Mormon Definitions of Salvation Useful for Compare and Contrast Debate

[David T]

So often in inter-faith dialogue, apples are compared to oranges - but often this is done ignorantly. Why?

Because Mormons used 'Saved' in so many ways. Elder Oaks wrote a conference address on this topic, but I don't think it broke it down into the theological and soteriological distinctions really necessary for interfaith dialogue.

For example, non-LDS Christians often compare their view of Salvation and its conditions, with our view of Exaltation, and its conditions. Why? Because in LDS parlance, we do use the term 'Saved' to refer to the exalted condition, often use the term "Saved in the Celestial Kingdom" as shorthand for the more accurate "Exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom".

However, what the non-LDS Christians are really trying to compare is something different. We do have a doctrine of salvation by grace through faith into the presence of God into the Celestial Kingdom, wherein Baptism is the Covenant of Salvation.

The temple and its covenants relate to Exaltation within the Celestial Kingdom, and rightly goes beyond "Classical Salvation" - it's something easily recognized as something very different!

Because Exaltation is clearly the prophetic priority for us, and is the interpretation given to God's goal for man as stated in Moses 1:39, lesser "salvations" are rarely discussed in a Church context (and for good reason, I believe).

While we do regularly teach of the Terrestrial and Telestial worlds, if only briefly, rarely in LDS discourse is non-exalted salvation in the Celestial Kingdom discussed (IE, dwelling in two preliminary degrees) - if so, it is used in a derogatory fashion to refer to those who chose not to enter into the Eternal Marriage Covenant, yet who are still "Saved" (see D&C 132:17). "Angels" in this context are often viewed in a negative view as not-fully-saved (or 'damned'), instead of as partially exalted dedicated full-time servants of the Lord.I don't think we tend to think in these terms - and it shows when debate takes place.

I hold that when definitions of Salvation and their scriptural requirements are set forth, equivalents need to be discussed, with auxiliary (and surpassing) subjects off the table.

Evangelical Salvation is not the equivalent of Exaltation - Non-exalted Salvation in the Celestial Kingdom, however, is.

And this, I have come to strongly believe, is what the focus is on in the Book of Mormon: the principles of Justification and Sanctification that will allow one to dwell joyfully in the presence of God.

It was left to later revelations in our dispensation to set out the reality of and conditions for Exaltation.

Below are my proposals for categories of Mormon "salvation", as I understand them from the scriptures - without reference to uncanonized opinions, no matter how prevalent or popular they may be in Mormon thought. I find them useful when discussing distinct concepts with those of other faiths.

Salvation from Physical Death -AKA: "Universal Salvation", "Immortality"

Definition: The reuniting of one's spirit with a resurrected form of their physical body. All who receive this will continue to live in an embodied state in the eternal realm.

Conditions: Because of the Atonement of Christ, all mankind will be resurrected. The essential principle of Salvation from Physical death has no relation with either one's choices in mortality, nor the individual's Eternal Destination. There are no mortal conditions once you have been born.

Salvation from Sin and Legally Required Separation from God - AKA: "Classical Salvation", "Salvation Proper", "Justification", "Celestial Kingdom", "Clean Hands"

Definition: Permission to dwell in the presence of God the Father in His Kingdom. Citizenship in the Kingdom of Heaven.

Conditions:

a) Those who are completely free from Sin. (Jesus Christ is the only one who can merit this on his own)

b) Those who acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Atoning Lord and Savior, and actively place their trust in Him to save them (Faith), turn towards Christ by beginning to change habits, behaviors, and desires to conform with one's understanding of Christ's Will (Repentance), enter into a Covenant relationship with Christ to formally acknowledge Him as their Lord and Master (today accompanied with the sign of Baptism), and receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost to cleanse and refine one's nature. The individual's sins are carried (forgiven) by Christ, and the individual is Judged on Christ's merits alone (grace). An Heir of Christ.

b1) Those who die before an age of accountability are automatically saved through the merits of Christ's Atonement.

