What Gospel Principles teaches about salvation

[Rob Bowman]

Friends,

I leave the house in about an hour to head for the airport. I'll be out of the country (again!) for about 11 days. My time on this forum will be limited at best while I am in Jolly Old England.

[David T]

Have a safe trip.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Friends,

I leave the house in about an hour to head for the airport. I'll be out of the country (again!) for about 11 days. My time on this forum will be limited at best while I am in Jolly Old England.

Then we will just see you in about 11 days. In my case I wont be seeing you until the 21st of Sept as I leave on the 14th which is when you get back. Or is my math off?

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

I would be very interested in a discussion about what Gospel Principles teaches about salvation (both general salvation or immortality and individual salvation or eternal life). This would seem to be an especially appropriate time to have such a discussion, since the ongoing LDS study of Gospel Principles is about to turn to four chapters (18-21) dealing with the first principles and ordinances of the gospel. I propose that we use Gospel Principles as the basis of our discussion because of its long and wide use in instructing members of the LDS Church in LDS doctrine. My main interest here is not in debating whether the LDS doctrine is true (that could come later) but simply in getting clarity as to what that doctrine of salvation really is. Does this seem like a reasonable approach to discussing this issue?

When it comes to "General salvation" we are universalist. When if come to Exultation we believe in a combination of Grace and obedience.

[Lightbearer]

Reguarding the argument over if the words sin and transgression are identical or synomous, an apostle of the Lord (actually more than one as per the quote) does not think so:

(Dallin H. Oaks,

[Rob Osborn]

We can sugar coat the fall all we like. We can even praise Adam and Eve for their individual choices. However, the fact still remains that they fell spiritually out of favor with God to some degree because they fell into the enticings of the devil and partook. I think it is wrong to not see Adam and Eve's fall as caused from sin. Sin is what causes us to fall spiritually. We know that because Adam and Eve yielded to temptation they fell spiritually. That act or sequence when finished was in every sense of the definition of sin. We also know that they had to repent of their choice to follow Satan and follow his will. There is no getting around the simple fact that Adam and Eve's fall had everything to do with choosing to sin- to make decisions that were contrary to the commandments of God. If it wasn't a sin, they never could have fallen spiritually with the Father. In some degree, because they yielded unto temptation, they became devilish, carnal and worldly just as we ourselves also become this in some degree when we reach an accountable age. This is what we call repentance from "sin". You can only fall spiritually (spiritual death) if you sin. You can only repent if you sin.

It really is that simple.

[Lightbearer]

We can sugar coat the fall all we like. We can even praise Adam and Eve for their individual choices. However, the fact still remains that they fell spiritually out of favor with God to some degree because they fell into the enticings of the devil and partook. I think it is wrong to not see Adam and Eve's fall as caused from sin. Sin is what causes us to fall spiritually. We know that because Adam and Eve yielded to temptation they fell spiritually. That act or sequence when finished was in every sense of the definition of sin. We also know that they had to repent of their choice to follow Satan and follow his will. There is no getting around the simple fact that Adam and Eve's fall had everything to do with choosing to sin- to make decisions that were contrary to the commandments of God. If it wasn't a sin, they never could have fallen spiritually with the Father. In some degree, because they yielded unto temptation, they became devilish, carnal and worldly just as we ourselves also become this in some degree when we reach an accountable age. This is what we call repentance from "sin". You can only fall spiritually (spiritual death) if you sin. You can only repent if you sin.

It really is that simple.

What is simple is you refuse to accept orthodox LDS teachings on anything. You reject D&C 76 and other scriptures and default to the apostate christianity position of one heaven and one hell, that has been a hobby horse of yours since you have been on this board, now apparently this has become another hobby horse and you place yourself in opposition to Elder Oaks, President Joseph Feilding Smith,Brigham Young, and even Joseph Smith himself. You oppose doctrine that has been taught in the Churh upwards of 40 years that I know of personally and seem more traditional christian than Latter-day Saint. So you can believe the Church is "sugar coating" this doctrine if you like but I would suggest you pay attention in the Temple as you always seem to bring it up defending your erroroneous position on the three degrees of glory, you may want to review this next time. I find myself uncomfortable with those opposing accepted doctrine that is openly taught in General Conference but then again I have seen this before by some apologists on this board.

[Rob Osborn]

What is simple is you refuse to accept orthodox LDS teachings on anything. You reject D&C 76 and other scriptures and default to the apostate christianity position of one heaven and one hell, that has been a hobby horse of yours since you have been on this board, now apparently this has become another hobby horse and you place yourself in opposition to Elder Oaks, President Joseph Feilding Smith,Brigham Young, and even Joseph Smith himself. You oppose doctrine that has been taught in the Churh upwards of 40 years that I know of personally and seem more traditional christian than Latter-day Saint. So you can believe the Church is "sugar coating" this doctrine if you like but I would suggest you pay attention in the Temple as you always seem to bring it up defending your erroroneous position on the three degrees of glory, you may want to review this next time. I find myself uncomfortable with those opposing accepted doctrine that is openly taught in General Conference but then again I have seen this before by some apologists on this board.

I will be honest with you. I am not afraid to question anything that comes my way, its just how my mind works and there isn't a law against it.

I am not gonna give up on this issue. I feel very strongly about it. I just don't care who says it wasn't a sin, it just doesn't matter. I know for a fact that it was a sin. Every principle that comes into play regarding the "fall" speaks of it being caused by direct disobedience to God's commandments. Here is the simple fact of the matter- Adam and Eve were shut out from God's presence because of disobedience to his commandments. That is "sin". You cannot sugar-coat it and state it wasn't a sin. If it wasn't a sin, then it wasn't a breaking of any commandment. But, we know for a fact, that Adam and Eve disobeyed and broke the commandment of God. If sin does not define this act, then nothing we do in mortality can be defined as "sin". When we look at the defining act and principle of the cause for the "fall" it was the direct act of disobedience and following Satan over the Lord. Our own fall, each one of us individually speaking, has in like manner fallen spiritually because of disobedience to God's commandments. When we do that it is called "sin". It is impossible for man to die spiritually if there is no sin. Adam and Eve fell spiritually from eating the fruit, a direct violation of law and as such were driven from the garden.

[Rob Osborn]

Btw, I did find this from the Jesuschrist.lds.org site. This by Jefferey R. Holland-

"Some gifts coming from the Atonement are universal, infinite, and unconditional. These include His ransom for Adam