either given, or it is not given; God doesn't give just a part of his grace. Sort of like how you can't be a little bit pregnant; either you are or you aren't.

And perhaps Joseph Smith's translation of the gold plates is a sign of this process. Joseph said he translated the plates by the gift and power of God; yet he never appears to have actually looked at the plates during the translation process. It is possible that the Nephites had to physically do the work of keeping their record in order for there to be something for Joseph to translate, but when it came time to translate, Joseph didn't have to look at the outward manifestation of that work, but was by the power of God enabled to look at the spiritual reality.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Bubballooey?!

I'm still trying to make sense of it apparently. Let me try to restate, because I get the feeling that if I mention works at all the red flags will fly and I'm going to get a penalty. I learned about if/then clauses in basic English, and Moroni 10:32 says, "if ye shall deny yourselves of all ungodliness, and love god with all your might, mind and strength, then is his grace sufficient for you." This statement I interpret to mean that there must be some sort of application of the gospel in our lives before the grace (the atonement) is activated unto salvation. That very application (love of God with might, mind, strength and denying ungodliness) can only be done according to one's agency through the grace of God, thereby activating the saving grace of the atonement. But without that exercise of agency (a "work") salvation is forfeit. I'm not saying that wise use of agency will save you in any degree. Indeed the perfect use of it will still not save you. Only God's grace can.

This same principle seems to be at work in Jacobs statement in 2 Nephi 10:24 where he says, "after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of god that ye are saved." After we are reconciled (whatever that entails for each individual) saving grace is activated in that life.

In Christ and the New Covenant Jeffery R. Holland says, "Obviously the unconditional blessings of the Atonement are unearned, but the conditional ones are not fully merited. By living faithfully and keeping the commandments of God, we an receive a fuller measure of blessings from Christ, but even these greater blessings are freely given of him and are not technically 'earned' by us. In short, good works are necessary for salvation, but they are not sufficient. And God is not obligated to make up the insufficiency."

Okay, how about now?

Hi, Revenant!

No red flags. No penalty. Works are important, I am sure, which is why they are mentioned over and over again in the scriptures. I think that the pit we as LDS Christians sometimes fall into is thinking that we do works apart from God that qualify us for salvation/exaltation. If there is an "incorrect" view about salvation and grace, I think that this would be it.

Other than that, however, there are a number of different ways that grace can be looked at, and a lot of these ways are already set forth in the scriptures. I think that the core of grace and the atonement is ultimately incapable of being set forth in words; i.e., it is ineffable. It is something that transcends the ability to be communicated in writing or speech. I think that we try to explain it, and in so doing, we look at it from a lot of different angles and use a lot of different similes and parables and examples, and in so doing, we manage to catch most of what grace and the atonement are about. But the core of grace and the atonement remains elusive to explanation, and I think it is that core that can only be understood through personal experience with the Savior and coming unto him.

That is why I don't get too hung up on a particular verse, because there seem to be verses all over the place on this issue, which would account for why there are so many different views on the subject within Christianity; each view citing its own verse or verses in support of a certain position, and discounting the other verses that tend to contradict. Your verse from Moroni 10:32 is a good example. It is a great verse and profound. Because it is in human language, it looks at the atonement from a certain angle. Of course, other verses have different perspectives. At the outside boundaries of these perspectives are John 3:16 which views belief in Jesus as the sole criteria for salvation; and Matthew 25's parable of the sheep and the goats which mentions nothing about belief, but only works as the sole critera for salvation.

And so I am starting to think that when some prophets recount visionary experiences which they say cannot be uttered, they may mean not just that it is too sacred for them to explain, but that the transcendental nature of the experience itself is incapable of being explained by human means.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Consig,

We have always believed that we are saved by grace.... we also believe that we have to keep the commandments (the works) and together if after all we can do, the saving mercy of the Lord Jesus Christ is what eventually saves from an ignominious fate.

Let's get this straight here .... no one in the Church genuinely believes that we can by works alone, make it back to Father-in-Heaven. After all we can do, we are still imperfect and it is by the grace and love of Christ that we finally are accepted back into Their presence. In the Greek language, the word Grace really means a gift.......and that is essentially what the Atonement is....a gift to us that saves us ..... Grace is a gift.

So, don't get sweaty palms about saying that we are Saved By Grace.... No, it is not purely a doctrine of the SBC. In truth we may have slightly different understandings of what Grace implies but trust me.... we believe that we are saved despite our imperfections because Christ paid for our sins and if we accept His commandments and His way of living, then we can inherit all that the Father has.

Volvoman

Dear Volvoman,

Thanks for your post. I appreciate your pointing out that grace means "gift" in the Greek language.

I agree with the majority of what you have to say here, and think you make some good points. There are only two places I might part company with your post.

The first is that pesky clause, "after all we can do," which of course comes from the Book of Mormon, but is frequently (and I think incorrectly) understood as meaning that we must first do everything that we can do before we become eligible for the grace of Christ. I agree with Stephen Robinson that this clause is better understood to mean "apart from all we can do," or "in spite of all we can do." After all, nobody does all we can do. There are always things left undone that we could have done but chose not to. And so, if doing "all we can do" is a predicate to receiving the grace of Christ, then nobody would qualify.

The second part of your post that I tend to disagree with is the last words: ". . . if we accept His commandments and His way of living, then we can inherit all that the Father has."

