Once again, 2 Nephi 25:23

[Bernard Gui]

3 part post coming up!

I have read this thread through 3 times. It has been fascinating to discover Rob has pulledl the old bait-and-switch on us Moron...uh...Mormon rubes.

Let's take a look at what has happened of the course of several weeks.

In his OP, Rob set up this classic anti-Mormon argument:

Mormons believe the blood of Christ is not sufficient to save them because 2 Nephi 25:23 says we must also do all we can to be saved.

It

[Bernard Gui]

But the still small voice of Walker W in post #51 poked a little hole in Rob

[Bernard Gui]

Finally, the truth comes out. We have been comparing zebras with hippos:

The contrast between the view I espouse as an evangelical and the dominant LDS view should be clear enough. The dominant LDS view says that we are saved by grace into the celestial kingdom if and only if we have put forth our best effort and done all that we can do. The evangelical view says that we are saved by grace to live in the only eternal, heavenly kingdom despite the fact that we have not put forth our best effort and have failed to do all we can do. The dominant LDS view makes some measure of good works a condition of salvation to the celestial kingdom; the evangelical view denies that good works are in any way a condition of salvation to the eternal kingdom. In fact, although I recognize a minority, alternative approach to the interpretation of 2 Nephi 25:23 within LDS circles, as far as I can tell all LDS leaders and teachers agree that good works are in some fashion a precondition for exaltation or entrance into the celestial kingdom. I don't see any ambiguity on that point.

The switch is complete, but in post #185, Bernard observes,

No offense intended, but this is old hat. You haven't come up with something new here.

Of course, LDS believe works are involved in exaltation! Everybody knows that, even Rob. It took 173 posts to decide that?

JDave, after a prodigiousl;y admirable search of conference addresses, advises Rob in Post :

My only remaining concern would be your usage of the phrase. I would strongly object to continued use of the term "maximum of individual effort" as being stated by President Lee as preceding or being necessary for the receipt of any grace, as you did in the OP and in your most recent summary post. At least make it clear that you are referring to grace in the sense of ultimate salvation, or include the reasoning you just laid out.

This is the first time that JDave alludes to exalation, but Rob is quick to pick up on it in post #206 and plays his Get Out of Jail Free card:

Okay, but I think I was clear and have been clear all along that Lee and others are saying that such effort (maximal or otherwise) is needed for what you call ultimate salvation, i.e., exaltation or entrance into the celestial kingdom. I have stated quite clearly that salvation in the general sense of resurrection to life in some heavenly kingdom in fact requires absolutely no effort on our part in LDS doctrine. Just don't be a son of perdition and you're "saved" in that sense. So when I have used Lee's wording in reference to "salvation," I have already made it clear that the highest form or type of salvation is meant.

Not so fast! said Bernard in post #210. Rob did not make that clear until post #143.

You created a strawman by treating 2 Nephi 25:23 as if it were in a 1 to 1 correspondence with Protestant doctrine. It was not until post #143 that you mentioned exaltation or salvation in the celestial kingdom, which is not the same concept as Protestant salvation.

And you did not make clear the distinction between the LDS doctrine of exaltation, which is really the subject of this discussion, and the Evangelical Protestant doctrine of salvation by grace until post #173.

Robs attempts to wriggle out in post #215. "The Mormons made me do it!":

Do the LDS scriptures, or the LDS prophets, clearly and consistently make this distinction? Is this distinction clearly made in 2 Nephi 25:23, the very text we are supposed to be discussing?

In post #219, nackhadlow identifies the semantic nature of Rob's argument:

There's definitely cultural associations with words and phrases within a culture that are difficult to recognize (and see the need to translate) when one isn't intimately familiar with any other cultures.

But Rob blames it on the Mormons again and pats himself on the back for knowing what Mormons what they believe far better than their own scriptures and prophets:

However, when the Book of Mormon consistently fails to make the sorts of qualifications or explanations that Mormons insist must be made, your explanation starts wearing thin from my perspective. Furthermore, the fact is that I have been far more precise and made far more qualifications in expressing the LDS view than you will find any LDS prophet making, even if you widen the search to large swaths of material.

