Grace in Sacrament Meeting

[Calm]

I agree with this, Max, but this is most definitely not the teaching of the LDS Church.

CFR that saying no is wrong all the time (which what I am assuming you think the teaching of the Church is) is taught by the Church (as opposed to the individual members).

Perfectionism, having it all, doing it all, is a symptom of the greater culture as much as it is a symptom in our church, just ask any therapist in any state outside of the Mormon corridor. I remember getting counseling when I was in high school when there was widespread concern about anorexia, one attribute thought at the time of those susceptible to it being perfectionism. I would be very interested to see if members in other countries and cultures experience the same kind of thing within the church culture and if the background culture has significant influence on it. I have seen a huge variation among individuals in the US, Canada and Russia, the most significant variable seems to be gender in that women are more prone to say 'yes' when they really want to say 'no' (for a variety of reasons in my experience) but also age seems to be a major factor as well, the older women not only having learned that you must put limits on yourself because others won't do that for you...at least once they think of you as an adult as well as having learned that you are not struck by lightening if you say 'no' and that if you turn down one calling or opportunity, that doesn't mean that God will pull all his blessings from you or you will never have the opportunity to serve the Lord and one's fellowmen in good ways ever again.

We are taught in the Church over and over about how important making choices is, not just what we choose, but the process...developing our abilities to make wise choices. When we start out with little experience and overall knowledge, depending on the landmarks established by those who have followed the path before us is a good idea, but part of the maturing process (both intellectual and spiritual in my view) is learning that it is even more important to use one's own resources for 'mapreading' for a variety of reasons, but mainly because it is our life and we need to assume full responsibility for our choices and not leave them in others' hands. To do so is to waste the opportunities that God has given us by proving us with this great, but often overwhelming gift of mortality.

We would know how silly we would sound if we attempted to justify our actions to our employer with the explanation "well, I did it this way because Jones does it that way" when Jones has a different job than we do and that the likely response to "I did it this way because I thought you wanted me to do it this way" would be "why didn't you ask me if I wanted it this way rather than just assume?" Why some people assume that the Lord wants us to be less proactive in our lives than our employers I don't understand unless they see God as some dictator or obsessive parent who always wants his children to remain children....something that is very contrary to what is taught in the scriptures.

[bluebell]

God will not grant "Grace for Grace" to those who are without faith. I think you make a mistake in trying to truncate one type of grace from another. All grace is given in an attempt to save.

I'll see if i can explain it better. Even if we don't agree, at least you'll understand me correctly.

When I speak of the grace that saves, I'm speaking about being justified. When I talk about it being separate from other types of grace, I'm talking about the difference between receiving grace that enables us to overcome our weaknesses, or to be strong during a trial, etc, and being justified.

You claimed, using the verse in Matt. that God grants grace to the just and the unjust, the righteous and the wicked (at least, that's how i understood that post).

I am saying that I think that such a claim needs to be quantified or explained because depending on what you mean by 'grace' it can be either true or false.

I agree that God can give grace to help many people, even people who don't believe in Jesus Christ probably, but that He only justifies (applies the grace that saves us) those who have faith in Christ, repent, and in my belief, enter into a covenant relationship with Jesus through baptism.

It could be that suggesting that there is more than one kind of grace is a mistake-i'll grant that. Though the choice of words might not have been best, my point remains the same. In my belief, even if there is only one type of grace, i still believe that God does not apply it equally, or to the same end, to the just and unjust, the wicked and the righteous, as you seemed to be claiming with that verse in Matt.

Hope that makes sense.

[bluebell]

CFR that saying no is wrong all the time (which what I am assuming you think the teaching of the Church is) is taught by the Church (as opposed to the individual members).

I think sometimes people take the stand that if members of the church often behave in a certain way, it must be proof that the church endorses the behavior.

In that frame of mind, there is no difference between what the members teach (through talks, comments, or by example) and what the church teaches, regardless of what the 'official' doctrine is.

Of course, that's kind of like watching a bunch of 8th graders at the mall in order to decide what their parents teach or expect of them. Sometimes the correlation is there, sure, but not always, and knowing that our kids often do things we would NEVER teach or condone when they are away from us, most parents would be wary of trying to suggest the correlation is a given.

Hopefully most people are also wary about assuming that the actions of the members of an organization always reflect it's teachings.

[Calm]

Hopefully most people are also wary about assuming that the actions of the members of an organization always reflect it's teachings.

My experience is that they are wary...at least until they want to have something to criticize the organization about.....

Most committed members in my experience when confronted with problematic comments joke about along the lines as how the church must be true or the members (missionaries, youth, whatever...) would have destroyed it long ago or how the church is like a hospital filled with the spiritually weak, ill, dysfunctional, etc.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Unless the church Robinson attends is completely different from the LDS Church I have been attending for 34-years....