Salvation from Impure Heart - AKA "Sanctification"

Definition: Cleansed spiritually by the Holy Ghost. No longer has any desire to sin. Freedom from troubled conscience. Ability of those who are legally welcome into God's presence to also Endure dwelling there.

Conditions: Submission to the Gift of the Holy Ghost through an effort of obedience to the Lord's known instruction. Empowered by increased Faith, repentance, and additional covenants, specifically the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper.

Correlary: Those who are not sanctified will not be able to endure the Lord's presence even though they may be legally welcomed there. They will by necessity of their own conscience be forced to dwell outside the direct presence of the Lord by degrees, in what are referred to as the "Terrestrial" and "Telestial" realms. This state could be compared with Classical Hell: Separation from God.

Salvation from All Restrictions - AKA: "Exaltation", "Eternal Life", "Ultimate Salvation", "Eternal Family"

Definition: Being raised up (Exalted) to the very nature of God the Father by Him, and be granted all powers, freedoms, and attributes He holds. Includes the privilege of Perpetuation of the Seed (not defined in canonized revelation as literally pro-creative, or as through the scriptural principle of Adoption, as in those who are the "seed of Christ" and "seed of Abraham"). United into Family Associations. A joint condition held by Covenant Partners.

Conditions: Faithful striving to humility and obedience to all revealed and currently binding Laws and Ordinances, especially those of the Temple, such as Washings and Anointings, the Endowment, and Eternal Covenant Marriage - Continued cycle of Faith, Repentance, Covenant making, and refining by the Spirit.

I'd be interested in different thoughts on how this has been presented, and ways we could better make sure we're discussing equivalents. Because when we're not, there is no dialogue at all, and it ends up being a straw-man of Mormonism that's being attacked, and on the flip side, many Mormons also end up shouting down a straw-man of Evangelical Christianity.

Dialogue is far more interesting and useful than

, which has become the defacto standard on both sides of the issue.

[ELF1024]

A friend of mine once told me:

Salvation is personal, Exaltation is family.

I think that clarifies the differences pretty nicely.

[David T]

A friend of mine once told me:

"Salvation is personal, Exaltation is family."

I think that clarifies the differences pretty nicely.

Are you friends with Elder Nelson?

I agree that It works great as Mormon shorthand. But it still isn't complete or very useful for the purposes of interfaith theological and soteriological dialogue.

[ELF1024]

Are you friends with Elder Nelson?

I agree that It works great as Mormon shorthand. But it still isn't complete or very useful for the purposes of interfaith theological and soteriological dialogue.

My friend was more than likely quoting Elder Nelson.

[BCSpace]

I think we accept the same type and conditions for salvation as evangelicals for example. The difference is that we accept the Christian doctrine of degrees of salvation and they don't. Because of their non-acceptance of Christian doctrine, they don't realize that their salvation is the minimum salvation in the Telestial. Ultimately, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess. That's all that is required for minimum salvation and that because we kept our first estate. Now if you want eternal life on the other hand......

[David T]

I think we accept the same type and conditions for salvation as evangelicals for example. The difference is that we accept the Christian doctrine of degrees of salvation and they don't. Because of their non-acceptance of Christian doctrine, they don't realize that their salvation is the minimum salvation in the Telestial. Ultimately, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess. That's all that is required for minimum salvation and that because we kept our first estate. Now if you want eternal life on the other hand......

Aside from STRONGLY disagreeing with your interpretation of non-LDS Christian only being able to receive minimal Telestial salvation, I don't see how this is helpful at all, but tends to lead to the same old talking-past-each-other rhetorical mess.

[BCSpace]

I think we accept the same type and conditions for salvation as evangelicals for example. The difference is that we accept the Christian doctrine of degrees of salvation and they don't. Because of their non-acceptance of Christian doctrine, they don't realize that their salvation is the minimum salvation in the Telestial. Ultimately, every knee will bow and every tongue will confess. That's all that is required for minimum salvation and that because we kept our first estate. Now if you want eternal life on the other hand......