Quite an accomplishment, if he says so himself.

In post #225, Rob shames himself by making this fatuous claim that should be an embarrassment to someone who knows Mormon scriptures better than the Mormon prophets:

Yet the Book of Mormon says nothing in support of the distinction between a general salvation (resurrection) and an individual salvation (exaltation).

This, of course, was easily nuked by a number of posters, but Rob has yet to fess up.

So here's where we stand:

1. Since everyone knows Mormons believe grace and works are required for exaltation, what was the purpose of this thread?

2. Why the trap?

3. Why did it take 173 posts for Rob to clarify that he was really talking about exaltation?

4. Why the parenthetical comment in post #143?

5. Why the bait and switch?

6. Why does Rob brag that he knows more about Mormonism than the Mormons' own scriptures and prophets?

Bernard

[JDave]

You are right, Rob, this is getting ridiculous (and a bit overly dramatic).

I try to be as precise as I can, but an infinite level of precision and completeness is not only impossible to me but impossible to everyone and probably useless to everyone, because it would take an infinite number of books.

Seriously? Infinite precision is the bar I am setting? Infinite precision seems to be the bar YOU are setting. Let's review.

1. Rob creates a highly sensationalized paragraph about 2 Ne 25:23, using the most extreme sounding sound-bites from LDS authors and stringing them all together, and then sits back and waits for somebody to object.
2. People object (including me) and Rob states (rather disingenuously IMO) that he was only using LDS authors. Can't fault him for that...
3. It is pointed out that the construction of the paragraph is skewed, some of the quotes are taken out of context, and a large part of LDS belief on the verse has been (oh so conveniently?) excluded.

Rob, there were a couple reasonable alternatives open to you at this point. You could have said "Maybe some small parts were out of context, but it wasn't far off from the truth and look at how quick some Mormons are to pick at the words of their own leaders." That would have given you a wonderful exit -- maybe there was a little bit out of context but if your only goal was to spring such a trap then off you go.

Another option would have been to look at the objections, notice that indeed there were aspects out of context and much left out, and seek to sincerely address the issue and create a more reasonable paragraph. Indeed, maybe there was a small trap set up, but sincerity is important so you could fix it up a bit. I gave you this option. A nice way to prove you are sincere in not misrepresenting LDS beliefs.

Somehow you are choosing the more difficult route. You are choosing to leave the paragraph just as it is, not adding anything and not removing anything. You are choosing to defend such a representation of LDS beliefs. In response to complaints that the paragraph is not a reasonable explanation of the overall LDS interpretation of 2 Ne 25:23, you say (paraphrasing):

• I couldn't be 100% complete in my description anyway, so why worry about my over-emphasis on any particular aspect?
• Some LDS didn't like some of the words of the LDS leaders, so their complaints are unfounded.
• The paragraph is a reasonable description.
• Complaints about not being in full context are so ambiguous.

It got so ridiculous that I went out and provided all the General Conference references to 2 Ne. 25:23 back to 1955. There they were, 36 talks referencing the verse with all the interpretations of that verse readily available. So do you include anything more in your paragraph? Do you remove anything questionable? No you keep going back to trying to defend a sensationalized paragraph and juicy sound-bites. And, indeed, any attempt to defend including those out of context phrases would require an infinte amount of precision (and I doubt even that would be sufficient). Now, instead, we hear

• LDS authors are imprecise, so why can't I also do so?
• LDS scriptures are imprecise, so that's where the real root of the problem is.
• I am being held to an unreasonable standard.

I see no need to sympathise with your difficulties in defending your highly skewed, cherry-picked, sensationalistic, and disingenuously misleading paragraph as being "the LDS understanding" of 2 Nephi 25:23.

I am satisfied that my quotation of Simmons is contextually justifiable.

Your satisfaction notwithstanding, it just doesn't work. The preceding question STATES THE CONTEXT. It isn't all that difficult.

You jumped all around it, but the fact is that you were willing to let Simmons off the hook for taking 2 Nephi 25:23 out of context, since you claimed that Simmons's use had nothing to do with salvation, yet 2 Nephi 25:23 clearly concerns salvation.

