Earning Salvation

[Rob Bowman]

Getting this thread back on track....

The origin of this thread on earning salvation was my response to several Mormons arguing in other threads that LDS doctrine simply doesn't affirm the idea of earning one's salvation. Lightbearer had written:

[Vance]

This is your thread, and you were the one that "derailed" it with an accusation that the Church had answered some questions dishonestly. You were PROVEN wrong, yet refuse to retract the accusation.

And now you want to duck that issue and get back to the OP.

As you will, but don't throw a tantrum when you are accused of "hit and run" posting.

[David T]

Vance,

A CFR is not a demand that the other person convince you. It is not an excuse to pester someone if you don't like their answers.

That in LDS doctrine Jesus Christ has not always been God seems pretty straightforward to me. If it's so obviously false, refute it.

From Jesus The Christ, by Talmage, still part of the essential Missionary Library, in the chapter The Antemortal Godship of Christ:

We claim scriptural authority for the assertion that Jesus Christ was and is God the Creator, the God who revealed Himself to Adam, Enoch, and all the antediluvial patriarchs and prophets down to Noah; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the God of Israel as a united people, and the God of Ephraim and Judah after the disruption of the Hebrew nation; the God who made Himself known to the prophets from Moses to Malachi; the God of the Old Testament record; and the God of the Nephites. We affirm that Jesus Christ was and is Jehovah, the Eternal One.We claim scriptural authority for the assertion that Jesus Christ was and is God the Creator, the God who revealed Himself to Adam, Enoch, and all the antediluvial patriarchs and prophets down to Noah; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the God of Israel as a united people, and the God of Ephraim and Judah after the disruption of the Hebrew nation; the God who made Himself known to the prophets from Moses to Malachi; the God of the Old Testament record; and the God of the Nephites. We affirm that Jesus Christ was and is Jehovah, the Eternal One.

From the Title page of the Book of Mormon:

And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations

I am not familiar with any references stating that there was a time prior to this when Jesus did not have the status of God. I only know of referencing affirming his Eternal Godhood.

[Vance]

Is it not true that speaking of "earning one's salvation" is a perfectly legitimate expression in LDS teaching?

ONLY if you use OUR definition of "earned" and not yours.

Your real problem here isn't the word "earned" really, but rather YOUR definition of "grace" combined with your (mis)understanding of Rom 11:6.

[Vance]

From Jesus The Christ, by Talmage, still part of the essential Missionary Library, in the chapter The Antemortal Godship of Christ:

We claim scriptural authority for the assertion that Jesus Christ was and is God the Creator, the God who revealed Himself to Adam, Enoch, and all the antediluvial patriarchs and prophets down to Noah; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the God of Israel as a united people, and the God of Ephraim and Judah after the disruption of the Hebrew nation; the God who made Himself known to the prophets from Moses to Malachi; the God of the Old Testament record; and the God of the Nephites. We affirm that Jesus Christ was and is Jehovah, the Eternal One.

From the Title page of the Book of Mormon:

And also to the convincing of the Jew and Gentile that Jesus is the Christ, the Eternal God, manifesting himself unto all nations

I am not familiar with any references stating that there was a time prior to this when Jesus did not have the status of God. I only know of referencing affirming his Eternal Godhood.

So you just refuted Rob's claim.

Rob has it WRONG and he won't admit it.

I was pushing the CFR so he would do the research to back his claim. Research that he obviously hasn't done. So much for his claim of knowing and accurately representing LDS doctrine.

[David T]

Is it not true that speaking of "earning one's salvation" is a perfectly legitimate expression in LDS teaching? Have I not documented thoroughly that this is indeed a common affirmation from the highest levels of the LDS religion? If LDS prophets and apostles can use this language to express what the LDS Church teaches, what is wrong with an outsider using this language to express what the LDS Church teaches?

Rob,

Because, frankly, from my experience, the only time this phrase is used by non-Mormons when referring to Mormons is to express the idea that we believe we don't need Jesus at all, and that any heavenly reward, including Exaltation and godhood, is something we think we can achieve of our own means, or if we do need Jesus, it's just a little bump start to get us going. That's wrong in so many ways. Whether it's expressed such way to intentionally mislead or out of ignorance, I don't always know. But for someone who is not familiar with our doctrine - especially the Book of Mormon - such presentations create an incorrect view.