No offence, mate, but the very first impression I ever got from one of your posts is that we've been attending completely different churches. A couple of years later, that impression hasn't faded. At all.

[Palerider]

I'll see if i can explain it better. Even if we don't agree, at least you'll understand me correctly.

When I speak of the grace that saves, I'm speaking about being justified. When I talk about it being separate from other types of grace, I'm talking about the difference between receiving grace that enables us to overcome our weaknesses, or to be strong during a trial, etc, and being justified.

You claimed, using the verse in Matt. that God grants grace to the just and the unjust, the righteous and the wicked (at least, that's how i understood that post).

I am saying that I think that such a claim needs to be quantified or explained because depending on what you mean by 'grace' it can be either true or false.

I agree that God can give grace to help many people, even people who don't believe in Jesus Christ probably, but that He only justifies (applies the grace that saves us) those who have faith in Christ, repent, and in my belief, enter into a covenant relationship with Jesus through baptism.

It could be that suggesting that there is more than one kind of grace is a mistake-i'll grant that. Though the choice of words might not have been best, my point remains the same. In my belief, even if there is only one type of grace, i still believe that God does not apply it equally, or to the same end, to the just and unjust, the wicked and the righteous, as you seemed to be claiming with that verse in Matt.

Hope that makes sense.

I appreciate your explanation. See what you think about this.

God grants a certain amount of grace to all whether justified or not (notice I didn't say "righteous or not"). That is evident because if he didn't grant that grace there would be an immediate execution of the "law of justice" upon everyone as soon as they commit sin (which would be death, "he who sins against one aspect of the law sins against all").

When we have faith in Christ we gain access to justification through grace (Romans 2:5). Justification simply means we are justified before the law through the efforts of Christ's atonement because we ourselves don't have the power to pay the eternal price of our own sins. As an added benefit whatever heartfelt efforts (works) we make towards righteousness after that point are "imputed" to us as "righteousness" (even though they may and usually are imperfect) because of God's continuing grace towards us and His Spirit working within us. As a result of that continuing (lifelong) struggle against unrighteousness we are with time sanctified by God. We are as the Savior said, "Bearing fruit and the Father is purging us to bring forth even more".

John the Baptist and the Savior requested "fruits meet (appropriate) for repentance" in order that we might gain access to the Father's grace, not because those works were salvific in and of themselves.

Paul had to break things down this way because of the Jewish converts who although they accepted Christ as their Savior, continued to demand that "the works of the law" were necessary to salvation.

[consiglieri]

No offence, mate, but the very first impression I ever got from one of your posts is that we've been attending completely different churches. A couple of years later, that impression hasn't faded. At all.

No offense taken.

I go to the same church as Sister Robinson.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[bluebell]

John the Baptist and the Savior requested "fruits meet (appropriate) for repentance" in order that we might gain access to the Father's grace, not because those works were salvific in and of themselves.

I agree with everything you posted, especially the statement above.

[Jeff K.]

Are you suggesting that other religions actually do require works? That's not what I heard in LDS Sunday school last month..........

Then you heard incorrectly. It is well known that the cotroversy between Lutheranism and Catholicism for example was the distinctions between faith and works with their belief systems. It would suprise me that something so base from two well established religions was not discussed.

[Jeff K.]

I believe Spencer Kimball, as much as I admire the man, was famous for having said we have to "lift ourselves by our bootstraps" in order to be saved.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

I believe you are taking the text out of context, a habit you have. Could you perhaps show us the paragraph from whence you came up with the saying in order for all of us to see the correct context? It seems only fair.

[Jeff K.]

Saying "no" to a calling from the Lord is commonly denominated a sin in the LDS Church.

Just sayin'.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

No, it is not.

[Jeff K.]

No offense taken.

I go to the same church as Sister Robinson.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

You just don't seem to hear what is said then?

[Hamba Tuhan]

I go to the same church as Sister Robinson.

Then maybe you'd like to try going to the same LDS Church I've been attending? I can't get enough of it.

[Zakuska]

Then maybe you'd like to try going to the same LDS Church I've been attending? I can't get enough of it.

Thats how our ward was growing up. Now our ward is filled with mostly 65+. And the callings are mostly filled by the few young couples in the ward that there are and they tend to get burned out quickly with all the house calls and extra visits needed to keep the ward in good shape. Sadly, some of the last activities haven't been all that great.

But I'm not saying this to complain. It's our duty to look after the sick and afflicted as the Lord commanded afterall.

[Palerider]

Then you heard incorrectly. It is well known that the cotroversy between Lutheranism and Catholicism for example was the distinctions between faith and works with their belief systems. It would suprise me that something so base from two well established religions was not discussed.

Not a chance that I was "taught" incorrectly? My hearing is fine, Thankyou.

[Palerider]

Not a chance that I was "taught" incorrectly? My hearing is fine, Thankyou. Also I've never heard the "cotroversy" between Lutheranism and Catholicism discussed in any LDS Gospel Doctine class in the past 40 years I've been attending.

