What Gospel Principles teaches about salvation

[zerinus]

14. Repentance involves recognizing or admitting our sins, being sorry for them, and confessing them to the Lord (110-11).

You got everything right (nearly), except that one. Repentance doesn't just mean recognizing or admitting your sins and being sorry for it. It means turning away from and abandoning it altogether. Here is a reference:

D&C 58

:

42 Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.

43 By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins

[JDave]

You got everything right (nearly), except that one. Repentance doesn't just mean recognizing or admitting your sins and being sorry for it. It means turning away from and abandoning it altogether. Here is a reference

Could you provide a reference from the Gospel Principles manual?

[zerinus]

Could you provide a reference from the Gospel Principles manual?

Easy. From Lesson 19:

Principles of Repentance

* * *

President Spencer W. Kimball declared:

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

You are correct that according to GP repentance means more than what I said. That is why I was careful to word it as I did, that repentance "involves" and not repentance "is." What I said, as far as it went, was correct. All I was seeking to do was state where LDS and evangelical soteriology agree; this obviously leaves some matters on which we disagree, to which I will be turning. Thus, I did not "turn a blind eye" to the points you bring up, because those are points that will need to be discussed under the heading of where our soteriologies differ.

You got everything right (nearly), except that one. Repentance doesn't just mean recognizing or admitting your sins and being sorry for it. It means turning away from and abandoning it altogether. Here is a reference:

D&C 58

:

42 Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.

43 By this ye may know if a man repenteth of his sins

[Freedom]

As a matter of fact, the Book of Mormon teaches a strict dichotomy of either heaven on one hand or hell on the other hand. The book also explains the strict guidelines into either heaven or into hell. Christ himself explained in his own words this simple gospel in 3rd Nephi. When we understand this position we thus understand the gospel. It is laid out in our articles of faith also-

3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

(Pearl of Great Price | Articles of Faith 1:3)

This is the gospel in all of it's simpleness and truth. No gray area. I think that is what is the most important part of our gospel that we miss. Somehow we think that man can be saved into heaven by some other means. When we expound upon the three degrees of glory we get caught up in section 76 and think that perhaps salvation comes to those who pay some kind of penalty but never really accept the gospel. Now on one hand "Gospel Principles" lays out this simple plan as explained in our article of faith and yet on the other hand the book somehow disregards it when it gets to the chapter 46 and explains that some will still be saved but not by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. This is a direct contradiction. Also of note is the fact that the temple endowment regarding the three kingdoms is completely nonexistant but totally relevent to the plan of salvation.

Like i have said before, "Gospel Principles" offers two separate plans of salvation of the which contradict each other.

So I demonstrated that your interpretation is hogwash and you continue to put forward the same unsupported position only now you have no scriptures to support yourself. You have perhaps given up on your ignorance about the meaning of the word 'saved' so you just move on to add meaning to another word. There is heaven and there is hell. There is the United States and there is Iraq. To you, all of heaven is the same and all of hell is the same. The scriptures never imply this but you have to add meanings to these words to justify your unsupportable paradigm. Can you establish for us that heaven is a single and uniform place? Is the United States a single and uniform place? Is living in the slums in Detroit the same as living in a mansion in Beverly Hills? Does Reno get the same amount of rain as Seattle? The book of Mormon clearly demonstrates that we are judged according to our works. If this is the case, what is the point if there is only one heaven? Can you even clearly establish the criteria of entering into heaven? Hell is the termination of progression. You cannot prove that there are not varying degrees of damnation because the Book of Mormon clearly teaches otherwise. The D&C expands upon the introductory nature of the gospel principles found in the Book of Mormon, it does not contradict it.

Dear Immigrant, you can either live in Canada or The United States. Does this mean that all their choices are done? That it does not matter where they go in one these Countries their live would be the same? If after they choose Canada should they be shocked to discover that there are still many options available? Of course not. Sorry but your argument is failing because you do not have a basic grasp of the English language, or of any language for that matter.