It uses a phrase used in a specific theological worldview and context, removes it from that context, and creates an incorrect and very incomplete picture.

There was certainly a period where that aspect of the theology was given greater rhetorical emphasis than it is now. You yourself pointed out this was a post-Brigham Young emphasis. I have a feeling that it subsided to a great degree around the time President Ezra Taft Benson re-emphasized the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is very clear (as has been shown) that there is NO way that we can feel Salvation is something that we can praise ourselves for, or give ourselves credit for. In fact, the Book of Mormon condemns such thoughts outright.

[yesucan2]

yesucan2,

You wrote:

You can't be serious. You probably missed it, but I have addressed this argument in another thread. Briefly, the necessity of responding in faith by humbly accepting the free gift of salvation is not "doing something" in the same sense as the alleged necessity to join the right church, receive the right ordinances, tithe, avoid drinking coffee or tea, participate in temple ordinances frequently, live a morally exemplary life, etc., etc., in order to earn one's salvation.

Let's say that someone lived a good sinless life, but never knew about Christ or gave Him a second thought. The only thing he did was once he stole a piece of candy. 1 little tiny sin. Should that person go to hell? I mean, heck, it was just stealing one piece of candy. It wasn't like he murdered anyone or something!

(Note: the above analogy goes with this part below)

Yes, I'm serious. It's still something that WE would have to do to be saved. ...And yes, you still are confusing being saved with salvation in the Celestial Kingdom because you are holding that understanding up to your perspective of one heaven and one hell. In your way of thinking, being saved equals going to heaven which, in that way of thinking, is all there is. It leaves no room for anything else.

[Vance]

Rob,

Because, frankly, from my experience, the only time this phrase is used by non-Mormons when referring to Mormons is to express the idea that we believe we don't need Jesus at all, and that any heavenly reward, including Exaltation and godhood, is something we think we can achieve of our own means, . . .

DITTO!!

[yesucan2]

You made the claim. Now BACK IT UP!!!!

You have FAILED to address the CFR!

That's the way, Vance.

Why is it that, when someone presents a claim that is not clearly stated or properly supported, we are always expected to have to defend against it? Makes no sense.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

The LDS Church's answers could have been equally as brief and not been misleading.

I shouldn't have allowed the thread to be derailed with this question. If you want, we can discuss the Virgin Birth in another thread.

That is probably a good idea. I think this thread was crazy yesterday.

[Vance]

Umm... it appears to me that he's willing to discuss it, but in a different thread. Why don't you start one before claiming it's just an excuse to back off?

Rob was perfectly willing to "derail" his thread with a baseless and FALSE attack on the Church. And now that it isn't convenient to address an issue HE BROACHED, he doesn't want to discuss it. Wouldn't you call that "hit and run"?

[JDave]

Rob was perfectly willing to "derail" his thread with a baseless and FALSE attack on the Church. And now that it isn't convenient to address an issue HE BROACHED, he doesn't want to discuss it. Wouldn't you call that "hit and run"?

Didn't Rob open a new thread to discuss this? How is that not wanting to discuss it? How is that a hit and run? Lay off a bit.

[Rob Bowman]

Nackhadlow,

You wrote:

Rob,

Because, frankly, from my experience, the only time this phrase is used by non-Mormons when referring to Mormons is to express the idea that we believe we don't need Jesus at all, and that any heavenly reward, including Exaltation and godhood, is something we think we can achieve of our own means, or if we do need Jesus, it's just a little bump start to get us going. That's wrong in so many ways. Whether it's expressed such way to intentionally mislead or out of ignorance, I don't always know. But for someone who is not familiar with our doctrine - especially the Book of Mormon - such presentations create an incorrect view.

Am I not a non-Mormon? Have I not explicitly and repeatedly pointed out that I understand Mormons acknowledge their need of Jesus' atonement and of God's grace? Therefore, your generalization about what non-Mormons mean when using this language is false. Good grief, I haven't even offered much in the way of editorializing. All I have done is to document numerous statements from LDS authorities stating that one's individual salvation must be earned. Before I presented the documentation, the cry was "We don't teach that!" Now the cry is, "We don't mean it like it sounds!" Sorry, this is not an answer.