Aside from STRONGLY disagreeing with your interpretation of non-LDS Christian only being able to receive minimal Telestial salvation,

I think the fact that LDS doctrine does indeed apply other requirements besides intellectual assent to eternal life as well as D&C 76:99-101 and the accompanying earlier statements on the testimony of Jesus in the same section show that I am in complete harmony with the Church and the Lord's statements on this issue. Would love to debate it with you sometime as I am always on the lookout for my opinions to be tested by fire. Makes them stronger or effects a needed change.

I don't see how this is helpful at all, but tends to lead to the same old talking-past-each-other rhetorical mess.

I think this speaks directly to the misguided notion of "civility" that everyone is bandying about these days. It does not help to sugar coat the doctrine.

[David T]

I think the fact that LDS doctrine does indeed apply other requirements besides intellectual assent to eternal life as well as D&C 76:99-101 and the accompanying earlier statements on the testimony of Jesus in the same section show that I am in complete harmony with the Church and the Lord's statements on this issue.

I recall the notes I have from when I was in the MTC, when Elder Holland stated, "The rest of the world doesn't need us to obtain Telestial or Terrestrial Glory. They can do that without us."

I think this speaks directly to the misguided notion of "civility" that everyone is bandying about these days. It does not help to sugar coat the doctrine.

It depends on the context and purpose. If you're trying to assist others in understanding our point of view who are scholastically and doctrinally minded, who are sincere, then insulting them and their biblical literacy generally won't get you - or them - anywhere. It just comes across as arrogant and ignorant in those contexts. And in many ways, it is just that.

[BCSpace]

I recall the notes I have from when I was in the MTC, when Elder Holland stated, "The rest of the world doesn't need us to obtain Telestial or Terrestrial Glory. They can do that without us."

You'll need to show two things.

1) Official Publication.

2) How the notion that someone can reject the gospel here but accepts it later precludes what I said unless there is something more specific vis a vis what you are refering to.

Just so we're clear, I am not saying the doctrine precludes any nonLDS christians (or any religion or lack thereof for that matter) from obtaining the Terrestial or even the Celestial. They simply need to become LDS at the appropriate point here or in the afterlife. But if they remain, for example, evangelical christian, to the end the most they can obtain is the Telestial. Notice that D&C 76:99-101 on the Telestial includes believers in Christ but somehow they have "received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant". Notice that the Terestial and Celestial includes those who have accepted the testimony of Jesus.

It depends on the context and purpose. If you're trying to assist others in understanding our point of view who are scholastically and doctrinally minded, who are sincere, then insulting them and their biblical literacy generally won't get you - or them - anywhere. It just comes across as arrogant and ignorant in those contexts. And in many ways, it is just that.

I don't think it matters. At some point, they will have to be insulted and get over it because the doctrine is what it is. Trying to subtlely get them to that point could just as easily backfire on you as they "realize" they are being deceived.

[David T]

Just so we're clear, I am not saying the doctrine precludes any nonLDS christians (or any religion or lack thereof for that matter) from obtaining the Terrestial or even the Celestial. They simply need to become LDS at the appropriate point here or in the afterlife. But if they remain, for example, evangelical christian, to the end the most they can obtain is the Telestial. Notice that D&C 76:99-101 on the Telestial includes believers in Christ but somehow they have "received not the gospel, neither the testimony of Jesus, neither the prophets, neither the everlasting covenant". Notice that the Terestial and Celestial includes those who have accepted the testimony of Jesus.

I don't want this thread to be taken over by a quibble on this doctrinal point. Feel free to start another thread if you feel necessary. I recall from the past that your understanding hinges mainly on your very specific interpretation of what the phrase 'The testimony of Jesus' means.

Trying to subtlely get them to that point could just as easily backfire on you as they "realize" they are being deceived.

