This Week In Sunday School

[Calm]

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.

I believe that while Grace is offered in whole, it is accepted in partial amounts...that is why faith grows and goes through stages and needs to be nourished rather than springing fully formed from our heads in one shattering moment forever there to fight off each and every temptation to stray.

Only in the next life, when we can fully comprehend not only how grace affects us in the here and now, but how it will affect us through the eternities, do I believe we can make a fully informed choice on what we want to accept and what we don't. I think how much grace we accept will determine our placement in the Kingdoms.

According to the D&C, it seems to me that some will accept the forgiveness aspects of Grace quite readily, will accept Christ as their Saviour, but may be reluctant to accept all that the Father has with what that implies about what we are expected to do with it (increasing God's glory isn't just a matter of glorifying him ourselves, but helping others to do so as well and how one does that...well, it will be interesting to my mind at the very least).

==

As to how the judgment takes place, while God of course present, I believe that he's not the only one making the judgment and so other methods may need to be employed. Also, it seems to me to only look at the internal man is to segment the person in an unnatural manner. We are not only our thoughts and feelings and motivations, but also our actions--taken in the context of our internal natures and our external surroundings. Why wouldn't God look at the whole creature in all our aspects and attributes and expressions? The judgment may be based on the final form, but I believe the judgment act has a greater purpose than simply judgment---it is to stand as a witness and for that all 'evidence' needs to be given. In addition, I think the judgment process is part of our learning development and being able to view our own lives in all its forms and expressions will contribute to our 'final' understanding which will lead to our 'final' choice.

===

a quick note: "valiant" is used in multiple ways and it might be helpful to identify which way it is being used as far as the judgment is concerned. I like the root of the word myself:

val

[mbh26]

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.

Even I don't disagree with this. Yet nearly every time I've heard grace preached, the preacher has taken it way further than that.

I also take issue with this, "Do your very best," or "Give 100%." Well what exactly is that? To me this gets into what you're talking about with something that is impossible to explain. I don't believe any man knows what he's truly capable of doing, nor can he calculate his limitations exactly.

I see the attonement as an enabling power. While I recognize God's power and that without Him I could do nothing, the fact is that some people will make it further than others. The difference in these people is rarely a simple confession or nonconfession of God's power to help them, but rather how much effort the individual put in. To me this is common sense, and I don't think God expected us to understand it in more detail than that.

[Earl]

One of the basic hurdles in dealing with BofM theology is that there is NO middle ground. It is almost completely binary. Beginning with Lehi's "great and spacious building" onward thru Alma's counsel to his sons and further on. The righteous and the wicked. Nearly all of the BofM personalitiesâ?¦ they were either completely and utter righteous or completely and utterly wicked, or transformed from one extreme to the other, like Alma the Younger, Lamoni. The teaching and the people. Righteous or wicked. In the BofM text, salvation is easy and uncomplicated.

This is unlike the Old and New Testaments. There the scriptural text shows men and women who struggle after righteousness. David, Paul, Peter, Jonah, even Adam and Eve.

The reason that this binary theology is a hurdle is that, at least for me, it does not map with observable human behavior and so it leaves (or it should leave) most of us who live our lives in the gray zone with some large questions. To be saved, must my attitude and behavior approach the heroic character of Nephi or Moroni? To be righteous, must I be as pious as Alma? Most of us are good people, both in and outside of the church... the "good and honorable". Sure, those of us in LDS land, can point to church people who don't watch TV on Sunday, who wear white shirts to church, who won't even think of drinking Pepsi, and so on, and we say, "Gee, what righteous and pious people!" This seems so shallow and superficial.

What of those of us who struggle? Can a struggling child of god be an heir of exaltation? What of those who have nagging sins, no matter how hard... we just can't write the check at the end of the year for 10% status... we are from time to time, 80% to 100% givers. And, so on through all the list of "must-do's". What of those of other faiths who scorn anything to do with Moronism, yet are stalwart and fully engaged Christians...? Fully giving, testifying of Christ, confessing sins, and devoted to the Christian cause?

The BofM, and LDS theology, seems to apply well to those who are at the 3 standard deviation tail ends of the righteousness bell curve. The truly pious and the utterly wicked. The others...?

As I noted above in another post, the LDS temple recommend process makes this even more ambiguous.... the worthiness aspect. "Gee, I am 'worthy' to enter the House of the Lord, I must be 'worthy' to enter the Celestial Kingdom." ...when in fact the TR holder is 100 pounds over weight, has a temper, is a neighborhood nuisance when he plays MTC music on his outdoor speakers, and allows his children to run rampant through the city...

And then, I read the other day, President Faust mentioned that when we have paid the utter most farthing and we have denied ourselves ALL ungodliness, then... we are qualified for the Master's saving grace... Fine. I admit it. I am unable to do this. Where is the hope that Paul taught of??

I also must say that as a personal matter (your world view may differ), I tend to interpret the LDS emphasis on works as being further manifestation of the organizational need for control, rather than as statements of proper theology. So, I tend to discount this emphasis. Today, the church is run by large groups of volunteer men and women and to maintain this workforce there needs to be a religious rationale for all to volunteer and participate when asked.

Earl

[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.

Oh, no! Now you're asking me questions based on what I wrote over ten-years ago! You are going to quickly reveal how bad my memory is. I am starting to understand what Hugh Nibley means when he said he refuses to be held responsible for things he wrote over several years ago.

I think that what I meant is that the atonement is the power of salvation, but that there is a force that ministers this grace in the lives of people. These are just my thoughts, you understand, but I think that is the main reason that receiving the Holy Ghost is so important in the process of salvation, and that it is so important that it is given through an ordinance administered by the Priesthood.

Of course, according to D&C 20:37, quoted above, the remission of sins should happen prior to baptism, which would make it prior to the priesthood administered "gift of the Holy Ghost," so who knows?

Often in the Church, I hear the Holy Ghost referred to as if its primary purpose is to serve as an early warning system; letting people know that something bad is going to happen so they can avert it and never know the bad thing that would have happened. Or as if the Holy Ghost serves only to testify of truth.

I think that the Holy Ghost's role, while including those things, may more importantly be to minister the grace of Christ and its saving power to the lives of people. Nothing could be more important than that, I think.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

I believe that while Grace is offered in whole, it is accepted in partial amounts...that is why faith grows and goes through stages and needs to be nourished rather than springing fully formed from our heads in one shattering moment forever there to fight off each and every temptation to stray.

Thanks again for your comments. I hear what you are saying, and would certainly agree that this is a pretty accurate statement of my own personal experience.

But what are we to make of the Book of Mormon account of the people of king Benjamin, who cried unto the Lord for mercy after his speech, and the record tells us that they were born again in "one shattering moment" after which they had no more desire to do evil, but to do good continually?