[zerinus]

zerinus,

You are correct that according to GP repentance means more than what I said. That is why I was careful to word it as I did, that repentance "involves" and not repentance "is." What I said, as far as it went, was correct. All I was seeking to do was state where LDS and evangelical soteriology agree; this obviously leaves some matters on which we disagree, to which I will be turning. Thus, I did not "turn a blind eye" to the points you bring up, because those are points that will need to be discussed under the heading of where our soteriologies differ.

In Mormonism, repentance that does not mean forsaking your sins is not repentance at all, and shouldn't be called that.

[Rob Osborn]

So I demonstrated that your interpretation is hogwash and you continue to put forward the same unsupported position only now you have no scriptures to support yourself. You have perhaps given up on your ignorance about the meaning of the word 'saved' so you just move on to add meaning to another word.

My definition of the word "saved" is the correct definition. When Christ speaks of being saved he means to be saved from the consequences of our sins which deliver us into hell. The scriptures speak of both being saved in the future sense and in the present tense. When speaking of the plan of salvation, the word "saved" literally means to be saved from hell.

There is heaven and there is hell. There is the United States and there is Iraq. To you, all of heaven is the same and all of hell is the same. The scriptures never imply this but you have to add meanings to these words to justify your unsupportable paradigm. Can you establish for us that heaven is a single and uniform place? Is the United States a single and uniform place? Is living in the slums in Detroit the same as living in a mansion in Beverly Hills? Does Reno get the same amount of rain as Seattle? The book of Mormon clearly demonstrates that we are judged according to our works. If this is the case, what is the point if there is only one heaven?

There is only "one heaven" in the sense of our salvation. When we are saved, we are saved into the kingdom of heaven. The scriptures do not imply or state that a saved person goes anywhere but into the kingdom of heaven. Now I never said there wasn't differeing degrees of glory in that kingdom of heaven. You are jumping to conclusions and assumptions. As a matter of scriptural fact, you should read the Revelation of St. John the Divine (Revelations). He specificallt mentions only "one physical place" for all the saved to go. In the end chapters of Revelations John speaks of entering into the "holy city" which is equated to the "kingdom of heaven". Of special note here is that all of the saved- those who have their names written in the Lambs book of life can enter into the city (the saved) while all those who can't enter are in the lake of fire and brimstone (hell). So, perhaps you should take up your case with St. John the Divine, he only mentions one heaven and one hell.

Can you even clearly establish the criteria of entering into heaven?

How about we let Christ establish it-

25 And the Lord said unto me: Marvel not that all mankind, yea, men and women, all nations, kindreds, tongues and people, must be born again; yea, born of God, changed from their carnal and fallen state, to a state of righteousness, being redeemed of God, becoming his sons and daughters;

26 And thus they become new creatures; and unless they do this, they can in nowise inherit the kingdom of God.

27 I say unto you, unless this be the case, they must be cast off; and this I know, because I was like to be cast off.

(Book of Mormon | Mosiah 27:25 - 27)

17 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.

18 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.

19 And now, my beloved brethren, after ye have gotten into this strait and narrow apath, 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.

20 Wherefore, ye must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect rightness 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.

21 And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; 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.

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 31:17 - 21)

Hell is the termination of progression. You cannot prove that there are not varying degrees of damnation because the Book of Mormon clearly teaches otherwise.

Again you assume too much on my behalf. I never said there weren't varrying degrees of damnation. Damnation in hell is a type of "sentence". Just like a prison system, some have a greater degree of time they must spend their to pay the penalty of their crime. So it is with hell. Some will spend a longer time there than others. Here-

14 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.

(New Testament | Matthew 23:14)

Here Christ is explaining that these will recieve a greater punishment in hell, meaning, they will spend a greater amount of time in hell. Analogous to this is a judge who sends three people to prison for murder, two for being accomplices and one for the actual murder. On the two he sentences them to a lesser degree (less time) and to the actual murderer he sentences him in the greater degree (longer time). The prisoners all go to the same place though which is "prison" and can equate in the analogy to "hell".

The D&C expands upon the introductory nature of the gospel principles found in the Book of Mormon, it does not contradict it.

