Communal Salvation

[mercyngrace]

I've been quite surprised to read that some LDS do not believe in communal salvation. For the sake of clarity, when I say "communal salvation" I mean that our salvation is dependent upon one another as well as upon our own individual choice to come unto Christ.

~ There is an obvious aspect of communal salvation in the sacrament prayers where we implore that the offering upon the sacrament table will be sanctified to all those who partake.

~ There is communal salvation implied in the Savior's warning that the mercy we receive is granted in direct proportion to the mercy we grant. If we don't forgive others, our trespasses won't be forgiven.

~ There is communal salvation in D&C 128 where we are told that our perfection is dependent upon our kindred dead and theirs is dependent upon us.

~ The whole concept of Zion is communal based on the unification of individual beings in heart and mind.

And there are plenty of quotes by church authorities that reiterate our interdependence in terms of salvation.

If you do not accuse each other, God will not accuse you. If you have no accuser you will enter heaven. ~ Joseph Smith

(This quote is particularly interesting when you think of the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man)

"In our pre-existent state, in the day of the great council, we made a certain agreement with the Almighty. The Lord proposed a plan, conceived by him. We accepted it . Since the plan is intended for all men, we become parties to the salvation of every person under the plan. We agreed, right then and there, to be not only saviors for ourselves, but measurably saviors for the whole human family . We went into a partnership with the Lord. The working out of the plan became then not merely the Father's work, and Savior's work, but also our work. The least of us, the humblest, is in partnership with the Almighty in achieving the purpose of the eternal plan of salvation (John A. Widtsoe, "The Worth of Souls," Utah Genealogical and Historical Magazine, October 1934, p. 189).

Boyd K. Packer: Some years ago I was in Washington, D.C., with President Harold B. Lee (1899

[CV75]

So my question is, can a man be saved in isolation or is salvation communal but achieved through individual efforts?

We each individually rely on Christ for our salvation. Zion is a community and we cannot learn to be Christlike without serving others. We are individually resurrected but exalted into family units, which is the intended blessing. Individual agency must be exercised, and all must be centered on Christ, but the joy is in the sharing as God Himself demonstrates.

[nicolasconnault]

So my question is, can a man be saved in isolation or is salvation communal but achieved through individual efforts?

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "in isolation". It's impossible to live in isolation from others, and it's impossible to live the teachings of Christ without interacting with others and applying (or not) the principles of the Gospel in these interactions. For example, the commandments to forgive and love one another, to serve, to be baptised by proxy for others etc. all show clearly that salvation is a matter than involves the entire human species, not simply an individual journey.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that in writing your post you had a particular attitude in mind, particularly that of Cain's when he said "Am I my brother's keeper?". Are we responsible for other people's salvation, and do we need others for our own? My opinion is that pride must play a large part in someone's answering "no" to either of these questions. These questions also answer each other, because you can't truly say yes to one without saying yes to the other.

[mfbukowski]

Mercy

I think you are right on the money especially in relation to John 17.

I think the idea of perichoresis is something we are moving toward more and more. There is also an interesting essay by Nibley on the "Sacred Dance" which relates to temple worship

http://www.templestudy.com/2008/02/01/the-genesis-of-the-round-dance-part-3/

http://www.faithandwork.org/perichoresis

Key to the concept is a community of faith, perhaps not unlike our concept of the "Church of the Firstborn"

I'd strongly suggest that anyone who thinks we can be saved alone (or at least exalted alone) that they brush up on the notion of the Church of the Firstborn

[mercyngrace]

I'd strongly suggest that anyone who thinks we can be saved alone (or at least exalted alone) that they brush up on the notion of the Church of the Firstborn

Thanks for the info on the sacred dance - very interesting.

There were some threads referencing communal salvation here a few months back which elicited fiery response from a few posters. I've been pondering the whole concept ever since. It seems very obvious to me that hell is emobodied, as nicolas implied, in the isolation of the individual - Am I my brother's keeper? The notion that our salvation is independent of others is, to my understanding, completely unsupported by scripture.

I think some of our national love affair with rugged individualism has bled into our LDS culture. And of course, the idea that we don't have to be responsible for others and that we can be saved regardless of the condition of our relationships and interpersonal or social interactions is highly appealing to the natural man. "I am free!"

But again, I don't see it in scripture, though I could be wrong.

[nicolasconnault]

But again, I don't see it in scripture, though I could be wrong.

