Collective vs Individual Salvation

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Rules:

* Do not turn this thread political. I will ask to have you banned from the thread if you do.

* Do not make this an attack or defense of the commentator whose comments are being considered here.

* You can make reference to a certain person believing a certain way (such as Obama or Beck), but you must be able to do so in context of the topic and with data, not accusation.

Recently, a certain LDS political commentator has come under fire from religious (and non-religious) groups that lean left of center politically for some comments on collective salvation and the current president, stating that collective salvation as understood by the current president and many others is a perversion of the gospel. I believe this is absolutely true. Further, this commentator (Glenn Beck), has said the same thing about black liberation theology. I believe this is also true.

Now then, there are a few points that cause contention on this topic. First, what is collective salvation? Depending on who you ask, you will get two very different answers.

Collective Salvation 1: We will be saved with all our dead. If we focus on saving just ourselves via holy thoughts and purity, and don't care about others, we will not find place in the Celestial Kingdom. We cannot be saved as individuals if we do not also work for the salvation of all mankind, but individual salvation is not dependent on collective salvation itself. (this is my view)

Collective Salvation 2: We cannot be saved as individuals unless we as a nation and/or people are saved together. Salvation as a collective may involve equalization of wealth in a socialist or communal system. Our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. We must recognize that our fate remains tied up with everyone else's fates, that our individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country.

The argument being made by Beck is that CS2 is a perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Others then say that Mormons believe in Collective Salvation, but I posit as doctrine we do not believe it in the same way as CS2, only as CS1. Further confounding the issue is that some who espouse CS2 type theology also espouse a form of Black Liberation theology, which in it's most extreme forms is an abomination in my eyes.

Now, Beck has repeatedly claimed that CS2 "is a perversion of the gospel. And I understand that we are dealing with

[CV75]

Collective Salvation 1: We will be saved with all our dead. If we focus on saving just ourselves via holy thoughts and purity, and don't care about others, we will not find place in the Celestial Kingdom. We cannot be saved as individuals if we do not also work for the salvation of all mankind, but individual salvation is not dependent on collective salvation itself. (this is my view)

Collective Salvation 2: We cannot be saved as individuals unless we as a nation and/or people are saved together. Salvation as a collective may involve equalization of wealth in a socialist or communal system. Our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. We must recognize that our fate remains tied up with everyone else's fates, that our individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country.

The question is this: Is Collective Salvation, type 2, compatible with LDS theology and why or why not?

CS1 is an eternal, spiritual concept. CS2 is a political/economic/temporal concept. CS2 is compatible with CS1 (LDS theology) only when structured under the auspices of priesthood keys (for example, Millennial Zion).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Let me say that I applaud your efforts here. I was going to try to do a thread on this very topic but was not sure how to do it. I was mainly wanting to talk about liberation theology and Black Libertation Theology, as I find them lacking.

I think that the main point on why it is a perversion is that everything we do in this life starts with the individual. All of our efforts come by individual means first.

I think the strongest case against CS2 is that it just simply is not rooted in scripture. There is nothing in the bible that talks about "the only way for each of us to be saved is if we are all saved".

I will be watching this thread closely as I think this thread has some seriously good things in it to discuss. I hope as with you that we can just avoid the politics of it all.

One other thing that generally ends up getting lumped in with all of this is the concept of social justice. I will only ask you if it be permitable to discuss social justice with in the scope of this thread as well. If you think that not a wise idea then I will follow with you on that.

[Ahab]

The question is this: Is Collective Salvation, type 2, compatible with LDS theology and why or why not?

No, because if so nobody would be saved if anybody was not saved, and we know there will be some who will not be saved, in any sense whatsoever other than being reunited with their physical body, and instead of being saved sent into Outer Darkness.

Collective Salvation 2: We cannot be saved as individuals unless we as a nation and/or people are saved together. Salvation as a collective may involve equalization of wealth in a socialist or communal system. Our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. We must recognize that our fate remains tied up with everyone else's fates, that our individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country

[Matthew J. Tandy]

One other thing that generally ends up getting lumped in with all of this is the concept of social justice. I will only ask you if it be permitable to discuss social justice with in the scope of this thread as well. If you think that not a wise idea then I will follow with you on that.