This is the tension that I sense in Elder Packer's parable of the Mediator. If by "accept His commandments," you mean "obey His commandments," then once again nobody would qualify, for nobody is able to keep the commandments of the Savior. When I think this model of salvation through, it seems that it teaches that we do not keep the commandments, and therefore justice demands that we be eternally separated from God. Christ comes along and pays the penalty for our sins to bring us back to God, and substitutes himself for our punishment. All well and good so far. But then this model goes on to say that, in order for us to avail ourselves of Christ's atonement, we have to enter into a covenant with Christ that we will obey his commandments. The problem I see with this model is it puts us back where we were at the beginning; being required to obey commandments we cannot possibly keep.

That is where I feel this model falls apart, and so I respectfully suggest there must be a different resolution to this; a resolution that can ultimately be found only in the grace of God.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Tanyan]

WORK WE MUST, BUT THE LUNCH IS FREE !. In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan - LDS JEDI KNIGHT.

[Revenant]

It seems to me this is what Rev is saying in his second post of clarification. He can correct me if I'm wrong.

Calmoriah,

This is what I was trying to say. Thanks for helping with the clarification

And with regards to this statement by Consiglieri...

But then this model goes on to say that, in order for us to avail ourselves of Christ's atonement, we have to enter into a covenant with Christ that we will obey his commandments. The problem I see with this model is it puts us back where we were at the beginning; being required to obey commandments we cannot possibly keep.

I understand what you are saying here, and I just wanted to add something. A definition of the concept of obedience may be they key here. The fact of the matter is, within the model we do covenant to obey his commandments. The Lord isn't going to give us commandments that we "cannot possibly keep" therefore it is apparent to me that when we talk about obedience we aren't talking about a single act, we are talking about a process. The distinction being: Is a person committed to the process of obedience, rather than was the end result of this life perfect obedience?

This seems to me what you were saying (though you can clarify)

[consiglieri]

And with regards to this statement by Consiglieri...

I understand what you are saying here, and I just wanted to add something. A definition of the concept of obedience may be they key here. The fact of the matter is, within the model we do covenant to obey his commandments. The Lord isn't going to give us commandments that we "cannot possibly keep" therefore it is apparent to me that when we talk about obedience we aren't talking about a single act, we are talking about a process. The distinction being: Is a person committed to the process of obedience, rather than was the end result of this life perfect obedience?

This seems to me what you were saying (though you can clarify)

Thanks, Revenant. I think you do a good job of attempting to modify the model such that it comports with the realities of life. Whether the modification is done with the definition of "obedience" or with the definition of "grace" or with the definition of "works," I think it is a necessary modification and one that brings us closer to accepting a fulness of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Revenant]

Thanks, Revenant. I think you do a good job of attempting to modify the model such that it comports with the realities of life. Whether the modification is done with the definition of "obedience" or with the definition of "grace" or with the definition of "works," I think it is a necessary modification and one that brings us closer to accepting a fulness of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Thanks Consiglieri for helping me attempt to look at things from new angles. I just read your paper, Cry Redemption: The Plan of Redemption as Taught in the Book of Mormon. There is really no exploration of the concept of "grace" as I expected, but I see why you reference it, because the theme of redemption must include "grace." In fact, I found it intriguing that you say, "The ultimate source of power by which redemption is made possible is the atonement of the Savior. The active force by which this redemptive power is ministered in the lives of men, however, is the Holy Ghost." I found myself wondering where grace fit into that statement, and supposed that it is synonymous with "the ultimate sourece of power" mentioned. Is that how you see it? If that is so, then is the Holy Ghost the active force that administers grace in the lives of man? And would it be the only active force that administers grace in the lives of mankind?

thanks.

[Lightbearer]

Here is another interesting scripture from the Book of Mormon, I think it has a bearing on how the grace of God operates in our lives:

(Mosiah 5:7-15) "And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.

And under this head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free. There is no other name given whereby salvation cometh; therefore, I would that ye should take upon you the name of Christ, all you that have entered into the covenant with God that ye should be obedient unto the end of your lives.

And it shall come to pass that whosoever doeth this shall be found at the right hand of God, for he shall know the name by which he is called; for he shall be called by the name of Christ.

And now it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall not take upon him the name of Christ must be called by some other name; therefore, he findeth himself on the left hand of God.

And I would that ye should remember also, that this is the name that I said I should give unto you that never should be blotted out, except it be through transgression; therefore, take heed that ye do not transgress, that the name be not blotted out of your hearts.

I say unto you, I would that ye should remember to retain the name written always in your hearts, that ye are not found on the left hand of God, but that ye hear and know the voice by which ye shall be called, and also, the name by which he shall call you.

For how knoweth a man the master whom he has not served, and who is a stranger unto him, and is far from the thoughts and intents of his heart?

And again, doth a man take an *** which belongeth to his neighbor, and keep him? I say unto you, Nay; he will not even suffer that he shall feed among his flocks, but will drive him away, and cast him out. I say unto you, that even so shall it be among you if ye know not the name by which ye are called.

Therefore, I would that ye should be steadfast and immovable, always abounding in good works, that Christ, the Lord God Omnipotent, may seal you his, that you may be brought to heaven, that ye may have everlasting salvation and eternal life, through the wisdom, and power, and justice, and mercy of him who created all things, in heaven and in earth, who is God above all. Amen."

This covenant relationship of (Baptism and the Sacrament) are the means by which we make the atonement operative in our lives. It requires our good works in order to keep this covenant because without it or rather by our transgressions (if unrepented of) can blot it out and make it null and void. So although we are saved by the grace of God, yet if we do not do "all we can do" then we cannot partake of His grace. This taking upon us His name and also enduring to the end is "our part" of the covenant. We always remember Him by keeping His commandments or in other words following Him. He promises us to always have His Spirit to be with us, helping us to keep His commandments.