Yes I believe that. However, "our interpretation" has skewed the balance. What is least understood about the plan of salvation is what the endowment in the temple teaches regarding the plan. It expands upon the three kingdoms teaching us the true meaning of the plan. Instead of being permanently assigned a kingdom as we assume from our interpretations of section 76, we instead progress through each kingdom being a part of each until we are brought back into God's presence in the Celestial. This earth right now is "the telestial kingdom" (temple wording specific). Why is this never brought up in relevence? perhaps it's because we do not listen for it in the temple. Perhaps it's because we assume that our world only "represents" the telestial instead of it actually being the telestial.

[zerinus]

As a matter of fact, the Book of Mormon teaches a strict dichotomy of either heaven on one hand or hell on the other hand. The book also explains the strict guidelines into either heaven or into hell. Christ himself explained in his own words this simple gospel in 3rd Nephi. When we understand this position we thus understand the gospel. It is laid out in our articles of faith also-

3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the Gospel.

(Pearl of Great Price | Articles of Faith 1:3)

This is the gospel in all of it's simpleness and truth. No gray area. I think that is what is the most important part of our gospel that we miss. Somehow we think that man can be saved into heaven by some other means. When we expound upon the three degrees of glory we get caught up in section 76 and think that perhaps salvation comes to those who pay some kind of penalty but never really accept the gospel. Now on one hand "Gospel Principles" lays out this simple plan as explained in our article of faith and yet on the other hand the book somehow disregards it when it gets to the chapter 46 and explains that some will still be saved but not by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. This is a direct contradiction. Also of note is the fact that the temple endowment regarding the three kingdoms is completely nonexistant but totally relevent to the plan of salvation.

Like i have said before, "Gospel Principles" offers two separate plans of salvation of the which contradict each other.

I know it is hard to give up a false doctrine that you have over a period of time persuaded yourself to believe; but if you try a bit harder you might succeed.

[Vance]

In Mormonism, repentance that does not mean forsaking your sins is not repentance at all,. . .

It appears that Rob is well aware of this fact.

But forsaking isn't the only aspect of repentance either.

As Rob says, he is putting forth aspects of repentance with which he feels both EVs and Mormons can agree. The aspects he listed we do believe in, so if EV's also believe them, then they are indeed areas of agreement.

He has acknowledged that we believe in more than those aspects he listed. So far, I don't see a problem.

I am often the first to "pounce" on Rob when I see a problem. (And he may even agree with that statement.) But, in this case, I think he has it right.

. . . and shouldn't be called that.

Perhaps a Mormon shouldn't call it that, but I don't think it is fair to demand that Rob be restricted to our definition. Especially when he is willing to recognise that we have a different definition and he isn't demanding that we use his.

[Freedom]

My definition of the word "saved" is the correct definition. When Christ speaks of being saved he means to be saved from the consequences of our sins which deliver us into hell. The scriptures speak of both being saved in the future sense and in the present tense. When speaking of the plan of salvation, the word "saved" literally means to be saved from hell.

Why is this never brought up in relevence? perhaps it's because we do not listen for it in the temple. Perhaps it's because we assume that our world only "represents" the telestial instead of it actually being the telestial.

Or perhaps it is because you have yet to provide a single verse of scripture that proves your point and that all the prophets and official doctrines of the church disagree with you. You are so possessed with this 'doctrine' that only you believe that you refuse to listen to reason. Just for fun, can you show in the scriptures where 'saved' is only to mean saved from hell? Please? Just one? No, didn't think so. Can it be used in a sentence that intends to express that concept? Certainly; but the word without such a context does not mean what you need it to mean. The Church is led by a prophet; you are led by your creative imagination. You hold no priesthood keys, you have no academic credentials; it is just you and your unsupported opinion. You are certainly welcome to them; they provide endless entertainment for the rest of us.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Okay, who hijacked your account?

Seriously, I appreciate your comments. Thank you.

It appears that Rob is well aware of this fact.... As Rob says, he is putting forth aspects of repentance with which he feels both EVs and Mormons can agree. The aspects he listed we do believe in, so if EV's also believe them, then they are indeed areas of agreement.