Mosiah 5:2 And they all cried with one voice, saying: Yea, we believe all the words which thou hast spoken unto us; and also, we know of their surety and truth, because of the Spirit of the Lord Omnipotent, which has wrought a mighty change in us, or in our hearts, that we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually.

The straight reading of this would indicate "one shattering moment forever there to fight off each and every temptation to stray."

In fact, it sounds better than that--that the temptation simply is no longer even there.

What do you think?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

Even I don't disagree with this. Yet nearly every time I've heard grace preached, the preacher has taken it way further than that.

I also take issue with this, "Do your very best," or "Give 100%." Well what exactly is that? To me this gets into what you're talking about with something that is impossible to explain. I don't believe any man knows what he's truly capable of doing, nor can he calculate his limitations exactly.

I see the attonement as an enabling power. While I recognize God's power and that without Him I could do nothing, the fact is that some people will make it further than others. The difference in these people is rarely a simple confession or nonconfession of God's power to help them, but rather how much effort the individual put in. To me this is common sense, and I don't think God expected us to understand it in more detail than that.

You may be right that God does not expect us to understand it in more detail than that. I confess I don't know all the answers.

And it is certainly true that there is a tendency that, once started down the road of grace, many Christians don't get off until they go all the way to the end, holding that works play no part whatsoever. And because of this, they tend to see any mention of any importance of our works as blasphemy; as if what God hated the most was for people to try to be good.

Although we can look at this in a number of ways, I have found it most helpful in talking with my EV friends to say that we are "saved by grace and judged according to our works."

Those I have spoken with see no problem with this. There is a large strain of EV Christianity that believes that we are saved by grace and all go to heaven, but that after there we receive "rewards" according to what we have done; and that some will receive greater rewards and some lesser rewards. They have no idea what these "rewards" might be, but they understand that there is a judging process even after salvation.

LDS doctrine fits in there with the idea of different degrees of glory, and can be understood as simply filling in the blanks on the "rewards" part that my EV Christian friends do not understand.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[consiglieri]

One of the basic hurdles in dealing with BofM theology is that there is NO middle ground. It is almost completely binary. Beginning with Lehi's "great and spacious building" onward thru Alma's counsel to his sons and further on. The righteous and the wicked. Nearly all of the BofM personalitiesâ?¦ they were either completely and utter righteous or completely and utterly wicked, or transformed from one extreme to the other, like Alma the Younger, Lamoni. The teaching and the people. Righteous or wicked. In the BofM text, salvation is easy and uncomplicated.

This is unlike the Old and New Testaments. There the scriptural text shows men and women who struggle after righteousness. David, Paul, Peter, Jonah, even Adam and Eve.

Thanks for your post, Earl, and for sharing your personal thoughts.

I would agree with you that there is a heavy emphasis on personal worthiness in the LDS Church, and that at times it seems to interfere with the grace so fully offered by Jesus. At other times, such as Elder Holland's address quoted earlier by another poster in this thread, the grace of Jesus is emphasized.

I see the same thing in the New Testament, however, where Matthew 25's parable of the sheep and the goats emphasized strict personal works with no grace; and John 3:16 which emphasizes belief and no works.

Once again, I see the core of the atonement as being something that is ineffable, and must be personally experienced; and that all attempts to explain it in human language fall apart at some point, whether sooner or later.

This thread is a good example. We have had a number of posters contribute their thoughts, all of whom are intelligent and trying to understand this central doctrine of Christianity; and yet we cannot get there. We keep talking around it, and at some points getting closer, but never really arriving.

It is sort of like a parabola, always approaching but never touching.

It strikes me that God set it up this way, so that experiencing the atonement is something that has to be experienced rather than explained. But there sure has been a lot of ink used in trying to explain it down the ages; and all with the result, I think, that we have proven it cannot be explained.

As to the people you mentioned in the Book of Mormon, I can see what you mean about them being presented in a more black-and-white manner than the Bible. I am reminded, however, of that important chapter of 2 Nephi 4, where we get to see behind the "righteousness" of Nephi, and he tells us his personal unrighteous thoughts and attitudes, and how he is concerned that he is not worthy because of them. But then he talks about who(m?) he has trusted in, being Jesus Christ, for salvation, and it ends in a chorus of victory.

Lehi is presented as righteous, yet we read he murmured against the Lord.

The Lamanites are presented as bad, yet we read about how good they were to their wives and children even without accepting the gospel, and we read that great promises were extended to them and their posterity because of this.

One of the fascinating stories in the Book of Mormon has to do with a righteous people (king Benjamin's) who were known for how well they kept the commandments, and yet they had not been born again; leaving me with the conclusion that their personal righteousness was not enough without a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, through which they were spiritually begotten of the Lord and a mighty change wrought in their hearts.

So I think it is possible to see more moral ambiguity in the Book of Mormon than might appear at first blush, making it correspond a little more with what we experience in "real life."

Just some thoughts.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[Earl]

Can someone please provide a Greek textual defense on the use of the word "grace" as being the "enabling power"? What is the basis of the use of the word "grace" in this manner? I know it is so defined in the LDS bible dictionary. I have never seen a defense of such usage.

I think that the use of the word in this manner is akin to ...the opinions of men, mingled with scripture.

Earl

[mbh26]

How would you challenge this skeptical view on the subject? There seems to be two problems. You start out with legalism, then you see people getting frustrated and saying, "I just can't do it." So to keep them from giving up and losing hope altogether the Church comes up with this idea of grace, while throwing in a few undefinable terms like, "after all you can do."

Then people start to rely on grace and basically get lazy. So the Church comes back with scriptures like Alma 37:35.

Yet in reality they never presented the complete concept that shows exactly how it works and how the two worked together. Is it possible that when they came up with this idea, they never really anticipated how the people would react so they had to make the doctrine up on the fly according to how the people reacted.

Now we have people in the Church on all different ends of the spectrum of this belief. The Church wants to keep them all, so they remain purposely vague on the idea. Lately they seem to play more to the grace side as a part of their mainstreaming effort. Yet once you start seeing people say, "Oh getting up for Church on Sunday was just way beyond the best I could do," you'll see them change their tune very quickly, all the while purposely never presenting an exact and official doctrine on the subject.

I still believe in God and the gospel as I understand it, but its hard for me not to think that this is essentially what has been going through minds of Church leaders for millenia.

[Doctor Steuss]

Can someone please provide a Greek textual defense on the use of the word "grace" as being the "enabling power"? What is the basis of the use of the word "grace" in this manner? I know it is so defined in the LDS bible dictionary. I have never seen a defense of such usage.

I think that the use of the word in this manner is akin to ...the opinions of men, mingled with scripture.