Do I really need to go out, find some Evangelical talk about [iNSERT TOPIC], then find where they reference a verse clearly about, say, resurrection, and then proclaim "Clearly this person was making a point about resurrection because they included that verse!" ???? You are just being silly here.

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

The main point of your three-post series is that I supposedly pulled a "bait-and-switch" by changing the subject from salvation (in the general sense) to exaltation (i.e., individual salvation, entrance into the celestial kingdom). You argue that I was incorrect in saying that I had been clear enough about this distinction "all along" because I didn't mention it explicitly until late in this thread.

I can see how you came to your conclusion, but I was really thinking about a series of threads in which I have been discussing the issue of salvation, not just this thread. In the "Earning salvation" thread, in my opening post, I had begun with the following statements:

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

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

[JDave]

(Rob, please see my preceding post if you missed it)

Quiz Time

"Spiritual certainty that is necessary to salvation must be preceded by a maximum of individual effort. Grace, or the free gift of the Lord

[David T]

but I assure you I already well understood and certainly never intended to deny the difference in LDS doctrine between general salvation and exaltation/eternal life/individual salvation.

Rob: in addition to there being a difference between General Salvation (from physical death), and Exaltation (Theosis), LDS recognize that there is additional individual spiritual salvation in the presence of God that is not exaltation. Although because it is the most desirable and Ultimate end of what we believe to be God's desire for us, General LDS discourse generally rhetorically refers to Exaltation as 'Salvation' generally.

D&C 132 (and 131:1-4) recognizes that there are those who will be saved in the Celestial Kingdom - dwelling joyfully in the presence of God the Father - who are not exalted. However, for those who choose not to live by the Laws of Exaltation, "they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever." (D&C 132:17) - this, I feel (semantic arguments and terminological differences aside), is the closest equivalent to the general Traditional Christian view of Salvation. Exaltation does, indeed, go beyond that. And so do the qualifications.

The ordinances of the Temple (excluding proxy baptisms) are associated with the Laws of Exaltation. The results of which certainly do go beyond the views of Traditional Christianity's teachings on Salvation and Heaven!

When Traditional Christian views of requirements for Salvation are compared and contrasted with the LDS equivalent, it is not Exaltation and its requirements that should be compared, but entrance to and dwelling in the Celestial Kingdom. Which is also what I believe is the framework and perspective of the Book of Mormon.

Salvation = Dwelling in Presence of God = Heaven = Entrance into Celestial Kingdom

This, as I discussed above, is granted by God to all who exercise Faith in the Savior, Repent, and then evidence the living nature of their Faith by accepting and entering into the offered Covenant relationship with the Lord (associated with the sign of Baptism), and then do not willfully reject the Covenant. Those who do not reject this covenant will be empowered by the Gift of the Holy Ghost to place their will in line with the Lord's and be able to abide this gift.

Exaltation = Advancement beyond Salvation into fully becoming as God is. Full Theosis. " In the celestial glory there are three heavens or degrees; And in order to obtain the highest, a man must enter into this order of the priesthood [meaning the new and deverlasting covenant of marriage]; And if he does not, he cannot obtain it." D&C 131:1-4

In other words Celestial Kingdom does not equal Exaltation. It is, for all intents and purposes, "Traditional' Heaven.

[Bernard Gui]

One of the points at issue in that thread was whether my understanding was correct that in LDS teaching one must strive to do these things as best one can if the grace needed for eternal life is to be received. That was the context in which I started this thread. I assumed that context rather than repeating it in the opening post to this thread. I apologize to you for the confusion this seems to have created as to my intent, but I assure you I already well understood and certainly never intended to deny the difference in LDS doctrine between general salvation and exaltation/eternal life/individual salvation.

Thank you for your explanation. We can all agree LDS consistently teach works and grace are required for exaltation in the celestial kingdom.

Was this your purpose...to come to that consensus?

Bernard

[Rob Bowman]

Dave,

As long as you continue to characterize what I am attempting to do as "sensationalizing" the LDS position, I'm not going to be too impressed with your critiques. I still don't think you are dealing correctly with the reasons I gave for understanding Lee and Simmons as I did.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

You are right in saying that exaltation and entrance into the celestial kingdom are not precisely equivalent. This is another matter on which as you acknowledge LDS discourse is often less than precise, given that distinction.