He has acknowledged that we believe in more than those aspects he listed. So far, I don't see a problem.

I am often the first to "pounce" on Rob when I see a problem. (And he may even agree with that statement.) But, in this case, I think he has it right.

[zerinus]

It appears that Rob is well aware of this fact.

But forsaking isn't the only aspect of repentance either.

As Rob says, he is putting forth aspects of repentance with which he feels both EVs and Mormons can agree. The aspects he listed we do believe in, so if EV's also believe them, then they are indeed areas of agreement.

He has acknowledged that we believe in more than those aspects he listed. So far, I don't see a problem.

I am often the first to "pounce" on Rob when I see a problem. (And he may even agree with that statement.) But, in this case, I think he has it right.

Perhaps a Mormon shouldn't call it that, but I don't think it is fair to demand that Rob be restricted to our definition. Especially when he is willing to recognise that we have a different definition and he isn't demanding that we use his.

Perhaps I didn

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

This will probably be the last time I explain this to you.

You are right: point #14 is not "the Mormon doctrine of repentance." But it does not purport to be. That is, it does not claim to define fully what repentance is according to LDS doctrine. It does not say that recognizing, being sorry for, and confessing one's sins is all there is to repentance. If it did, you could not agree with that statement. What point #14 says is that those things are "involved" in repentance; that is, that those things are all part of what repentance means. This allows for the fact that Mormons think more is involved than what is stated there.

The only way you could truly disagree with #14 as stated (and as I intended) is if you thought that one or more of those things are not part of repentance. But your criticism was that more is involved than those things, not that those things are not part of repentance. Therefore, you really agree with #14 as stated, even though you would like it to say more.

Here's an analogy. Suppose you said that cake has flour and sugar in it. That would be a true statement. It would not be a fair criticism for me to say that your statement is wrong because cake has other ingredients as well, such as eggs. That is also true, but it is still true that cake has flour and sugar in it. Likewise, what I said was involved in repentance was true according to LDS doctrine, even though there are other things involved as well.

Perhaps I didn

[zerinus]

zerinus,

This will probably be the last time I explain this to you.

You are right: point #14 is not "the Mormon doctrine of repentance." But it does not purport to be. That is, it does not claim to define fully what repentance is according to LDS doctrine. It does not say that recognizing, being sorry for, and confessing one's sins is all there is to repentance. If it did, you could not agree with that statement. What point #14 says is that those things are "involved" in repentance; that is, that those things are all part of what repentance means. This allows for the fact that Mormons think more is involved than what is stated there.

The only way you could truly disagree with #14 as stated (and as I intended) is if you thought that one or more of those things are not part of repentance. But your criticism was that more is involved than those things, not that those things are not part of repentance. Therefore, you really agree with #14 as stated, even though you would like it to say more.

Here's an analogy. Suppose you said that cake has flour and sugar in it. That would be a true statement. It would not be a fair criticism for me to say that your statement is wrong because cake has other ingredients as well, such as eggs. That is also true, but it is still true that cake has flour and sugar in it. Likewise, what I said was involved in repentance was true according to LDS doctrine, even though there are other things involved as well.

Okay, thank you. After reading more carefully point #14 I accept your explanations.

[Rob Bowman]

zerinus,

Terrific. I appreciate your openness to my explanation.

Okay, thank you. After reading more carefully point #14 I accept your explanations.

[Rob Bowman]

In this post, I will offer an overview of what chapters 2-5 of Gospel Principles teaches about

[zerinus]

The emphasis throughout this material is on what we were sent here from our heavenly home to do. We are here

[JDave]

There was some subtle critiqueing built into your language and construction, but your main point is correct. The manual does focus quite a bit on what we, as individuals and as a church, need to do in this life. I am pretty confident that this will remain the same throughout the manual. You seem to imply that this amount of focus results in a de-emphasis on the role and importance of Christ, and I am sure you will be more explicit in that theme later on. This is one area that you will need to be careful to not read into the text more than is really there.