Earl

Here's Strong's

5485 charis {khar'-ece}

from 5463; TDNT - 9:372,1298; n f

AV - grace 130, favour 6, thanks 4, thank 4, thank + 2192 3,

pleasure 2, misc 7; 156

1) grace

1a) that which affords joy, pleasure, delight, sweetness, charm,

loveliness: grace of speech

2) good will, loving-kindness, favour

2a) of the merciful kindness by which God, exerting his holy

influence upon souls, turns them to Christ, keeps, strengthens,

increases them in Christian faith, knowledge, affection, and

kindles them to the exercise of the Christian virtues

3) what is due to grace

3a) the spiritual condition of one governed by the power of

divine grace

3b) the token or proof of grace, benefit

3b1) a gift of grace

3b2) benefit, bounty

4) thanks, (for benefits, services, favours), recompense, reward

[Lightbearer]

The Apostle Paul also taught that keeping the commandments was part of the process:

(1 Thessalonians 4:1-7)

"Furthermore then we beseech you, brethren, and exhort [you] by the Lord Jesus, that as ye have received of us how ye ought to walk and to please God, [so] ye would abound more and more.

For ye know what commandments we gave you by the Lord Jesus.

For this is the will of God, [even] your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication:

That every one of you should know how to possess his vessel in sanctification and honour;

Not in the lust of concupiscence, even as the Gentiles which know not God:

That no [man] go beyond and defraud his brother in [any] matter: because that the Lord [is] the avenger of all such, as we also have forewarned you and testified.

For God hath not called us unto uncleanness, but unto holiness."

Here he is speaking to the Saints, the members of the Church. To me he is trying to tell them that they must strive to be holy. I once had an Institute Teacher who said that he did not like to think of members as being good or bad...rather that they are at different levels of understanding and worthiness. Some are at a Pre-K level, some Elementary, some High School, and some are at post-graduate level. Salvation to me is more of a "work in progress" in otherwords a gradual thing. We can start suddenly on the path...but we must "walk the walk" to reach our destination. That is why it is refered to as a straight and narrow path...one that we must follow after getting onto the path. I think of the following:

(Helaman 3:35) "Nevertheless they did fast and pray oft, and did wax stronger and stronger in their humility, and firmer and firmer in the faith of Christ, unto the filling their souls with joy and consolation, yea, even to the purifying and the sanctification of their hearts, which sanctification cometh because of their yielding their hearts unto God."

So we cannot of our own be sanctified (cleansed) we must yield our hearts to God. The D&C teaches this same principle:

(D&C 20:29-34) "And we know that all men must repent and believe on the name of Jesus Christ, and worship the Father in his name, and endure in faith on his name to the end, or they cannot be saved in the kingdom of God.

And we know that justification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true;

And we know also, that sanctification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true, to all those who love and serve God with all their mights, minds, and strength.

But there is a possibility that man may fall from grace and depart from the living God;

Therefore let the church take heed and pray always, lest they fall into temptation;

Yea, and even let those who are sanctified take heed also."

This quote indicates that although our justification and sanctification are through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ...yet it is possible to fall from grace. That is where our continual repentance and renewal of our baptismal covenant comes in. We repent and renew the covenant and He gives us His Spirit to help us perfect our lives. This mortal life is a probation in which we are being "proved" that with the Savior's grace we can overcome our nature to sin and put off the natural man and become a Saint and submit to the will of God.

(D&C 93:19-20)

"I give unto you these sayings that you may understand and know how to worship, and know what you worship, that you may come unto the Father in my name, and in due time receive of his fulness.

For if you keep my commandments you shall receive of his fulness, and be glorified in me as I am in the Father; therefore, I say unto you, you shall receive grace for grace."

A little more on this "grace for grace":

(Helaman 12:23-24) "Therefore, blessed are they who will repent and hearken unto the voice of the Lord their God; for these are they that shall be saved.

And may God grant, in his great fulness, that men might be brought unto repentance and good works, that they might be restored unto grace for grace, according to their works."

From this it seems that grace and works are interdependant. I think works are the correct use of our agency and that grace is blessings of the atonement of Christ unto us because of our faith, repentance, and enduring to the end. Now one last quote:

(Moroni 10:32-33) "Yea, come unto Christ, and be perfected in him, and deny yourselves of all ungodliness; and 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, that by his grace ye may be perfect in Christ; and if by the grace of God ye are perfect in Christ, ye can in nowise deny the power of God.

And again, if ye by the grace of God are perfect in Christ, and deny not his power, then are ye sanctified in Christ by the grace of God, through the shedding of the blood of Christ, which is in the covenant of the Father unto the remission of your sins, that ye become holy, without spot.

Thus the importance of the covenant and it's relation to the grace of God and the relationship to keeping His commandments or "denying ourselves of all ungodliness" and how His grace perfects us. Thus we are saved by grace "after all we can do."

[mbh26]

Salvation to me is more of a "work in progress" in otherwords a gradual thing. We can start suddenly on the path...but we must "walk the walk" to reach our destination. That is why it is refered to as a straight and narrow path...one that we must follow after getting onto the path.

The work in progress is how I always understood Mormon doctrine, but it seems like they don't teach it this way much anymore. Growing up I was taught ideas in sacrament meeting such as, "We'll end up living with people who keep the same law as we ourselves are willing to keep." People who didn't overcome their desire for alcohol or any other bodily addiction, would carry it into the spirit world. Trials and sacrifices could actually be an oppurtunity to become more like God, more perfect, etc. Yet the way they teach it now, everybody is just going to be magically perfected somehow whether they had to work for it or not. It's thoughts like this that make me wonder where does the, "God is fair and just," belief fit in?

[consiglieri]

The work in progress is how I always understood Mormon doctrine, but it seems like they don't teach it this way much anymore. Growing up I was taught ideas in sacrament meeting such as, "We'll end up living with people who keep the same law as we ourselves are willing to keep." People who didn't overcome their desire for alcohol or any other bodily addiction, would carry it into the spirit world. Trials and sacrifices could actually be an oppurtunity to become more like God, more perfect, etc. Yet the way they teach it now, everybody is just going to be magically perfected somehow whether they had to work for it or not. It's thoughts like this that make me wonder where does the, "God is fair and just," belief fit in?

Well, at least I am glad to know that I am not the only one who has perceived a shift in the way grace is predominantly taught in the LDS Church.

I think that, looking at salvation from the works angle, and looking at it from the grace angle, are both important in trying to come to an intellectual understanding of the atonement. Both are essential, and yet, looking at it from either of these angles seems to not be able to comprehend the totality of the subject.

A number of models are proposed in the scriptures; looking at Jesus as Savior; as Mediator; as Redeemer; as Sacrificial Lamb of God. All of these are good ways of looking at the subject, and each comprises important truths about the atonement. Ultimately, however, none are completely satisfactory for understanding the atonement intellectually.

That is why I tend to think that the core of the atonement cannot be understood intellectually, and hence eludes expression in words.

Perhaps Joseph Smith did the best job of describing it in one sentence: We are saved by grace and works through ordinances.