You wrote:

It uses a phrase used in a specific theological worldview and context, removes it from that context, and creates an incorrect and very incomplete picture.

Likewise, if this teaching is papered over or even flatly denied being part of the LDS theological worldview, the result is an incorrect and incomplete picture. I'm not denying the contextual elements you point out. I'm simply saying that these numerous affirmations of earning salvation are also part of LDS teaching.

You wrote:

There was certainly a period where that aspect of the theology was given greater rhetorical emphasis than it is now. You yourself pointed out this was a post-Brigham Young emphasis. I have a feeling that it subsided to a great degree around the time President Ezra Taft Benson re-emphasized the Book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon is very clear (as has been shown) that there is NO way that we can feel Salvation is something that we can praise ourselves for, or give ourselves credit for. In fact, the Book of Mormon condemns such thoughts outright.

Kimball himself taught the concept of earning salvation, and it has been taught several times explicitly in General Conference since Kimball (at least as recently as Robert Hales in 2007).

[Rob Bowman]

JDave,

I appreciate your even-handedness in this matter. I'm less and less inclined to respond to anything Vance says, simply because this sort of behavior has been his consistent pattern (with occasional glimpses of civility) since I arrived.

Didn't Rob open a new thread to discuss this? How is that not wanting to discuss it? How is that a hit and run? Lay off a bit.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Kimball himself taught the concept of earning salvation, and it has been taught several times explicitly in General Conference since Kimball (at least as recently as Robert Hales in 2007).

From your understanding, what is meant in LDS theology when some one talks of earning our salvation? Or to be come worthy of salvation.

[David T]

Nackhadlow,

You wrote:

Am I not a non-Mormon? Have I not explicitly and repeatedly pointed out that I understand Mormons acknowledge their need of Jesus' atonement and of God's grace? Therefore, your generalization about what non-Mormons mean when using this language is false.

My understanding of what you have expressed here led me to believe your line of thought concerning our belief was more along the line of "if we do need Jesus, it's just a little bump start to get us going." - is that inaccurate?

Good grief, I haven't even offered much in the way of editorializing. All I have done is to document numerous statements from LDS authorities stating that one's individual salvation must be earned. Before I presented the documentation, the cry was "We don't teach that!" Now the cry is, "We don't mean it like it sounds!" Sorry, this is not an answer.

Actually, Rob, I was in a discussion with you on this long before you posted the long list of quotations. My position has not changed since then. You stopped the conversation there, and began a fresh new one here, without any reference to the former dialogue.

Kimball himself taught the concept of earning salvation, and it has been taught several times explicitly in General Conference since Kimball

I believe I said Benson, not Kimball.

[Vance]

Am I not a non-Mormon? Have I not explicitly and repeatedly pointed out that I understand Mormons acknowledge their need of Jesus' atonement and of God's grace? Therefore, your generalization about what non-Mormons mean when using this language is false. Good grief, I haven't even offered much in the way of editorializing.

The existence of an exception doesn't invalidate a general rule.

[JDave]

It uses a phrase used in a specific theological worldview and context, removes it from that context, and creates an incorrect and very incomplete picture.

Likewise, if this teaching is papered over or even flatly denied being part of the LDS theological worldview, the result is an incorrect and incomplete picture. I'm not denying the contextual elements you point out. I'm simply saying that these numerous affirmations of earning salvation are also part of LDS teaching.

You're not denying the contextual elements, but you are segregating the elements. You can't say that these affirmations of earning salvation are also a part of LDS teaching, as if they are a separate portion of the overall picture. It is like I said in the thread about 2 Ne. 25:23, reading a statement or argument where some important elements are specifically excluded is quite different from reading a statement where the elements are an assumed part of the overall soteriology. Coming from someone outside of your own religion, it is extremely hard to know if they are assuming the needed context.