Good question. I think I intend on creating successive threads dealing with different related topics: Collective Salvation, Black-Liberation Theology (which I mentioned here but is not the topic), social justice, etc. Social justice I think is similar to collective salvation in the sense that different people think different things when they hear it. Because of this, it really needs its own thread. You're welcome to start one, but I will be doing so otherwise once this thread has run its course. I would rather it not be addressed here.

I think the strongest case against CS2 is that it just simply is not rooted in scripture

Well, that's part of this discussion. I know several outstanding members who argue that collective salvation as represented in CS2 is supported by scripture and modern revelation/prophets. I just haven't seen this, but I would be genuinely interested in seeing it and open to having a paradigm shift depending on what is presented. I just don't know of any support. I also know that several members argue that Beck is off base for calling CS2 un-Christian, but they are basing it off of sound-bites and don't realize he is not talking about a CS! philosophy, but a CS2. So again, there's a lot of different angles, all of which are worthy of exploring (again, don't make this about Beck. He merely made the controversial comment that led me to explore the topic which we are now considering).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So again, there's a lot of different angles, all of which are worthy of exploring (again, don't make this about Beck. He merely made the controversial comment that led me to explore the topic which we are now considering).

I agree and think that social justice has a few angles one of which is not correct. I will await to talk more about it in this thread.

I don't think you were talking specifically to me but I did not even Beck in my comments directly. I think that we can discuss this issue with out really bringing him into this much.

I too would like to see the rationale for CS2. I have simply not seen anything yet from scripture or prophets that suggest we believe in CS2.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Check the context in which Obama discussed "collective salvation." Glenn Beck distorted the point. (Shocking, I know.)

[BCSpace]

The question is this: Is Collective Salvation, type 2, compatible with LDS theology and why or why not?

Depends on the sense.

CS2 is not compatible with LDS doctrine in the sense of "we all have to be physically present together as a nation at the Judgement and all in the same or similar state of righteousness" because it denies agency and personal responsibility. Therefore, I would agree that, like other philosophies that deny agency and personal responsibility, CS2 is a perversion of the gospel.

In the sense that if we fall as a nation, many individuals are negatively influenced away from salvation, then CS2 is just fine.

I too would like to see the rationale for CS2. I have simply not seen anything yet from scripture or prophets that suggest we believe in CS2.

One thing that seems very much like the perverted sense of CS2 to me is the notion that the wayward children of sealed, covenent keeping, and prayerful parents will be saved in the CK. I believe there is actual LDS doctrine for this in an official publication, an Ensign and likely a CR.

I'd have to find the reference again, but if the context is simply that the wayward child is saved in the CK "matter-of-fact", then I disagree with it as a perversion of the gospel for the same reasons as above. If it's in the sense that the righteous parents likely will have an overall positive influence on the child such that they might return, I agree with it. If the influence of righteous parents is an absolute guarentee that the wayward child will be saved, I disagree with it, same reasons as above.

[BCSpace]

Check the context in which Obama discussed "collective salvation." Glenn Beck distorted the point. (Shocking, I know.)

Do we have some texts to compare?

[Matthew J. Tandy]

I don't think you were talking specifically to me but I did not even Beck in my comments directly. I think that we can discuss this issue with out really bringing him into this much.

Yup, it was a disclaimer in general. Since I brought him up again, I wanted to be clear that was not saying we pursue the Beck aspect itself.

I too would like to see the rationale for CS2. I have simply not seen anything yet from scripture or prophets that suggest we believe in CS2.

I am hoping that some of our more liberal and/or socialist friends will join in and help us see the issue as they do. I am genuinely trying to understand more of where they are coming from. Having personally read from the works of several founders and leaders of CS2 type movements, I didn't feel it was compatible (for most of them, some people espouse an in-between version which is more compatible). Others may feel different and I am in an "expanding my understanding while clarifying beliefs" mode at the moment.

[Ahab]

Check the context in which Obama discussed "collective salvation." Glenn Beck distorted the point. (Shocking, I know.)