In no way am I suggesting anyone say or do anything deceptive. To the contrary, I am working on getting it so there is more honest and relevant discourse, leading to greater understanding -- Not just a pro-Mormon/Anti-Mormon "I'm right, you're wrong" dichotomy. I recognize that most discussions will have to end on an "we'll have to agree to disagree" note - but I'd say that's far more productive than with it ending with the two parties screaming back at each other at how much the other party doesn't understand the scriptures, and that they're going to be damned because of it.

My opinion is, If you can't participate in civil discourse and dialogue without resorting to blunt denouncments of disagreeing participants as the ignorant damned, then I see no reason why anyone would ever even consider changing their opinions - it's not a very attractive fruit hanging from that tree. Not something you really want to beckon others to taste.

[JDave]

I don't think it matters. At some point, they will have to be insulted and get over it because the doctrine is what it is.

So let's just insult them up front and get that taken care of?

[JDave]

Evangelical Salvation is not the equivalent of Exaltation - Non-exalted Salvation in the Celestial Kingdom, however, is.

And this, I have come to strongly believe, is what the focus is on in the Book of Mormon: the principles of Justification and Sanctification that will allow one to dwell joyfully in the presence of God.

It was left to later revelations in our dispensation to set out the reality of and conditions for Exaltation.

I think this really is the crux of it. The LDS church doesn't speak much about 'non-exalted salvation in the Celestial Kingdom'. We always encourage 'the best'. And many scriptures can easily be applied to exaltation, even if the original intent was regarding a more general salvation in the presence of God. This can cause confusion, however, when discussing soteriology with people who are reading the scriptures without reading exaltation into every verse about salvation. Ironically they might be arguing an interpretation that is closer to the original intent.

Salvation from Physical Death -AKA: "Universal Salvation", "Immortality"

This is pretty straightforward. Is immortality for every person born on earth a fairly universal doctrine throughout Christian churches?

Salvation from Sin and Legally Required Separation from God - AKA: "Classical Salvation", "Salvation Proper", "Justification", "Celestial Kingdom", "Clean Hands"

Salvation from Impure Heart - AKA "Sanctification"

It seems to me that LDS teaching refers to the first point here as simply entering the gate, which is very important, but then focuses the majority of the time on the process of sanctification. And since we are preaching to our fellow members of the church, that would be the proper emphasis. But I think it all gets wrapped up in one. While I have heard teachers distinguish between exaltation and lesser salvation in Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms, I don't hear much of any distinction between justification and sanctification (if those words are used at all). It is all one unified process. Because of that I would guess that most LDS would not think of baptism, without enduring to the end (sanctification), as legally allowing one to be in heaven.

Salvation from All Restrictions - AKA: "Exaltation", "Eternal Life", "Ultimate Salvation", "Eternal Family"

Also more straightforward, this is the true point of departure from other Christian viewpoints.

[David T]

I think this really is the crux of it. The LDS church doesn't speak much about 'non-exalted salvation in the Celestial Kingdom'. We always encourage 'the best'. And many scriptures can easily be applied to exaltation, even if the original intent was regarding a more general salvation in the presence of God. This can cause confusion, however, when discussing soteriology with people who are reading the scriptures without reading exaltation into every verse about salvation. Ironically they might be arguing an interpretation that is closer to the original intent.

EXACTLY. This is 100% what I'm talking about.

This is pretty straightforward. Is immortality for every person born on earth a fairly universal doctrine throughout Christian churches?

While it may be technically, I don't think many non LDS Christians view it as this way. Those who 'go to hell' are understood (correctly) as experiencing a Spiritual Death - and this would never be associated with the term 'salvation'. It is simply spiritual death contrasted with 'Eternal Life' with God. Immortality, yes, but immortality in torment.

It seems to me that LDS teaching refers to the first point here as simply entering the gate, which is very important, but then focuses the majority of the time on the process of sanctification. And since we are preaching to our fellow members of the church, that would be the proper emphasis. But I think it all gets wrapped up in one. While I have heard teachers distinguish between exaltation and lesser salvation in Terrestrial and Telestial kingdoms, I don't hear much of any distinction between justification and sanctification (if those words are used at all). It is all one unified process. Because of that I would guess that most LDS would not think of baptism, without enduring to the end (sanctification), as legally allowing one to be in heaven.