Because of our sins,

[Rob Bowman]

Dave,

You wrote:

There was some subtle critiqueing built into your language and construction, but your main point is correct. The manual does focus quite a bit on what we, as individuals and as a church, need to do in this life. I am pretty confident that this will remain the same throughout the manual. You seem to imply that this amount of focus results in a de-emphasis on the role and importance of Christ, and I am sure you will be more explicit in that theme later on. This is one area that you will need to be careful to not read into the text more than is really there.

So, just to make sure I understand you: Are you suggesting that the emphasis in GP is not representative or typical of LDS doctrine as a whole? For the record, I am absolutely not suggesting that GP de-emphasizes Christ, nor will this be something I argue later.

You wrote:

You did add emphasis, and made the sentence read differently.

No, I just drew attention to certain elements of the sentence, after quoting it in its entirety with no alteration. And I believe you have just argued that a greater emphasis of one aspect need not imply a "de-emphasis" (in the sense of a lessening of importance) of other aspects.

You wrote:

The rest of the sentence talks of overcoming death through resurrection.... Surely we can't do all that much to overcome death through resurrection.

Good point.

I have to break away for the time being, so I will finish responding to your post later. Thanks for the feedback.

[Rob Bowman]

Dave,

Picking up where I left off, you quoted me as follows:

Placing faith in that Savior is explained to mean

[Vance]

Rob,

I don't have a problem with what you have written so far.

However, having interacted with several EV's in the past, including you, it seems rather obvious that you are bothered by such phrases as;

. . .

[Rob Osborn]

Stating the matter this way would be misleading, particularly the use of the expression "in heaven," since LDS doctrine rejects the classic Christian heaven/hell distinction. The statement to which you refer in GP page 99 even is careful to use the expression "the heavens" (plural). However, I think something along these lines could be added to my list of common affirmations.

This is a big point of debate for me. I honestly believe that our LDS doctrine actually supports and even purveys the classic heaven/hell in mainstream Christianity. Reading the Book of Mormon is actually a classic protestant read describing the classic heaven/hell. The BoM and the NT both offer the same heaven/hell classic dichotomy. So I am quite sure that LDS doctrine does resound classic Christian definitions.

[Rob Bowman]

Rob,

I personally agree with you about the Book of Mormon's doctrine, but the LDS Church's doctrine clearly rejects the class heaven/hell distinction and provides an interpretive grid through which faithful members try to understand the Book of Mormon's theology. Right now, I am focusing on analyzing what Gospel Principles teaches, since it is representative of current LDS doctrine. I'd like to keep this thread focused on what GP says.

This is a big point of debate for me. I honestly believe that our LDS doctrine actually supports and even purveys the classic heaven/hell in mainstream Christianity. Reading the Book of Mormon is actually a classic protestant read describing the classic heaven/hell. The BoM and the NT both offer the same heaven/hell classic dichotomy. So I am quite sure that LDS doctrine does resound classic Christian definitions.

[Rob Bowman]

Chapter 6 of Gospel Principles explains that the fall of Adam and Eve was a necessary part of the plan of salvation. Adam and Eve were

[JDave]

So, just to make sure I understand you: Are you suggesting that the emphasis in GP is not representative or typical of LDS doctrine as a whole?

No. While GP is exhaustive in neither breadth nor depth, it is certainly a good source for doctrine that is "representative" as well as "typical".

For the record, I am absolutely not suggesting that GP de-emphasizes Christ, nor will this be something I argue later.

Awesome.

No, I just drew attention to certain elements of the sentence, after quoting it in its entirety with no alteration. And I believe you have just argued that a greater emphasis of one aspect need not imply a "de-emphasis" (in the sense of a lessening of importance) of other aspects.

Good to hear. With that particular sentence it just seemed to make it read differently, especially when the last part of the sentence was included. We teach that Christ made it possible to overcome both physical and spiritual death, as that sentence says, yet the attention is almost always on the idea that there are insurmountable obstacles and the need for a Savior to conquer those obstacles. Drawing attention to the we in that sentence would merely point out that the obstacles are ones that we all face and the Savior was sent for all of us.