Messed up on my buttons though...........

[Palerider]

I agree with everything you posted, especially the statement above.

Great! We're making progress.

[Jeff K.]

Well, I admit the LDS church does not dwell upon the infighting in Christianity itself (too many pointing their guns at us), but that is one of the key issues that arose between Cathlocism and Martin Luther.

[Palerider]

Well, I admit the LDS church does not dwell upon the infighting in Christianity itself (too many pointing their guns at us), but that is one of the key issues that arose between Cathlocism and Martin Luther.

I agree but I nearly got the **** beat out of me on this board for suggesting that works are important to quite a few other churches and that the LDS faith was mischaracterizing other religions by making the blanket (and derogatory) statement that "they don't believe in works....all ya gotta do is believe...."

It is an oversimplification of other religions' doctrine to do so. It's an easy (and cowardly) thing to do when you're preaching to the choir and there's nobody there to call you out on it. It also cheapens the statement that the church doesn't speak ill of other religions.

[ELF1024]

I agree but I nearly got the **** beat out of me on this board for suggesting that works are important to quite a few other churches and that the LDS faith was mischaracterizing other religions by making the blanket (and derogatory) statement that "they don't believe in works....all ya gotta do is believe...."

It is an oversimplification of other religions' doctrine to do so. It's an easy (and cowardly) thing to do when you're preaching to the choir and there's nobody there to call you out on it. It also cheapens the statement that the church doesn't speak ill of other religions.

The number of times I've had the virtual **** kicked out of me by some other religion for the false belief that I could some how "work" my way into heaven, and have been told, even by Evangelicals on this board, that all you have to do is accept Jesus into your heart and your saved... It doesn't seem like a cowardly oversimplification to me.

I suppose those of you who have never left the state of Utah wouldn't understand.

[Libs]

My experience, in the LDS Church, with the subject of grace was usually connected, somehow, with worthiness. But, there was this one beautiful Brother, in my Ward (he was 1st Counselor to the Bishop) who was really big on grace and when he taught Gospel Doctrine, often spoke on it very eloquently. To his way of thinking, even "our part", our works, were never without the Grace of God. When he explained 2 Nephi 25:23 (we are saved by grace after all that we can do), he emphasized that even the "all that we can do" could not be accomplished without the grace of Jesus Christ, and him walking by our side helping us every step of the way.

I really adored that man. He was a good teacher.

[daz2]

"all that we can do" could not be accomplished without the grace of Jesus Christ, and him walking by our side helping us every step of the way.

I completely concur. I used to envision the Atonement and God's grace (which in my opinion are the same thing) as a ladder that God lowers into the pit of sin into which I had fallen. It was up to me to climb the ladder out. I now see God's grace/Atonement more like that good brother--it does include a ladder lowered into the pit, but I believe God does not merely wait at the top for me to pull myself up the ladder; rather, God comes down into the pit, puts His arm around me, and helps me lift my feet and arms and supports me, maybe lifts and holds onto me when I start to slip. Coming down into the pit to be with us who are sinners is part of what I believe the word "condescension of God" means.

[Hamba Tuhan]

Then maybe you'd like to try going to the same LDS Church I've been attending? I can't get enough of it.

Thats how our ward was growing up.

I wasn't talking about my ward at all; I was talking about the Church I attend. I've found it on three different continents and in five different islands of the sea (one of which where I was the only member for 800km in any direction), in various stakes and districts, wards and branches (including two different branches which were so remote that they belonged to neither a stake nor district).

[Hamba Tuhan]

When he explained 2 Nephi 25:23 (we are saved by grace after all that we can do), he emphasized that even the "all that we can do" could not be accomplished without the grace of Jesus Christ, and him walking by our side helping us every step of the way.

Precisely.

From the LDS Bible Dictionary: 'It is likewise through the grace of the Lord that individuals, through faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ and repentance of their sins, receive strength and assistance to do good works that they otherwise would not be able to maintain if left to their own means.'

And from John 14:5 (also referenced in the BD): 'I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.'

[Palerider]

Precisely.

From the LDS Bible Dictionary: 'It is likewise through the grace of the Lord that individuals, through faith in the atonement of Jesus Christ and repentance of their sins, receive strength and assistance to do good works that they otherwise would not be able to maintain if left to their own means.'

And from John 14:5 (also referenced in the BD): 'I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.'

I agree withdaz2, libs, and your assesment here. My only comment would be (having grown up in "mormon country" in the 50's) that this definition would have bafffled most if not all of the old-time Mormons that I associated with. The culture and teachings of that time were extremely prejudiced against any doctrine that smacked of being "saved by grace". I guess it's the experience and context of having lived through that time that makes me inclined to see the church turning (ever so slowly) closer to some of the sensibilities of mainstream Christianity.