Again, you're exactly right, and seem to be on the same page with my line of thinking. In standard discourse, they are combined - as they should be. Because who wants merely legal entrance into the presence of God if you couldn't stand to be there? LDS doctrine certainly focuses on the best possible option that has been revealed, because that is what we believe God wants for us, and what our potential allows for. We are not taught to 'aim low'. It is, indeed, all very practical, and 'simplified' .

One unfortunate side effect of this is that most members aren't familiar with the theological distinctions, which especially shows when in discussion (and debate) with those of other faiths. Only recently hae I begun to hear the terms Justification and Sanctification used and explained in General Conference. But still, it's not generally a part of our curriculum, and I'm pretty sure most members don't know what those extremely important theological terms signify.

Also more straightforward, this is the true point of departure from other Christian viewpoints.

Which we recognize. Yet, as you pointed out, often members (and even official publications) try to use far too many removed-from-their-original-context-and-meaning-proof-texts to teach the Modern Revelation Principles of Exaltation, which does, in fact, make those who use such scriptures in their individual discussions and debates appear (many cases rightfully so) to be the ones who are in fact biblically illiterate.

[JDave]

Which we recognize. Yet, as you pointed out, often members (and even official publications) try to use far too many removed-from-their-original-context-and-meaning-proof-texts to teach the Modern Revelation Principles of Exaltation, which does, in fact, make those who use such scriptures in their individual discussions and debates appear (many cases rightfully so) to be the ones who are in fact biblically illiterate.

I don't see a problem with the use of such scriptures about salvation to teach about exaltation. I think they apply rather well, are not really being used as 'proof texts' most of the time, and are not innapropriate for such use. It would be more than a bit awkward to provide a caveat each time stating that the original author probably didn't have exaltation in mind when writing the verse. Also, if the author was writing about the highest form of salvation they knew about, and we are reading it to mean the highest form of salvation that we know about, then the intent really isn't lost or mangled.

However, ignorance or misunderstanding about the difference between the original author's view of 'highest salvation' and our own can cause problems. If we use those scriptures as proof texts against other people's interpretations of Christianity then we are on shaky ground.

[David T]

I don't see a problem with the use of such scriptures about salvation to teach about exaltation. I think they apply rather well, are not really being used as 'proof texts' most of the time, and are not innapropriate for such use. It would be more than a bit awkward to provide a caveat each time stating that the original author probably didn't have exaltation in mind when writing the verse. Also, if the author was writing about the highest form of salvation they knew about, and we are reading it to mean the highest form of salvation that we know about, then the intent really isn't lost or mangled.

However, ignorance or misunderstanding about the difference between the original author's view of 'highest salvation' and our own can cause problems. If we use those scriptures as proof texts against other people's interpretations of Christianity then we are on shaky ground.

I agree.

[coolrok7]

So often in inter-faith dialogue, apples are compared to oranges - but often this is done ignorantly. Why?

Because Mormons used'Saved' in so many ways. Elder Oaks wrote a conference address on this topic, but I don't think it broke it down into the theological and soteriological distinctions really necessary for interfaith dialogue.

For example, non-LDS Christians often compare their view of Salvation and its conditions, with our view of Exaltation, and its conditions. Why? Because in LDS parlance, we do use the term 'Saved' to refer to the exalted condition, often use the term "Saved in the Celestial Kingdom" as shorthand for the more accurate "Exaltation in the Celestial Kingdom".

However, what the non-LDS Christians are really trying to compare is something different. We do have a doctrine of salvation by grace through faith into the presence of God into the Celestial Kingdom, wherein Baptism is the Covenant of Salvation.

The temple and its covenants relate to Exaltation within the Celestial Kingdom, and rightly goes beyond "Classical Salvation" - it's something easily recognized as something very different!