Stephen Robinson wrote a book called Believing Christ, which did a good job of attempting to describe the grace of Christ. Then he wrote a follow-up book called Following Christ, which did a good job of describing what we do in response to the grace freely offered us.

The frustrating thing is that the concepts of the latter book seem to contradict the concepts of the former.

But I think that will always be the case when trying to describe something that is at heart ineffable and must be experienced to be understood.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[mbh26]

Well, at least I am glad to know that I am not the only one who has perceived a shift in the way grace is predominantly taught in the LDS Church.

Yeah, I definitely noticed a shift in what they were emphasizing as well. I used to be taught that there were truths to be found in all religions and inasmuch as people accepted those truths they would work toward a part of their salvation. It seemed to be more about the truth. Now it seems to be more about which society you belong to. My only question about the shift is how it occurred. Was it just a few people with evangelical ideas making their way up the local ranks to Bishop and SP, or was a it a churchwide effort sent down by the Brethren that had to do with mainstreaming and responding to evangelical criticism? Whatever it was, I sure felt like I had the rug pulled out from under me. I definitely liked the old Mormon Church better. I can't think of any other issue in religion that I feel more strongly about. These still seem like essential issues to me. You can't really say they don't effect your salvation.

I read Stephen Robinson's book and I never really found the answer of what is required for salvation and exaltation. It seemed full of undefinables like, "Do your very best, give 100%."

[LifeOnaPlate]

I verily hope consig gets this little tidbit before he teaches the GRACE lesson; it is a wonderful example in our very own Doctrine and Covenants.

Section 88:

74 And I give unto you, who are the first laborers in this last kingdom, a commandment that you assemble yourselves together, and organize yourselves, and prepare yourselves, and sanctify yourselves; yea, purify your hearts, and cleanse your hands and your feet before me, that I may make you clean;

75 That I may testify unto your Father, and your God, and my God, that you are clean from the blood of this wicked generation; that I may fulfil this promise, this great and last promise, which I have made unto you, when I will.

This is odd; we must make ourselves clean before he can make us clean. But sure enough, we are required to do these things, and Jesus says at that point he will testify to God for us that we are clean. I wonder how that will happen? Section 45 actually tells us how that will play out:

Section 45:3-5

3 Listen to him who is the advocate with the Father, who is pleading your cause before him—

4 Saying: Father, behold the sufferings and death of him who did no sin, in whom thou wast well pleased; behold the blood of thy Son which was shed, the blood of him whom thou gavest that thyself might be glorified;

5 Wherefore, Father, spare these my brethren that believe on my name, that they may come unto me and have everlasting life.

What, after all we are asked to do, does Christ point to in order to declare us worthy? Does he mention our repentance, our baptism, etc/ No, these are preparatory ordinances, ordained from the foundation of the world, and they are required, but what saves us? He does not point to our works; works aren't mentioned in the least, but indeed Christ's works are the evidence. So after all, we ARE saved by works: the works of Jesus Christ.

Again, that being said, having Christ as our advocate requires some action on our part, though it is all bought and paid for by Christ.

Like C.S. Lewis said, which is more important; faith or works? He would just as soon answer which blade on a pair of scissors is more important. Now I don't think he is saying our works are "equal" to Christs, but that they are just as necessary.

[rhinomelon]

Like C.S. Lewis said, which is more important; faith or works? He would just as soon answer which blade on a pair of scissors is more important. Now I don't think he is saying our works are "equal" to Christs, but that they are just as necessary.

I would point out that this quote is often used by LDS without realizing that its context negates the very point they are trying to make. After this statement, Lewis goes right on to say that works are necessary because only after we have tried doing it by works (and failed miserably) do we then rely completely on God's grace to save us. Lewis is agreeing with the "in spite of all we can do" reading of the Book of Mormon passage, "saved by grace after all we can do."

Still a very interesting discussion!

Take care, everyone

[LifeOnaPlate]

I would point out that this quote is often used by LDS without realizing that its context negates the very point they are trying to make. After this statement, Lewis goes right on to say that works are necessary because only after we have tried doing it by works (and failed miserably) do we then rely completely on God's grace to save us. Lewis is agreeing with the "in spite of all we can do" reading of the Book of Mormon passage, "saved by grace after all we can do."

Still a very interesting discussion!

Take care, everyone

Was Lewis saying the two blades are needed, or was he saying you can use each blade at different times, etc? The point Lewis was making, [and I as well,] is that both are clearly neccessary.

[Lightbearer]

I was not sure if I should start a new thread or not, but this does fit into the discussion of Grace and Works so I place it here. This past Saturday I was mowing my lawn and having a fairly large yard (it took almost 3 hours to mow) I had some time to think. I believe I have formulated a rather interesting "parable" on grace and works. I call it: "The Parable of the Lawnmower"

I live in the south so this parable comes from the customs and daily life of the ones who lives here. Although I think it has universal appeal unless you live in an apartment or in the middle of a desert with no grass or mowing duties. In the summer it rains here so much that we almost find it a necessity to mow weekly or at least every other week. In mid-summer it can be very difficult especially if you use a "push mower" instead of a riding one. I would compare the yard to our souls, the grass is sin, the lawn mower is the Gospel of Jesus Christ particularly the grace of God offered in the atonement. While we do not own the mower...it is God's gift and is offered to us by covenant, still we must "mow" the grass by our repentance and applying the first principles of the Gospel. (Not a one time event, but an ongoing process). The gas which makes the mower operate is our Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The process of "mowing" is our application of the first four principles of the Gospel. If we neglect this process then sin will grow and chokes our spiritual growth (damn us). As time passes it gets harder and harder to mow the grass. So it is with our lives...we must apply these principles on a regular basis. That is why we are commanded to attend our Sacrament meetings. Hopefully we approach the Sacrament with a "broken heart and a contrite spirit" having repented of our sins and exercising our faith in Christ...then we renew the covenant of baptism by the ordinance of the Sacrament. Promising to take upon us His name (The name of Jesus Christ, and trying to walk as He would walk) always remembering Him (Christ's sacrifice and His atonement for our sins) and we promise to keep His commandments which He has given us...then as we do these things He promises His Spirit will always be with us.

It is true we do have the "weakness of the flesh" but He has told us:

(Ether 12:27) "And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them."

So it is a lame excuse to say we cannot keep His commandments because we are "fallen man" because the Lord knows this that is why He has said that if we come unto Him His grace is sufficient not just to forgive us of our weaknesses but to make our weakness become strengths. He still tells us to keep His commandments which if it were not possible He would be a liar. What about this statement:

(1 Nephi 3:7) "And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them."

So the Lord will prepare a way for us to keep all of His commandments. Notice that the Lord is teaching us that it is possible to keep all of His commandments...with His help! One of the greatest scriptures upon this subject is the following:

(2 Nephi 31:6-21) "And now, I would ask of you, my beloved brethren, wherein the Lamb of God did fulfil all righteousness in being baptized by water?

