Grace in Sacrament Meeting

[WalkerW]

Thanks for the link, WW, and the scholarly approach.

I used to attend the Institute Building at the University of Texas at Austin back in the 1980's.

Do you still live in Texas?

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

That I do. Still a student at UNT. School starts tomorrow (yay...).

[consiglieri]

That I do. Still a student at UNT. School starts tomorrow (yay...).

Hook 'em!

[consiglieri]

Grace is an undeserved pardon that has already been offered and is readily available to all. Whether or not we claim the gift or continue to live within prisons of our own making is completely up to us.

I like what you have to say, mercy.

It seems that, whenever LDS talk about grace (including the most recent talk you excerpted), the following verse is quoted with a gloss that we must first do everything we can before grace kicks in.

2 Nephi 25:23

For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

This, I think, is misguided, especially when we consider that none of us does all we can do. It is simply impossible. There is always something more we could have done, as Professor Robinson notes in Believing Christ.

Rarely is the following BOM verse quoted.

2 Nephi 2:8

Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.

In fact, though it is no doubt coincidence, if you go to the lds.org website and do a search for "grace" in the Book of Mormon, this verse comes up dead last.

Strange that it should be so.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[bluebell]

I like what you have to say, mercy.

It seems that, whenever LDS talk about grace (including the most recent talk you excerpted), the following verse is quoted with a gloss that we must first do everything we can before grace kicks in.

To often people, when they read that verse in 2 Ne., misunderstand the obvious, which is actually expressed in Alma 24:11-

"And now behold, my brethren, since it has been all that we could do (as we were the most lost of all mankind) to repent of all our sins and the many murders which we have committed, and to get God to take them away from our hearts, for it was all we could do to repent sufficiently before God that he would take away our stain

[consiglieri]

To often people, when they read that verse in 2 Ne., misunderstand the obvious, which is actually expressed in Alma 24:11-

"And now behold, my brethren, since it has been all that we could do (as we were the most lost of all mankind) to repent of all our sins and the many murders which we have committed, and to get God to take them away from our hearts, for it was all we could do to repent sufficiently before God that he would take away our stain

[Palerider]

Thanks for the links m&g.

But even in the first talk, devoted to the subject of grace, we find the following:

So what is given with the right hand is taken back with the left.

This is what I feel happened with Stephen Robinson when he wrote his sequel book, Following Christ. He pretty much undid everything he said in Believing Christ.

It seems we give lip service to the concept of grace, but then rush to narrow its definition to being only (a) God's love that allows us to be given immortality (as opposed to eternal life--cue the obligatory reference to Moses 1:39), or (b) that gift of God that is bequeathed to us only after exercising our best efforts.

During sacrament meeting, the brother quoted from the Bible Dictionary which favored option (b) above. The talk you linked goes with option (a).

I think there is a third option that we never quite get around to in the LDS Church.

It is the option upon which hinges the parable of the prodigal son.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Took the words right out of my mouth.....Glad you were brave enough to say it.

[Palerider]

I agree. "Grace" has been made into this grand, mystical thing over the centuries. I had an interfaith dialogue at the Institute Building on the campus of the University of North Texas. I delved into the historical and cultural meanings of the word. Here is an excerpt from my written presentation:

The entire paper (which also addressed the concept of "faith") can be found here.

Enjoyed reading this post and I would agree that the church has moved in this direction moreso in the latter part of the 20th century, but the hold-over cultural aspects of the teachings from the 19th century (regarding grace being more strictly applied to universal resurrection) still bear sway in todays culture. At least that has been my experience.

Quote from one of mercyandgrace's reference talks "Words of the early Apostles: Grace"

"The gift of resurrection is given unconditionally to all, whether they accept and obey the gospel or not. Both the wicked and the righteous shall rise from the grave, meaning that the spirit and the body shall once again be reunited in an immortal state. On the other hand, spiritual death, which is the separation of man from God, is overpowered by the Atonement on condition that we comply with requirements the Lord has set."

[Darth J]

You're so right, Consig.

Grace is NEVER, EVER mentioned in our sacrament meetings, conferences, or lessons.

http://classic.lds.o...0004d82620aRCRD

http://classic.lds.o...0004d82620aRCRD

http://classic.lds.o...0004d82620aRCRD

http://classic.lds.o...0004d82620aRCRD

http://classic.lds.o...0004d82620aRCRD

I mean- a two minute search over at LDS.org only turned up 200+ hits.

If only we'd turned control of the Church's curriculum over to you and your superior wisdom (instead of foolishly relying on those whom the Lord has called), we could have saved this woman soooooo much grief and mental anguish.

Every one of the talks to which you link describe grace as a legalistic quid pro quo, not a free gift.

The first talk, by James E. Faust, is discussing feminine grace, not the saving grace of Jesus---and is therefore irrelevant.

"Grace is a God-given virtue. It is a disposition to be kind and to do good. It is a charming trait or accomplishment,

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Why do I get the feeling that Consig posted a similar thread on another board?