Because Exaltation is clearly the prophetic priority for us, and is the interpretation given to God's goal for man as stated in Moses 1:39, lesser "salvations" are rarely discussed in a Church context (and for good reason, I believe). . . .

I attended that particular Conference (at the local stake center) and heard the message delivered by Elder Oaks live with missionaries at the time that had come by my home.

The problem lies in the redefinition of Biblical terminology which for Mormons in my perspective have left the biblical teaching and believe contrary to Biblical doctrine through the couplet of President Snow and Joseph's adding to the Ephesians verse, "saved by grace through faith. . .not by works" in which he adds, "after all we can do".

Exaltation to godhood is not what Biblical salvation (escape from eternal punishment in hell) is all about:

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. (Matthew 10:28)

[JDave]

The problem lies in the redefinition of Biblical terminology ... Exaltation to godhood is not what Biblical salvation is all about

So you agree with the OP then?

[BCSpace]

I recall from the past that your understanding hinges mainly on your very specific interpretation of what the phrase 'The testimony of Jesus' means.

As opposed simply believing or saying "I am of Christ" as D&C 76 clearly distinguishes. But when you come up with a different interpretation, feel free to start that thread.

In no way am I suggesting anyone say or do anything deceptive. To the contrary, I am working on getting it so there is more honest and relevant discourse, leading to greater understanding -- Not just a pro-Mormon/Anti-Mormon "I'm right, you're wrong" dichotomy.

I understand, but the Church itself emphasizes this dichotomy. For example, we do not accept baptism or priesthood ordination in any other Church. As missionaries, JS-H 1:19 was always given right up front. Didn't seem to cause any harm.

I recognize that most discussions will have to end on an "we'll have to agree to disagree" note - but I'd say that's far more productive than with it ending with the two parties screaming back at each other at how much the other party doesn't understand the scriptures, and that they're going to be damned because of it.

I've never proposed such a thing. But I agree that it could very quickly come to an agree to disagree point.

My opinion is, If you can't participate in civil discourse and dialogue without resorting to blunt denouncments of disagreeing participants as the ignorant damned, then I see no reason why anyone would ever even consider changing their opinions - it's not a very attractive fruit hanging from that tree. Not something you really want to beckon others to taste.

Well yes, some people are pretty defensive. But face to face I've regularly said things exactly the way I do on this board and no one's been offended that I can tell. In fact, most are appreciative and many have come back for more. Unfortunately, the appreciation sometimes comes from a feeling that I've been more up front than others beforehand.

I don't think it matters. At some point, they will have to be insulted and get over it because the doctrine is what it is.

So let's just insult them up front and get that taken care of?

Why not? In fact, such is more likely to generate curiosity and self examination of one's own beliefs than having gone through the whole rigamrole only to be let down imho. And what if the conversation terminates before you get to your point? You might be left with someone who does not know what the doctrine is. Our doctrine is still exciting and new to most people and if not, the scriptural explaination of it is thus reducing any initial pain to a fading gentle prick in a hurry.

[Rob Osborn]

This term "saved" is something that we as Mormons have got all screwed up. The scriptures teach about salvation from the second death- that death coming to those after resurrection who go into hell because of their utter failure to repent and turn to Christ. Our scriptures universally use the term "saved" in the very literal sense that the rest of Christianity uses it- to be "saved' from hell eternally. Very few verses in the scriptures speak of exaltation which is a condition besides salvation.

It bothers me that we have half a dozen different definitions for the word when the scripture sonly use it generally "one" way.

[ERayR]

In no way am I suggesting anyone say or do anything deceptive. To the contrary, I am working on getting it so there is more honest and relevant discourse, leading to greater understanding -- Not just a pro-Mormon/Anti-Mormon "I'm right, you're wrong" dichotomy. I recognize that most discussions will have to end on an "we'll have to agree to disagree" note - but I'd say that's far more productive than with it ending with the two parties screaming back at each other at how much the other party doesn't understand the scriptures, and that they're going to be damned because of it.