Know ye not that he was holy? But notwithstanding he being holy, he showeth unto the children of men that, according to the flesh he humbleth himself before the Father, and witnesseth unto the Father that he would be obedient unto him in keeping his commandments.

Wherefore, after he was baptized with water the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove.

And again, it showeth unto the children of men the straitness of the path, and the narrowness of the gate, by which they should enter, he having set the example before them.

And he said unto the children of men: Follow thou me. Wherefore, my beloved brethren, can we follow Jesus save we shall be willing to keep the commandments of the Father?

And the Father said: Repent ye, repent ye, and be baptized in the name of my Beloved Son.

And also, the voice of the Son came unto me, saying: He that is baptized in my name, to him will the Father give the Holy Ghost, like unto me; wherefore, follow me, and do the things which ye have seen me do.

Wherefore, my beloved brethren, I know that if ye shall follow the Son, with full purpose of heart, acting no hypocrisy and no deception before God, but with real intent, repenting of your sins, witnessing unto the Father that ye are willing to take upon you the name of Christ, by baptismâ??yea, by following your Lord and your Savior down into the water, according to his word, behold, then shall ye receive the Holy Ghost; yea, then cometh the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost; and then can ye speak with the tongue of angels, and shout praises unto the Holy One of Israel.

But, behold, my beloved brethren, thus came the voice of the Son unto me, saying: After ye have repented of your sins, and witnessed unto the Father that ye are willing to keep my commandments, by the baptism of water, and have received the baptism of fire and of the Holy Ghost, and can speak with a new tongue, yea, even with the tongue of angels, and after this should deny me, it would have been better for you that ye had not known me.

And I heard a voice from the Father, saying: Yea, the words of my Beloved are true and faithful. He that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved.

And now, my beloved brethren, I know by this that unless a man shall endure to the end, in following the example of the Son of the living God, he cannot be saved.

Wherefore, do the things which I have told you I have seen that your Lord and your Redeemer should do; for, for this cause have they been shown unto me, that ye might know the gate by which ye should enter. For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost.

And then are ye in this strait and narrow path which leads to eternal life; yea, ye have entered in by the gate; ye have done according to the commandments of the Father and the Son; and ye have received the Holy Ghost, which witnesses of the Father and the Son, unto the fulfilling of the promise which he hath made, that if ye entered in by the way ye should receive.

And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow path, I would ask if all is done? Behold, I say unto you, Nay; for ye have not come thus far save it were by the word of Christ with unshaken faith in him, relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.

Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if ye shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: Ye shall have eternal life.

And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the away; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen."

This quote I think sums up the so-called grace-works "problem." We underestimate the importance of the baptismal covenant and it's relationship to our salvation by grace. Because of the grace and mercy of Christ we are saved after all we can do. This does not say we are saved by our works but we must meet His requirements in order to partake fully of His grace. We must walk in the strait and narrow path we must also "endure to the end" or we cannot be saved. That is why the Lord said He cannot "save us in our sins" rather He saves us from our sins. He helps us to change our sinful nature and puts us on the "strait and narrow path" that leads to eternal life. Paul said we must "work out our salvation with fear and trembling." Just like mowing the grass...it is something we are required to do consistently, remembering who provided the mower.

[LifeOnaPlate]

I was not sure if I should start a new thread or not, but this does fit into the discussion of Grace and Works so I place it here. This past Saturday I was mowing my lawn and having a fairly large yard (it took almost 3 hours to mow) I had some time to think. I believe I have formulated a rather interesting "parable" on grace and works. I call it: "The Parable of the Lawnmower"

I live in the south so this parable comes from the customs and daily life of the ones who lives here. Although I think it has universal appeal unless you live in an apartment or in the middle of a desert with no grass or mowing duties. In the summer it rains here so much that we almost find it a necessity to mow weekly or at least every other week. In mid-summer it can be very difficult especially if you use a "push mower" instead of a riding one. I would compare the yard to our souls, the grass is sin, the lawn mower is the Gospel of Jesus Christ particularly the grace of God offered in the atonement. While we do not own the mower...it is God's gift and is offered to us by covenant, still we must "mow" the grass by our repentance and applying the first principles of the Gospel. (Not a one time event, but an ongoing process). The gas which makes the mower operate is our Faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. The process of "mowing" is our application of the first four principles of the Gospel. If we neglect this process then sin will grow and chokes our spiritual growth (damn us). As time passes it gets harder and harder to mow the grass. So it is with our lives...we must apply these principles on a regular basis. That is why we are commanded to attend our Sacrament meetings. Hopefully we approach the Sacrament with a "broken heart and a contrite spirit" having repented of our sins and exercising our faith in Christ...then we renew the covenant of baptism by the ordinance of the Sacrament. Promising to take upon us His name (The name of Jesus Christ, and trying to walk as He would walk) always remembering Him (Christ's sacrifice and His atonement for our sins) and we promise to keep His commandments which He has given us...then as we do these things He promises His Spirit will always be with us.

It is true we do have the "weakness of the flesh" but He has told us:So it is a lame excuse to say we cannot keep His commandments because we are "fallen man" because the Lord knows this that is why He has said that if we come unto Him His grace is sufficient not just to forgive us of our weaknesses but to make our weakness become strengths. He still tells us to keep His commandments which if it were not possible He would be a liar. What about this statement:So the Lord will prepare a way for us to keep all of His commandments. Notice that the Lord is teaching us that it is possible to keep all of His commandments...with His help! One of the greatest scriptures upon this subject is the following:This quote I think sums up the so-called grace-works "problem." We underestimate the importance of the baptismal covenant and it's relationship to our salvation by grace. Because of the grace and mercy of Christ we are saved after all we can do. This does not say we are saved by our works but we must meet His requirements in order to partake fully of His grace. We must walk in the strait and narrow path we must also "endure to the end" or we cannot be saved. That is why the Lord said He cannot "save us in our sins" rather He saves us from our sins. He helps us to change our sinful nature and puts us on the "strait and narrow path" that leads to eternal life. Paul said we must "work out our salvation with fear and trembling." Just like mowing the grass...it is something we are required to do consistently, remembering who provided the mower.

Not too bad. I usually pump my headphones when I mow

A "saving" process that does not involve the agency and action of man at least in some minor capacity is a child of the Calvinistic salvation by election doctrine. You are selected to be saved arbitrarilly through God's will, not your own. Then what, pray tell, is the very purpose of life? It just doesn't add up Biblically, logically, or spiritually that we aren't expected to do anything.

Even those who believe in faith by grace alone, with no works, believe that they must accept Jesus. Accepting Jesus takes cognitive action and is, itself, a work.

It seems the real issue is "what works are required," rather than "are works required."