[Darth J]

Why do I get the feeling that Consig posted a similar thread on another board?

Why do I get the feeling that you have no response to my pointing out that Selek's is simply confirming the problem pointed out in the OP, not dispelling it, and so you are bringing up something irrelevant instead?

[bluebell]

Every one of the talks to which you link describe grace as a legalistic quid pro quo, not a free gift.

The first talk, by James E. Faust, is discussing feminine grace, not the saving grace of Jesus---and is therefore irrelevant.

"Grace is a God-given virtue. It is a disposition to be kind and to do good. It is a charming trait or accomplishment,

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Why do I get the feeling that you have no response to my pointing out that Selek's is simply confirming the problem pointed out in the OP, not dispelling it, and so you are bringing up something irrelevant instead?

I have not read seleks post nor yours. The force doth fail you. Yes?

[Garden Girl]

2. Even if Sister Robinson was taught about "grace" every week in church, would that really mitigate the exhausting obligations the church places on active members (especially women)?

Wait a minute... what's all these "exhausting obligations the church places on active members (especially women)"???

I hear this all the time and have never understood why people think we have such obligations... or feel so "guilty" about not living up to some standard of perfection...

I live the gospel fully, pay a full tithe, have one calling at a time, my VT route is to send cards/letters to five sisters, and serve on a team that rotates every 8 wks to clean the chapel which takes about one hour on a Saturday morning. I volunteer my service gladly and often, signing up when I feel I am able. With all due respect to Bro Robinson's wife, I feel no deep exhaustion at these activities (even when I was teaching RS it was only once a month), certainly not enough to send me into depression or even worse a break-down... and I've never felt guilty or doubted whether I "measure up."

If there's a woman out there who is feeling overwhelmed, she needs to talk to her RS/bishop about lightening her load, and then do it!!

from the beach on a rain-filled day (10 inches in 24 hours in parts of WA and OR)

GG

[SilverKnight]

I see a massive disconnect between the teaching of Grace (or lack thereof) and the burdensome obligations placed on members of the church.

How is teaching a more mainstream Christian understanding of grace supposed to mitigate this problem?

The solution is to quit piling so many callings and responsibilities on members, not teaching some nebulous religious platitude with more frequency.

[Darth J]

I have not read seleks post nor yours. The force doth fail you. Yes?

No, it doesn't. You just suddenly got a feeling about this when I showed up?

And again, this is irrelevant. Selek's links all confirm what the OP is discussing.

[volgadon]

Every one of the talks to which you link describe grace as a legalistic quid pro quo, not a free gift.

Grace in the scriptures has always been given with something expected in return. If one doesn't praise God (thereby increasing his reputation), or by doing something for someone else, then one gets no more grace, but incurs wrath.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No, it doesn't. You just suddenly got a feeling about this when I showed up?

And again, this is irrelevant. Selek's links all confirm what the OP is discussing.

Mmmmmm (in a robotic voice) correct.

[Zakuska]

You bring up an interesting point to consider when we look at this verse. But for some, this is also a verse which seems to confuse people about the concept of Gods grace!

The verse says that no good thing will he withold from them that walk uprightly. Does this mean that grace WILL be withheld from those who DO NOT walk uprightly? If that is the case, then grace is something earned (which would no longer make it grace but a reward).

But if grace is the unwarrented love of God, or how I worded it as "something we receive which we do not deserve", then it is not something earned (by walking uprightly). For it to be grace, it must not be earned by what we do, rather something given because we are loved. Again, something we get which we do not deserve due to our actions toward God.

And that is where understanding what Paul actually said is important. Notice how Paul sets grace and works on the opposite ends of the salvation stick and shows how faith (Living faith in EV talk) joins the three in a symbiotic relationship,

Romans 11

6 And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.

From this point on Paul endevors to show how they all three interlink and work together even going so far as to put the believers back undernieth the Law of Moses and in obligation to "fullfill it" in the New Covenant of Love.

Romans 13

6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God

[mercyngrace]

I like what you have to say, mercy.

It seems that, whenever LDS talk about grace (including the most recent talk you excerpted), the following verse is quoted with a gloss that we must first do everything we can before grace kicks in...

Your really should come visit my ward, Consig. I teach this doctrine all the time.

Elder Hafen points out that qualifying grace is based in fear that others will sin. That hardly seems godly since our Father didn't fear we'd sin. He KNEW we would. He even makes the point that we should not let the risks of embracing grace outweigh the benefits.

Personally, I see no risk at all. If one uses grace as an excuse for willful disobedience, he never really knew God in the first place. Knowing God produces a change in nature that gradually but increasingly precludes all disposition to do evil.

So, there's no risk. How do you risk losing one who was never found?

[mercyngrace]

Enjoyed reading this post and I would agree that the church has moved in this direction moreso in the latter part of the 20th century, but the hold-over cultural aspects of the teachings from the 19th century (regarding grace being more strictly applied to universal resurrection) still bear sway in todays culture. At least that has been my experience.