If some non-Evangelical says "Evangelicals preach that all you need to do to be saved is pray to Jesus for salvation." you may question whether they are misrepresenting the Evangelical position by specifically excluding the necessary reference to a sincere trust in Jesus. However if the statement came from an Evangelical you know they are assuming that needed trust as part of the underlying soteriology. Would it be accurate to state the following?

Evangelicals teach that you must have a sincere trust in Jesus in order to be justified, but as a separate portion to the overall picture of Evangelical belief it is necessary to point out that they also teach that all you have to do to be saved is say a prayer.

[urroner]

Deleted

[Rob Bowman]

I understand these LDS authorities to mean that while resurrection to immortality is a free gift for which we can do nothing, salvation is a matter of degrees, with the level of salvation dependent on and determined by our works. We get salvation for free, but the salvation we get is the salvation we earn. Or to put it another way, as some have put it here: We are saved by grace, but judged (to determine which kingdom we receive) on the basis of our works.

From your understanding, what is meant in LDS theology when some one talks of earning our salvation? Or to be come worthy of salvation.

[Rob Bowman]

nackhadlow,

You wrote:

My understanding of what you have expressed here led me to believe your line of thought concerning our belief was more along the line of "if we do need Jesus, it's just a little bump start to get us going." - is that inaccurate?

Yes, I think that's inaccurate. It's not how I would describe the LDS view.

You wrote:

I believe I said Benson, not Kimball.

You did indeed. My mistake.

[yesucan2]

I understand these LDS authorities to mean that while resurrection to immortality is a free gift for which we can do nothing, salvation is a matter of degrees, with the level of salvation dependent on and determined by our works. We get salvation for free, but the salvation we get is the salvation we earn. Or to put it another way, as some have put it here: We are saved by grace, but judged (to determine which kingdom we receive) on the basis of our works.

I don't think you're view of the process is very accurate at all. You make it sound like there is going to be a spreadsheet that is gone over and the points tallied up.

Someone once told me that, when you point the finger at someone else, there's 3 fingers pointing back at you. It looks to me like, once again, that you have colored LDS teachings with your own theology.

If you have the concept something like that you'll get to the gate of heaven and someone's going to be standing there with a check sheet saying something like, "faith, check, confesses belief in Jesus, check, said the sinner's prayer, check, o.k. go ahead and boogie on in", well...you're going to be very surprised.

[mercyngrace]

I haven't read the entire thread so I don't know if this verse has come up before. Sorry if it's redundant:

Alma 22:14

And since man had fallen he could not merit anything of himself; but the sufferings and death of Christ atone for their sins, through faith and repentance, and so forth; and that he breaketh the bands of death, that the grave shall have no victory, and that the sting of death should be swallowed up in the hopes of glory;

According to the Book of Mormon, man cannot merit anything of himself and Christ's sufferings and death atone for sins AND break the bands of death.

Salvation refers to being saved from death and hell. The gospel of salvation is faith, repentance, baptism by water and the baptism of fire.

[Bernard Gui]

I haven't read the entire thread so I don't know if this verse has come up before. Sorry if it's redundant:

Alma 22:14

According to the Book of Mormon, man cannot merit anything of himself and Christ's sufferings and death atone for sins AND break the bands of death.

Salvation refers to being saved from death and hell. The gospel of salvation is faith, repentance, baptism by water and the baptism of fire.

This is not redundant, it's the answer to the question.

Salvation is a free gift, unmerited, unearned, given to all men without prejudice, attained through the Atonement of Jesus Christ, and rescues

man from death, hell, and the devil.

Exaltation is also a gift given to all who qualify without prejudice, attained because of the Atonement of Jesus Christ and activated by faithful

obedience to the covenants, laws, and ordinances of the gospel.

Simple as that.

[Pahoran]

I haven't read the entire thread so I don't know if this verse has come up before. Sorry if it's redundant:

Alma 22:14

According to the Book of Mormon, man cannot merit anything of himself and Christ's sufferings and death atone for sins AND break the bands of death.

Salvation refers to being saved from death and hell. The gospel of salvation is faith, repentance, baptism by water and the baptism of fire.

Alas, this does not conform to the straw man image of "Mormon doctrine" that Mr. Bowman is paid to beat up.

Regards,

Pahoran