The only Christian doctrine I have found unbelieving in salvation by faith, grace and works is the Calvinistic election point of view, where you literally do nothing, but are chosen to be saved.

[Mark Beesley]

This past Saturday I was mowing my lawn and having a fairly large yard (it took almost 3 hours to mow) I had some time to think.

Three hours to mow your lawn? Ya know, if you bought another cow you could do it in half the time!!!

[consiglieri]

Three hours to mow your lawn? Ya know, if you bought another cow you could do it in half the time!!!

Is that "Open Range"? It looks like Robert Duvall (from the side, anyway). Great movie!

I think I like the analogy of the mower; that we need to mow the lawn, but never forget who gave us the mower in the first place.

I also like very much the story of Nephi, who gave the memorable quote in 1 Nephi 3:7.

As the story unfolds, I think it important to note that Nephi's works, together with those of his brother, were completely insufficient to obtain the prize of the plates, which is what the commandment was to obtain.

The commandment wasn't to try everything they could do and if they couldn't come back with the plates, it would suffice.

Nephi and his brothers tried every human way they could think of to accomplish this commandment, and ultimately none of what they did was sufficient.

It was at this critical point that Nephi, by himself, decided he would go into Jerusalem at night with the goal of obtaining the plates, even though he states that he had no idea what he was going to do .

It was here that Nephi's faithfulness as expressed in his insufficient works met the grace of God, who delivered Laban into his hands; something that Nephi could not have foreseen and could not have made to happen on his own.

It was only in this meeting of Nephi's faith with God's grace that Nephi was enabled to fulfill the command of God.

I think this is a story about individual salvation as much as it is about Nephi getting the plates.

I would be interested in what EV Christians, particularly Rhino, think about this understanding of the familiar Book of Mormon story, and how that compares or contrasts with his position of faith and works.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[aaronshaf]

The view that "after all we can do" is akin to "in spite of all we do" seems quite recent in my experience, and is a most welcome nuance.

It seems that for support for this new interpretation people are going to BYU professors, bypassing what LDS leaders have said in places like General Conferences about it. Would anyone like to offer up some support for this interpretation of 2 Nephi 25:23 from LDS prophets or general authorities?

If what the neo-orthodox folks are saying about the passage is true, then these same folks should be willing to openly and explicitly repudiate passage like this from General Conference:

"The truth is that we are saved by grace only after all we ourselves can do. (See 2 Ne. 25:23.) There will be no government dole which can get us through the pearly gates. Nor will anybody go into the celestial kingdom who wants to go there on the works of someone else. Every man must go through on his own merits. We might just as well learn this here and now." - Marion G. Romney, "In Mine Own Way," Ensign, Nov. 1976, 123

I think the justification part by grace (forgiveness of sins) would be noncontroversial in LDS circles.

The idea of justification by faith seems opposed to the LDS concept that forgiveness comes after completing the six steps of repentance (sometimes listed as five steps). This seems like a tenet of not only the Miracle of Forgiveness, but also of church manuals like True to the Faith.

This whole subject reminds me of a Bruce McConkie quote. Of all the people who advocate Mormon neo-orthodoxy, most people I talk to say this quote "focuses too much on works", but are unwilling to repudiate the quote as anti-grace and anti-gospel. It seems like they want it both ways, one foot in the door, and one foot out.

"What then is the law of justification? It is simply this: 'All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations (D. & C. 132:7), in which men must abide to be saved and exalted, must be entered into and performed in righteousness so that the Holy Spirit can justify the candidate for salvation in what has been done. (1 Ne. 16:2; Jac. 2:13-14; Alma 41:15; D. & C. 98; 132:1, 62.) An act that is justified by the Spirit is one that is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, or in other words, ratified and approved by the Holy Ghost. This law of justification is the provision the Lord has placed in the gospel to assure that no unrighteous performance will be binding on earth and in heaven, and that no person will add to his position or glory in the hereafter by gaining an unearned blessing." - Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 408. Quoted without last sentence in Doctrines of the Gospel. See here and here.

Someone also said,

The works we do only serve to "manifest" that we "have received of the Spirit of Christ."

I have heard LDS say this before, but it doesn't seem to play itself out consistently, especially because Mormons are taught that one of the main purposes of life is to prove ourselves worthy (in a mortal body) unto exaltation and godhood. Trying to say works merely play an evidentiary role doesn't have much force in the long run given the LDS view of the Fall and the very design of the "second estate".

Add to that the commonly believed prospect of becoming, in a way, self-sufficient and independent deities worshiped by our own creatures, and you have a problem with finally getting rid of the role of merit in Mormon soteriology. I know some of you depart from this Lorenzo Snow couplet tradition, but if the neo-orthodox movement toward the evangelical view of grace is real then the traditional belief must be condemned. The recent FAIR response to the DVD said the following:

Jesus Christ has divine status and exaltation by merit and right. By analogy, we presumeâ??but do not knowâ??that the Father proceeded similarly. Exaltation of all other mortals is through the grace, mercy, and atonement of Christ, following the Father's plan.

This (specifically the distinction between the Father's deification and our deification) certainly isn't official doctrine or even authoritative teaching from Mormonism, but it seems like some FAIR folks understand that they have to go this route or there are serious consequences in Mormon theology. One big problem is this kind of thought hasn't trickled down to Mormon laymen who more often than not lean toward the traditional view of Lorenzo Snow couplet theology (that we can come gods like all the gods did before us, Jesus Christ being the exception).

All things considered, I think if Mormons want to make a genuine move from a religion replete with conditions of personal righteousness, merit, and worthiness, they need to not only speak of old and new emphases, but also make some clear affirmations and denials when it comes to some key propositions on the role of worthiness, merit, works, ordinances in the purpose of life, the fall, justification, sanctification, and deification, etc. And if it is genuine that will require a massive, unequivocal departure from many things that LDS leaders have traditionally, authoritatively taught. I would also expect to start meeting more Mormons who believe that all their past sins have been forgiven, not just the sins that have been taken care of through the incredibly perfectionistic outline of the six steps of repentance. So far, most Mormons I meet don't believe all their past sins have been forgiven, and object to my own claim at having had all my past sins forgiven because "that's like saying I'm perfect."

[LifeOnaPlate]

It seems that for support for this new interpretation people are going to BYU professors, bypassing what LDS leaders have said in places like General Conferences about it. Would anyone like to offer up some support for this interpretation of 2 Nephi 25:23 from LDS prophets or general authorities?

Bruce C. Hafen in the 2004 conference referred to it: (I recommend his book trilogy: The Believing, Broken, and Belonging Heart.)

Bruce C. Hafen of the Quorum of the 70 in April 2004 GC:

"The Fall was not a disaster. It wasn't a mistake or an accident. It was a deliberate part of the plan of salvation. We are God's spirit "offspring,"2 sent to earth "innocent"3 of Adam's transgression. Yet our Father's plan subjects us to temptation and misery in this fallen world as the price to comprehend authentic joy. Without tasting the bitter, we actually cannot understand the sweet. We require mortality's discipline and refinement as the "next step in [our] development" toward becoming like our Father. But growth means growing pains. It also means learning from our mistakes in a continual process made possible by the Savior's grace, which He extends both during and "after all we can do."