Quote from one of mercyandgrace's reference talks "Words of the early Apostles: Grace"

"The gift of resurrection is given unconditionally to all, whether they accept and obey the gospel or not. Both the wicked and the righteous shall rise from the grave, meaning that the spirit and the body shall once again be reunited in an immortal state. On the other hand, spiritual death, which is the separation of man from God, is overpowered by the Atonement on condition that we comply with requirements the Lord has set."

And what are those "requirements"?

Faith, repentance, and baptism.

You believe, turn toward God, and enter the covenant. Then He promises to sanctify you a fiery baptism as you live by His word.

You can indeed be saved by grace without ever holding a calling the Mormon church, bringing the goldfish crackers to nursery, or visiting teaching.

[Darth J]

If grace is 'free' in the sense that you seem to be using the word, then why won't everyone be saved? Why isn't everyone given Grace which leads to salvation, if we must do nothing to receive it?

What separates those who receive God's grace and those who don't?

You'll have to ask someone who believes in the evangelical Christian concept of grace. That someone is not me.

Roman Catholics, like Latter-day Saints, generally believe that people have to participate in certain rituals by someone in authority to receive grace. Catholics call them "sacraments;" Latter-day Saints call them "ordinances."

Most Protestants---generally----do not believe that people have to undergo rituals or do good deeds to "earn" grace. And generally, it would be the rejection of this free gift that would cause someone to be damned, since people are by default damned (original sin). But there is a whole lot of difference in these opinions, including Calvinists who think that people are fated to be saved or damned.

Your question implies that there are some non sequiturs in Christianity in general--starting with why does God need to allow his son to be murdered to appease himself because the whole human race is cast out of God's presence because some people ate a piece of fruit after a talking snake told them they should? And in calling such problematic, your point would be well taken.

However, this apologetic technique of tu quoque (not a tu quoque for me, since I am not an evangelical Christian) tends to salt the earth for having faith in anything more than it helps explain why the teachings of the LDS Church are rational. Regardless of what other churches may or may not teach, the teachings in LDS curricula and talks by General Authorities bear out what the OP is saying.

[Calm]

Robinson asked her what was wrong, and reported being

[bluebell]

You'll have to ask someone who believes in the evangelical Christian concept of grace. That someone is not me.

Roman Catholics, like Latter-day Saints, generally believe that people have to participate in certain rituals by someone in authority to receive grace. Catholics call them "sacraments;" Latter-day Saints call them "ordinances."

Most Protestants---generally----do not believe that people have to undergo rituals or do good deeds to "earn" grace. And generally, it would be the rejection of this free gift that would cause someone to be damned, since people are by default damned (original sin). But there is a whole lot of difference in these opinions, including Calvinists who think that people are fated to be saved or damned.

Your question implies that there are some non sequiturs in Christianity in general--starting with why does God need to allow his son to be murdered to appease himself because the whole human race is cast out of God's presence because some people ate a piece of fruit after a talking snake told them they should? And in calling such problematic, your point would be well taken.

However, this apologetic technique of tu quoque (not a tu quoque for me, since I am not an evangelical Christian) tends to salt the earth for having faith in anything more than it helps explain why the teachings of the LDS Church are rational. Regardless of what other churches may or may not teach, the teachings in LDS curricula and talks by General Authorities bear out what the OP is saying.

My point is that they bear out what the OP was stating only if they are interpreted in a very specific way.

The fact that these quotes exist does not prove the OP's point. The specific interpretation of the quotes which you are using must be shown as being taught to prove the OP.

[bluebell]

Relieved because that burden could be easily lifted if she came to a heartfelt understanding of the doctrineSince in the book IIRC he mentions encountering many others who interpret the doctrine in the same way as his wife and in fact, wrote the book to help correct this widespread misunderstanding, I don't see how one can really interpret this to say that he thought the fault was hers for not hearing something plainly and repeatedly set forth.

Edit: I was right, his preface to the book opens up with a discussion about how his students (BYU, often grown up in the church) are great at the peripherals of the gospel (food storage, tithing, genealogy, dating, WoW) that when it comes to the central doctrines (including grace) that they are 'soft'.

A good point.

Robinson seems to know that many members do not really understand grace, hence his need to write the book in the first place.

[Palerider]

I see a massive disconnect between the teaching of Grace (or lack thereof) and the burdensome obligations placed on members of the church.

How is teaching a more mainstream Christian understanding of grace supposed to mitigate this problem?

The solution is to quit piling so many callings and responsibilities on members, not teaching some nebulous religious platitude with more frequency.

When one (both leadership and member) correctly understands the concept of Grace, then "works" which are DEFINED by the church NOT by the member (at least not completely) become the outgrowth of the member's love of God, not the church's standard of qualification for righteousness. Thus the process of justification and sanctification are set between the individual and Heavenly Father.