My opinion is, If you can't participate in civil discourse and dialogue without resorting to blunt denouncments of disagreeing participants as the ignorant damned, then I see no reason why anyone would ever even consider changing their opinions - it's not a very attractive fruit hanging from that tree. Not something you really want to beckon others to taste.

I agree we should not be deceptive in any way but neither should we become cowering victims of political correctness. It has been my sad experience over many years that most of our born again evangelical friends will not engage in rational dialog long enough to lay the groundwork of definitions or will misinterpret them the same way they do with the present presentation of doctrine. Those who are prone to meaningful dialog will probably listen and get to a place of understanding a little quicker. When engaging one of my born again friends I almost always warn them that we need to come to an understanding of definitions and when we are speaking of saved we may not be understanding each others views. Then I go into this type of discussion. It works better for understanding what each is talking about but seldom changes any minds about its correctness.

[David T]

It has been my sad experience over many years that most of our born again evangelical friends will not engage in rational dialog long enough to lay the groundwork of definitions or will misinterpret them the same way they do with the present presentation of doctrine. Those who are prone to meaningful dialog will probably listen and get to a place of understanding a little quicker. When engaging one of my born again friends I almost always warn them that we need to come to an understanding of definitions and when we are speaking of saved we may not be understanding each others views. Then I go into this type of discussion. It works better for understanding what each is talking about but seldom changes any minds about its correctness.

I'm much happier with a discussion that ends with someone who correctly understands my view and disagrees with it than with one where they disagree with something they clearly don't understand.

I think the world would be a lot better off if more people understood our doctrinal position (members included) accurately. I am a big advocate of understanding. I can't convert anyone, but I can clearly and calmly, and without being demeaning and insulting, articulate with clarity my beliefs.

I've had many a conversation which ended with the individual acknowledging they now understood us a bit better, had been incorrect with some assumptions, but still disagreed. I considered that discussion a success.

The goal shouldn't be, "Prove That I'm Right', it should be, "Help to more accurately understand our position." - that's when fruitful discussion can begin.

[JDave]

I was thinking about the various categories and what they mean, especially as progressive steps per the LDS view of the Plan of Salvation. Is this the way that you picture things, nackhadlow?

Salvation from Physical Death - Outer Darkness

Salvation from Sin and Legally Required Separation from God - the Telestial and Terrestrial kingdoms

Salvation from Impure Heart - Celestial Kingdom in general

Salvation from All Restrictions - The highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom

[David T]

I was thinking about the various categories and what they mean, especially as progressive steps per the LDS view of the Plan of Salvation. Is this the way that you picture things, nackhadlow?

Salvation from Physical Death - Outer Darkness

Salvation from Sin and Legally Required Separation from God - the Telestial and Terrestrial kingdoms

Salvation from Impure Heart - Celestial Kingdom in general

Salvation from All Restrictions - The highest degree of the Celestial Kingdom

JDave,

I think that's a great summation of the 'minimals' in each category, as I understand it

[ELF1024]

Outer Darkness (HELL): Those who did not keep their first estate. Satan/Lucifer/"Son of the Morning" and the 1/3 of the spirits who followed him.

Eternal Life: Everyone who kept their first estate (Born).

Salvation: (Baptized, Recieve the Holy Ghost) Celestrial Glory of the least kind.

Exaltation: (Baptized, Recieve the Holy Ghost, New and Everlasting Covenant) Celestrial Glory of the Highest Order

[David T]

Outer Darkness (HELL): Those who did not keep their first estate. Satan/Lucifer/"Son of the Morning" and the 1/3 of the spirits who followed him.

Eternal Life: Everyone who kept their first estate (Born).

Seeing as there are those who are born who are scripturally condemned/make the choice to dwell in Outer Darkness, and also given that belief/faith in Jesus Christ is scripturally required for Eternal Life (differentiated in the scriptures from immortality), I'd say I'd have to disagree with this presentation.