Adam and Eve learned constantly from their often harsh experience. They knew how a troubled family feels. Think of Cain and Abel. Yet because of the Atonement, they could learn from their experience without being condemned by it. Christ's sacrifice didn't just erase their choices and return them to an Eden of innocence. That would be a story with no plot and no character growth. His plan is developmental—line upon line, step by step, grace for grace.

He also had some amazing articles printed up in the Ensign and other places where he discussed this, and I'll quote him in part here, though I say you ought to read the whole thing:

We need to understand the Atonement more fully than we do, both because outsiders may misperceive our doctrine and because we may view the Atonement too narrowly in our own lives. For example, Newsweek magazine has erroneously stated: “Unlike orthodox Christians, Mormons believe that men are born free of sin and earn their way to godhood by the proper exercise of free will, rather than through the grace of Jesus Christ. Thus Jesus’ suffering and death in the Mormon view … do not atone for the sins of others” (Newsweek, 1 September 1980, 68).

It disturbs me that Newsweek would miss the point of our core doctrine, even though the article purported not to summarize our theology but to report what Latter-day Saints actually believe. It is unfortunate when we convey incorrect ideas to others; but it is worse when we, by our limited doctrinal understanding, deny ourselves the reassurance and guidance we may desperately need at pivotal moments in our lives.

Our reluctance to stress the doctrine of grace is understandable. Nephi wrote, “For we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Ne. 25:23; emphasis added). A constant public emphasis on grace might encourage some people to ignore the crucial “all we can do” in that two-part process. They might then accept the erroneous notion that we can be saved by divine grace even while choosing to live in our sins. Some Christians do believe they will be saved by grace in spite of whatever they may do. At the extreme, this doctrine denies free will altogether, implying that God will elect those he will save without regard to their conduct or even their preference.

Similarly, some Church members feel entitled to “a few free ones” as they sow their wild oats and walk constantly along the edge of transgression. Or they believe that repentance requires little more than saying they are sorry. Constant emphasis on the availability of forgiveness can be counterproductive in such cases, suggesting—wrongly—that they can “live it up” now and repent easily later without harmful consequences.

Despite these reasons for caution, the blessing of making the Atonement more central to our lives outweighs any associated risks. When we habitually understate the Atonement’s broad meaning, we do more harm than leaving one another without comforting reassurances—for some may simply drop out of the race, weighed down beyond the breaking point with self-doubt and spiritual fatigue.

The Savior himself was not concerned that he would seem too forgiving or soft on sin. Said he, “Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. … For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light” (Matt. 11:28, 30). He spoke these comforting words in the context of asking his followers to develop a love pure enough to extinguish hatred, lust, and anger. His yoke is easy—but he asks for all our hearts.

His words do not describe an event, but a process. He does not request the answer to a yes-or-no question, but an essay, written in the winding trail of our experience. As we move along that trail, we will find that he is not only aware of our limitations, but that he will also in due course compensate for them, “after all we can do.” That, in addition to forgiveness for sin, is a crucial part of the good news of the gospel, part of the victory, part of the Atonement.

See http://emp.byui.edu/ANDERSONKC/431readings...ashes.hafen.htm

If what the neo-orthodox folks are saying about the passage is true, then these same folks should be willing to openly and explicitly repudiate passage like this from General Conference:

"The truth is that we are saved by grace only after all we ourselves can do. (See 2 Ne. 25:23.) There will be no government dole which can get us through the pearly gates. Nor will anybody go into the celestial kingdom who wants to go there on the works of someone else. Every man must go through on his own merits. We might just as well learn this here and now." - Marion G. Romney, "In Mine Own Way," Ensign, Nov. 1976, 123

While you attempt to wrest Elder Romney's words, I can see what he is saying without forcing a warped preconceived notion on it; as you seem to insist on doing. Let's apply that quote to your beliefs, brother sharff, and see that it, in fact, does make sense not only according to your doctrine of grace, but to the LDS Church as well. Can someone accept Jesus in your behalf? Can someone have faith in Christ and transfer that faith to you? If you, yourself, don't accept Jesus and have faith in him will you be saved? Can you have your neighbor "confess by the mouth" in your behalf? No. Of course not. That is what Elder Romney is talking about.

This whole subject reminds me of a Bruce McConkie quote. Of all the people who advocate Mormon neo-orthodoxy, most people I talk to say this quote "focuses too much on works", but are unwilling to repudiate the quote as anti-grace and anti-gospel. It seems like they want it both ways, one foot in the door, and one foot out:

"What then is the law of justification? It is simply this: 'All covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations, or expectations (D. & C. 132:7), in which men must abide to be saved and exalted, must be entered into and performed in righteousness so that the Holy Spirit can justify the candidate for salvation in what has been done. (1 Ne. 16:2; Jac. 2:13-14; Alma 41:15; D. & C. 98; 132:1, 62.) An act that is justified by the Spirit is one that is sealed by the Holy Spirit of Promise, or in other words, ratified and approved by the Holy Ghost. This law of justification is the provision the Lord has placed in the gospel to assure that no unrighteous performance will be binding on earth and in heaven, and that no person will add to his position or glory in the hereafter by gaining an unearned blessing." - Bruce R. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 408. Quoted without last sentence in Doctrines of the Gospel.

Another instance where this can be applied to your faith, brother sharff. Can you "fake" being born again? Can you "say" you believe in Jesus when really, inside, you do it to be accepted by friends, or impress parents, or etc.? Can someone say they were born again, yet honestly in their hearts mock and disbelieve God and still be saved, or does it require truthfulness on the part of the faithful sinner? Of course, one must be sincere. Elder McConkie is saying the Spirit is a witness of our sincerity. You may not believe the process, but the concept is not contrary to your beliefs, either, unless you think someone can fake their way into heaven.

Add to that the commonly believed prospect of becoming, in a way, self-sufficient and independent deities worshiped by our own creatures...

While the rest of your understanding of what the LDS Church believes on the subject of Deification and God the Father's attributes, etc. this one comment is without merit specifically. Where does the LDS theology officially teach that we will be worshiped? A response to the rest of your words therein is unwarranted, as you misrepresent LDS theology and confuse speculation for doctrine.