Are you suggesting that Matthew's idea of CS2 needs to be updated to correctly reflect what Obama really meant?

Matthew,

Is what you defined as CS2 what Beck actually said, or is that your understanding and paraphrase of what Beck said?

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Check the context in which Obama discussed "collective salvation." Glenn Beck distorted the point. (Shocking, I know.)

That may be. Regardless of if Obama believes it, others have espoused it. That's why I am trying to separate the concept from the people labeled with it. That said, my description of CS2 is mainly directly from Obama quotes. I am more than happy to have a fuller context. I could care less if Obama is a Christian or not. I am trying to understand the belief system in relation to LDS doctrine.

[Ahab]

... my description of CS2 is mainly directly from Obama quotes. I am more than happy to have a fuller context. I could care less if Obama is a Christian or not. I am trying to understand the belief system in relation to LDS doctrine.

Now I'm starting to think that maybe Obama was talking about temporal salvation, or economic salvation, or being saved from a recession, rather than being saved in the kingdom of heaven.

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Matthew,

Is what you defined as CS2 what Beck actually said, or is that your understanding and paraphrase of what Beck said?

As stated before, it's mostly Obama quotes. I can pull more definitive ones from other people. I am sadly an information nut and spend a good 5-8 hours a day (even while working...) voraciously consuming history and present issues, as well as science (but I can't tell you who starred in any movie or sang what song...). Truth be told, it's an addiction and is the only strain on my wonderful marriage (because I often ignore other more important things because I can't stop reading or asking questions). So I have read extensively on the topic, but have made little effort to engage it in an LDS motif. Never thought to really other than I didn't agree with most of it. So I am not asking from ignorance on the nature of CS@ or its reality. I am trying to understand how some see it (or don't) in the context of LDS theology.

Here are the quotes I used in CS2:

From an Eye on Books interview, 08/09/1995, in relation to Obama's book "Dreams of My Father"

All of that, thirty years after Dr. King and the civil rights movement. This seems almost incredible to me, at times, to think that in thirty years, this is all the progress we

[Matthew J. Tandy]

Now I'm starting to think that maybe Obama was talking about temporal salvation, or economic salvation, or being saved from a recession, rather than being saved in the kingdom of heaven.

Quite possible. Rev. Jeremiah Wright however ties economic salvation and equal "stuff" to eternal salvation. So if we want to leave Obama out of it (he is not a minister and I don't think has ever given a church doctrinal dissertation on the topic), we can focus on those who do believe in a CS2 type gospel. For the record, I believe that Obama has a CS2 mentality, but we can debate that in private.:-)

[LifeOnaPlate]

Was JS not being Christian when he dictated this revelation, whether or not we adhere to it today?

D&C 70:14 Nevertheless, in your temporal things you shall be equal, and this not grudgingly, otherwise the abundance of the manifestations of the Spirit shall be withheld.

[Ahab]

Quite possible. Rev. Jeremiah Wright however ties economic salvation and equal "stuff" to eternal salvation. So if we want to leave Obama out of it (he is not a minister and I don't think has ever given a church doctrinal dissertation on the topic), we can focus on those who do believe in a CS2 type gospel. For the record, I believe that Obama has a CS2 mentality, but we can debate that in private.:-)

His idea of a CS2 type gospel may actually be a CS3 type gospel, rather than your idea of a CS2 type, though, so while you're trying to leave names out of it, knowing who thinks what may be helpful to finding the answer to your question.

[Ahab]

If everyone can acknowledge that CS2 is a viewpoint that is held by some, that is all that is needed to consider how it does or doesn't fits in LDS theology.

I can agree that it's a viewpoint held by at least one person, you, of what you believe others believe, and if anyone actually believes it I would like to see them explain what they mean by it.

Personally, I do believe we should share all the wealth we have with all other people, sharing as God wants us to share things, and I also believe those who receive Celestial glory will share in all that our Father has as joint-heirs with Jesus Christ.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I can agree that it's a viewpoint held by at least one person, you, of what you believe others believe, and if anyone actually believes it I would like to see them explain what they mean by it.