It's funny, though, that some Mormons here are claiming that what evangelicals mean by salvation is general salvation, whereas you suggest that what evangelicals mean by salvation is entrance into the celestial kingdom sans exaltation. Which of you is right? My feeling is that however I describe LDS doctrine, I will be criticized for getting it wrong, though if a Mormon offers a similar description he will rarely if ever be criticized.

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

That's part of it. I was addressing the fact that at least the dominant view in LDS teaching has been that those works must be "all we can do."

Thank you for your explanation. We can all agree LDS consistently teach works and grace are required for exaltation in the celestial kingdom.

Was this your purpose...to come to that consensus?

Bernard

[JDave]

Dave,

As long as you continue to characterize what I am attempting to do as "sensationalizing" the LDS position, I'm not going to be too impressed with your critiques.

Can you please explain why you choose to use the phrase "maximum of individual effort" in lieu of "personal striving", so that I might stop characterizing you as sensationalizing my beliefs?

Can you explain how the first sentence in the paragraph from Elder Simmons doesn't provide clear context for the quote you used from him?

I have been frustrated by my dealings with you in this thread, yet my assertion of sensationalizing is sincere and hard to argue against. My critiques stand regardless of this assertion and whether you are impressed or not, they need to be dealt with.

[Vance]

I was addressing the fact that at least the dominant view in LDS teaching has been that those works must be "all we can do."

You keep saying that, and by doing so are misrepresenting the facts of the matter.

Dominant = commanding, controlling, or prevailing over all others <the dominant culture>,

And yet we have this.

Grace - 9

Reconcile - 5

Grace & Reconcile - 1

Works - 11

Grace & Works - 6

Grace & Works & Reconcile - 2

Of the 34 references examined, only 19 mentioned "works".

19 out of 34 is NOT "dominant". 56% is NOT "dominant".

More semantic games.

Edited to add,

Using the word "dominant" when it is not honestly applicable is included in "sensationalizing" the LDS position.

Edited to correct the count. Maybe.

Edited to correct the count again, maybe.

[David T]

nackhadlow,

You are right in saying that exaltation and entrance into the celestial kingdom are not precisely equivalent. This is another matter on which as you acknowledge LDS discourse is often less than precise, given that distinction.

It's funny, though, that some Mormons here are claiming that what evangelicals mean by salvation is general salvation, whereas you suggest that what evangelicals mean by salvation is entrance into the celestial kingdom sans exaltation. Which of you is right?

Once accurately informed of the details of the distinctive LDS Doctrines, I think, in the end, it's up to the Evangelical to say which is closer to their own view, and not the Mormons - seeing as most Mormons are just as uninformed about Evangelical beliefs as Evangelicals are about Mormons.

As a former evangelical, I'd say, by my own experience, my own previous understanding of the end Heaven of those who were 'Saved' is far more like the the LDS view of Celestial Kingdom sans-Exaltation (sins wiped away, living joyfully in the presence of God, unified and equal with all believers,but not in the literal family/marriage relationship) than anything else.

[JDave]

Of the 34 references examined, only 19 mentioned "works".

19 out of 34 is NOT "dominant". 56% is NOT "dominant".

More semantic games.

I should point out that works may well be mentioned in the other talks, but they were not emphasized like grace or reconciliation was.

P.S. I thought I included 36 talks, one of which was deemed 'Not Applicable'. I will have to recount.

EDIT TO ADD: I guess there were only 35, with one N/A. I apologize for some posts where I referred to the total count as 36.

[Vance]

As a former evangelical, I'd say, by my own experience, my own previous understanding of the end Heaven of those who were 'Saved' is far more like the the LDS view of Celestial Kingdom sans-Exaltation (sins wiped away, living joyfully in the presence of God, unified and equal with all believers,but not in the literal family/marriage relationship) than anything else.

I have never thought of it in that fashion. Since, in the EV view, baptism is not a requirement for entrance to heaven, and considering the EV definition of repentance (not the abandonment of sin, but simply the confession of sin), I considered their view of heaven to be equivalent to our view of the telestial kingdom.