All things considered, I think if Mormons want to make a genuine move from a religion replete with conditions of personal righteousness, merit, and worthiness, they need to not only speak of old and new emphases, but also make some clear affirmations and denials when it comes to some key propositions on the role of worthiness, merit, works, ordinances in the purpose of life, the fall, justification, sanctification, and deification, etc. And if it is genuine that will require a massive, unequivocal departure from many things that LDS leaders have traditionally, authoritatively taught. I would also expect to start meeting more Mormons who believe that all their past sins have been forgiven, not just the sins that have been taken care of through the incredibly perfectionistic outline of the six steps of repentance. So far, most Mormons I meet don't believe all their past sins have been forgiven, and object to my own claim at having had all my past sins forgiven because "that's like saying I'm perfect."

I've shown the quotes you cite here which, to you, would require a massive departure, still apply with the emphasis on grace, which was the very purpose of this thread.

Why are you asking Mormons about their past sins, anyway? Why is their repentance or specific past mistakes any of your concern?

Thanks for dropping by again, brother sharff, and remember, I can insist you worship a purple dog with yellow spots, but that doesn't mean you actually do.

Isaiah 29:

20 For the terrible one is brought to nought, and the scorner is consumed, and all that watch for iniquity are cut off:

21 That make a man an offender for a word, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, and turn aside the just for a thing of nought.

22 Therefore thus saith the LORD, who redeemed Abraham, concerning the house of Jacob, Jacob shall not now be ashamed, neither shall his face now wax pale.

23 But when he seeth his children, the work of mine hands, in the midst of him, they shall sanctify my name, and sanctify the Holy One of Jacob, and shall fear the God of Israel.

He that hath ears to hear let him hear.

[aaronshaf]

LifeOnaPlate,

It also means learning from our mistakes in a continual process made possible by the Savior's grace, which He extends both during and "after all we can do."

Hafen's usage of the BofM phrase "after all you can do", especially in what is here quoted, does not help the neo-orthodox cause. Hafen clearly ascribes a time element to the word "after" (hence the phrase, "both during and 'after all we can do.'"). Also, Hafen does not make it clear here that "after all you can do" means something like "inspite of everything we do". Simply "learning from our mistakes" doesn't address the issue of when one is fully forgiven for their mistakes.

Elsewhere Hafen further indicates that his understanding of "after all you can do" is that it prescribes the condition of faithfulness for receiving grace:

"And though the journey of mortality can sometimes be very hard, grace shall be as your day—meaning, in Nephi’s words, 'it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do' (2 Nephi 25:23). Thus the Lord’s grace extends further as our individual days grow longer, and harder. If we are faithful he will give us whatever the 'day' of our personal circumstances may require." (>>)

In the "Beauty for Ashes" article Hafen communicates that the "after all you can do" phrase means that we can't continue in sin, that we will not, contrary to what he thinks some "Christians do believe", "be saved by grace in spite of whatever [we] may do". Again, this certainly doesn't indicates a "in spite of what we've done or can do" meaning for the "after all we can do" phrase. If anything, it suggests the opposite.

All things considered, even if Hafen explicitly and authoritatively promoted the newer Robinsonian and Milletian interpretation of 2 Nephi 25:23, you're still left with the reality that it hasn't been the traditional, authoritative interpretation promoted by church leaders. But I guess some Mormons today find the interpretations of BYU professors more valuable than those of the "Lord's anointed".

Regarding the Marion G. Romney quote, the key sentence I want to highlight it this: "Every man must go through on his own merits." You failed to comment on that. As for entering the Celestial Kingdom on the works of someone else... I most certainly will! I will enter the presence of God on the basis of the righteousness of Jesus Christ. His righteousness has been imputed to my account, and my sin has been imputed to his account (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:21). I received this "double imputation" by faith alone.

Regarding the McConkie quote, I think your points are red herrings, because McConkie is ascribing far more than just an evidentiary role to works, and speaks of them in the context of a merit system (hence, "no person will add to his position or glory in the hereafter by gaining an unearned blessing").

That you think the Romney and McConkie quote "still apply" even with the new "emphasis on grace" is very telling.

Regarding the issue of traditional Lorenzo Snow couplet theology, I'd be glad to have a recorded Skype conversation with you on it (for all to hear). E-mail me at aaronshaf[at]gmail[dot]com if you're interested.

Grace and peace in Christ, who justifies the ungodly by faith apart from works (Romans 4:5),

Aaron

[LifeOnaPlate]

LifeOnaPlate,

Hafen's usage of the BofM phrase "after all you can do", especially in what is here quoted, does not help the neo-orthodox cause. Hafen clearly ascribes a time element to the word "after" (hence the phrase, "both during and 'after all we can do.'"). Also, Hafen does not make it clear here that "after all you can do" means something like "inspite of everything we do". Simply "learning from our mistakes" doesn't address the issue of when one is fully forgiven for their mistakes.

Elsewhere Hafen further indicates that his understanding of "after all you can do" is that it prescribes the condition of faithfulness for receiving grace:

In the "Beauty for Ashes" article Hafen communicates that the "after all you can do" phrase means that we can't continue in sin, that we will not, contrary to what he thinks some "Christians do believe", "be saved by grace in spite of whatever [we] may do". Again, this certainly doesn't indicates a "in spite of what we've done or can do" meaning for the "after all we can do" phrase. If anything, it suggests the opposite.

All things considered, even if Hafen explicitly and authoritatively promoted the newer Robinsonian and Milletian interpretation of 2 Nephi 25:23, you're still left with the reality that it hasn't been the traditional, authoritative interpretation promoted by church leaders. But I guess some Mormons today find the interpretations of BYU professors more valuable than those of the "Lord's anointed".

Regarding the Marion G. Romney quote, the key sentence I want to highlight it this: "Every man must go through on his own merits." You failed to comment on that. As for entering the Celestial Kingdom on the works of someone else... I most certainly will! I will enter the presence of God on the basis of the righteousness of Jesus Christ. His righteousness has been imputed to my account, and my sin has been imputed to his account (cf. 2 Corinthians 5:21). I received this "double imputation" by faith alone.

Regarding the McConkie quote, I think your points are red herrings, because McConkie is ascribing far more than just an evidentiary role to works, and speaks of them in the context of a merit system (hence, "no person will add to his position or glory in the hereafter by gaining an unearned blessing").

That you think the Romney and McConkie quote "still apply" even with the new "emphasis on grace" is very telling.

Regarding the issue of traditional Lorenzo Snow couplet theology, I'd be glad to have a recorded Skype conversation with you on it (for all to hear). E-mail me at aaronshaf[at]gmail[dot]com if you're interested.

Grace and peace in Christ, who justifies the ungodly by faith apart from works (Romans 4:5),

Aaron

Seeing how you misinterpret my Church leaders gives me a better understanding of how you also misinterpret the Bible. Namely, they mean what you want them to mean. You seem to really love that 2 Nephi scripture. Would you care to have a discussion of the doctrine of grace as taught in the Book of Mormon as a whole, rather than in isolated scriptures? I know the isolation method is your bag, but sometimes taking parts in the concept of the whole really helps out.

As far as the couplet "theory" goes, what would you like to discuss?