Personally, I do believe we should share all the wealth we have with all other people, sharing as God wants us to share things, and I also believe those who receive Celestial glory will share in all that our Father has as joint-heirs with Jesus Christ.

The problem comes though when certain people feel that this should be done by compulsory means.

Do you believe that we should force (through legislation) other people to share their goods?

[Ahab]

The problem comes though when certain people feel that this should be done by compulsory means.

Do you believe that we should force (through legislation) other people to share their goods?

Do commands from God commanding that we share what we have with other people count as "force" or "legislation" ?

If so, Yep, and I believe those who don't are going to be in big trouble.

And btw, to find scriptures about how we should act with others, look for scriptures that talk about being charitable, and generous, and benevolent, and having compassion on other people, seeking to help others obtain all the same good things that we want, and for scriptures about how to not act with others, look for scriptures that talk about not being greedy, or selfish, or covetous, or lazy.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Do commands from God commanding that we share what we have with other people count as "force" or "legislation" ?

If so, Yep, and I believe those who don't are going to be in big trouble.

That is a big no. God commanding that we do something is never done through legislation or force. Remember that he gave us a choice. What did he say to Adam with regards to eating the fruit of the tree of knoweldge?

Anyway, I may have derailed the thread slightly. Sorry for that.

[Ahab]

That is a big no. God commanding that we do something is never done through legislation or force. Remember that he gave us a choice.

The choice is to either do things God's way or to suffer for not doing things God's way.

He gives us laws, and he expects us to follow them.

Yes, it is true that a person can say No to God, but any person who does is going to suffer a penalty for doing so.

What did he say to Adam with regards to eating the fruit of the tree of knoweldge?

Something like:

I forbid you to eat it, and if you choose to eat it, anyway... .and, yes, it is up to you to choose... you're going to die if you eat that fruit.

Anyway, I may have derailed the thread slightly. Sorry for that.

Oops. Me too.

[paulpatter]

. . . Collective Salvation 2: We cannot be saved as individuals unless we as a nation and/or people are saved together. Salvation as a collective may involve equalization of wealth in a socialist or communal system. Our individual salvation depends on collective salvation. We must recognize that our fate remains tied up with everyone else's fates, that our individual salvation is not going to come about without a collective salvation for the country.

This is a perversion of the gospel because it fails to take into account the progress (or lack thereof) individuals made in the pre-existence. It also ignores the reality of foreordination, as well as D&C 46 (spiritual gifts).

[Mansquatch]

Was JS not being Christian when he dictated this revelation, whether or not we adhere to it today?

"...not grudgingly..." is key.

Liberation theology presents believers with two sides. The oppressed and the oppressors. The oppressors must give what they have to the oppressed or collective salvation (CS2) cannot be obtained. The oppressed are perfectly justified in taking from the oppressors in order to bring about CS2.

The oppressed/oppressor battle is in liberation theologies and groups in many areas. Animal Liberation Front, Black Liberation Theology, Earth Liberation Front, Palestine Liberation Organization; all seek to make oppressed and oppressors equal by whatever means necessary. This is very much against LDS doctrine and is very much more akin to Lucifer's plan. The Lord wants us to be equal but He wants it through kindness, love and charity; not by legislation, coercion, theft or Marxism.

http://everydaynormal.com/redistributionists-glaring-problem-methods/

[mrmendoza]

I'm sorry, I have at the request of MJT removed the offending paragraph from this post. I will start a new post on that subject a little later when I get time.

As to the op, I would say that D&C 78:5-7

5 That you may be equal in the bonds of heavenly things, yea, and earthly things also, for the obtaining of heavenly things.

6 For if ye are not equal in earthly things ye cannot be equal in obtaining heavenly things;

7 For if you will that I give unto you a place in the celestial world, you must prepare yourselves by doing the things which I have commanded you and required of you.

could be used as a lead in for CS2 as well as the work that we do in the Temples. But at the same time the arguement could just as easily be made that that revelation as well as the work we do in behalf of the dead doesn't mean that absolute equality is needed, only that all will be given an equal chance for salvation!So some of it might be construde either way. Unfortunetly, I'm not competent enough to give a more conscise obvervation then that!

Mike