But I can understand why you can see it differently.

[David T]

I have never thought of it in that fashion. Since, in the EV view, baptism is not a requirement for entrance to heaven, and considering the EV definition of repentance (not the abandonment of sin, but simply the confession of sin), I considered their view of heaven to be equivalent to our view of the telestial kingdom.

But I can understand why you can see it differently.

I think you may be combining 'Qualifications for Heaven' with 'View of what Heaven is". While there's a clear disagreement with qualifications (while not as big and as numerous as I think many on both sides think, when all things are considered), first we need to agree what the equivalent expected end result is that's specifically under discussion and being contrasted.

[Vance]

I think you may be combining 'Qualifications for Heaven' with 'View of what Heaven is".

Maybe.

While there's a clear disagreement with qualifications (while not as big and as numerous as I think many on both sides think, when all things are considered), first we need to agree what the equivalent expected end result is that's specifically under discussion and being contrasted.

Well then, add the trinitarian view of God and you get God's presence is there (in the form of the Holy Ghost) and voila'.

Edited to add,

After reading this description of heaven, I still say its the telestial kingdom.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2005/april/27.96.html

[David T]

[double post]

[David T]

Maybe.

Well then, add the trinitarian view of God and you get God's presence is there (in the form of the Holy Ghost) and voila'.

Edited to add,

After reading this description of heaven, I still say its the telestial kingdom.

http://www.christian...pril/27.96.html

Heaven would be in the presence of the Complete Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, including basking in the presence of the Father. Also, if you're basing it on the article, the article explictly says, "Heaven is where Jesus is". And Jesus' presence is not something said to be granted to the Telestial sphere.

[Vance]

Since there is not a belief that one can separate the members of the Godhead, heaven would be in the presence of the Complete Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and basking in the presence of the Father. Also, if you're basing it on the article, they explictly say, "Heaven is where Jesus is". And Jesus' presence is not something said to be granted to the Telestial sphere.

Since the presence of the Holy Ghost would be to them the presence of God, because to them the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one being, distinguishable only by personality, we are still in the Telestial sphere. Also considering that to them, those who don't get to heaven are thrust down to hell for all eternity, the Telestial kingdom IS their heaven by comparison.

But keep trying, you might convince me yet.

[Vance]

I should point out that works may well be mentioned in the other talks, but they were not emphasized like grace or reconciliation was.

Yes, BUT how many of them actually used phrases like "maximum of individual effort" or equivalent?

[Bernard Gui]

Bernard,

That's part of it. I was addressing the fact that at least the dominant view in LDS teaching has been that those works must be "all we can do."

Thank you for the explanation. It's much clearer to me now.

I recommend Theodore Burton's talk I posted earlier. It is the best short exposition of the "dominant view" that I know

of. If you would like to discuss any part of it, feel free.

LDS General Conference, April 1972, Theodore M. Burton

....These sons of perdition (perhaps only few in number) will be resurrected but will not be redeemed from the power of Satan because they are still filthy; as the prophet Alma said of them:

[JDave]

Yes, BUT how many of them actually used phrases like "maximum of individual effort" or equivalent?

Out of all the talks there were about 7 that I recall that had statements that we needed to "do all we can do" or "having done all that we can in and of ourselves", etc. Two of those described a situation of receiving a sanctifying, perfecting grace after "doing all we can do", and one other talk was somewhat in passing at the end of the talk. That last one was Elder Simmons talk, which does have an underlying assumption of us needing to do all we can do with respect to salvation, as well as a strong emphasis on having faith in Christ even if things don't seem to work out well. I will be changing the label on that one and the totals. That will also serve to remove the one N/A talk and reduce your confusion with the totals

There may have been a some more that somewhat fit what you are asking, but there were only four that stood out as being right in line with the OP. So that would be 4 out of 35.

[Vance]

There may have been a some more that somewhat fit what you are asking, but there were only four that stood out as being right in line with the OP. So that would be 4 out of 35.

Now 4 out of 35 REALLY sounds like "dominant".

Rob, pay no attention to these numbers, just continue with your "dominant view" shtick. It will sell well to the sycophants and sheeple.