Oh it's in the scriptures alright... mingled with the philosophies of men

[TAO]

To be quite honest, I think that as long as we do God's will (which may be isolationary for a certain length of time due to circumstances, but in the long run will be communal), fully trusting in him, we will be all right. =) And for your bolded statement at the bottom, I'd choose the second.

[Whatawally]

So my question is, can a man be saved in isolation or is salvation communal but achieved through individual efforts?

Even the atonement seems to indicate the latter is true. The entire human community is saved through the individual efforts of Jesus Christ.

Sometime read 2 Ne. 25:23-26 and ponder the "we", "us", and "our" as being collective instead of individual:

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.

24 And, notwithstanding we believe in Christ, we keep the law of Moses, and look forward with steadfastness unto Christ, until the law shall be fulfilled.

25 For, for this end was the law given; wherefore the law hath become dead unto us, and we are made alive in Christ because of our faith; yet we keep the law because of the commandments.

26 And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins.

[stYro]

~ The whole concept of Zion is communal based on the unification of individual beings in heart and mind.

Indeed.

"Elohim" being a plural word, I can't help but think that those who said "Let us make man in our image" may be participants in a communal relationship that thus far eludes our comprehension, of which what little we know about "Zion" could be the tip of the iceberg.

[Senator]

~ The whole concept of Zion is communal based on the unification of individual beings in heart and mind.

No my dear, the whole concept is community based, not communal. Communal is a dirty word!

I was instructed of this important distinction a while ago in one of those threads.

[mercyngrace]

Whatawally - Love that! What a wonderful society our children would inherit if "we" adults were the "we" in those verses!

Styro - Care to elaborate about what you think might be in store?

[mercyngrace]

No my dear, the whole concept is community based, not communal. Communal is a dirty word!

I was instructed of this important distinction a while ago in one of those threads.

Yes, I got that lecture, too.

In the case of salvation though, we aren't just talking about individuals creating shared benefits through their own efforts (community). We are talking about being dependent upon each other for our progression.

How an LDS can have a visceral reacton to communal salvation baffles me in light of the stated purpose of the Savior - to help the many of us become "one".

[NauvooSaint]

King Benjamin spoke of when we are in the service of our fellow man, we are in the service of God. In the body of Christ, we are also to bear eachother's burdens. If a brother/sister in Christ must bear their burdens alone, they may fall under the weight & be lost.

The Everlasting Covenant (symbolized in the bow in the clouds after the great flood) deals with the promise of the return of Zion. We are blessed in the Restoration to have a little more light regarding this vs. other christian churches. It's in Genesis of the Inspired Version (JST) & LDS Book of Moses.

[nicolasconnault]

Yes, I got that lecture, too.

In the case of salvation though, we aren't just talking about individuals creating shared benefits through their own efforts (community). We are talking about being dependent upon each other for our progression.

How an LDS can have a visceral reacton to communal salvation baffles me in light of the stated purpose of the Savior - to help the many of us become "one".

Perhaps interdependent salvation would be a more appropriate term?

[Mansquatch]

It is really not that hard to understand why LDS can be opposed to something described as communal salvation when you look at history. The LDS are big on free agency as it seems to be a big matter in a giant and continual war. The term "communal" makes LDS think of hippies, communists and collective salvation. All of those rub LDS the wrong way. Collective salvation seeks to have groups make penance to other groups through taking something from a group. Communism seeks to control all without individual choice and hippies, well they generally like the aforementioned philosophies and they like drugs.

It is easy to see that when people start thinking of the collective and it bleeds over to governments, that is the real problem that LDS have since force and coercion are involved.

D&C 134:2

We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

D&C 134:9

We do not believe it just to mingle religious influence with civil government, whereby one religious society is fostered and another proscribed in its spiritual privileges, and the individual rights of its members, as citizens, denied.

The gospel of course is meant for us all as brothers and sisters and helping others is most definitely part of the plan. Otherwise no one would need to share the gospel. Any LDS who will not help proclaim the gospel, redeem the dead, care for the poor and needy or perfect the saints is not living in accordance with the teachings of the gospel.

Mormons just have a distaste for the word "communal" or anything like it. Terms like "families can be together forever" are much preferred to "communal" among the LDS even though both can mean the same thing.

The larger question of whether or not we can be saved without others is very multifaceted and has so many issues involved as to make it a difficult effort to try to answer in this life with our current understanding. Things like free agency and progression between kingdoms make it very complex. As someone whose entire family of 10 is inactive(except 1) with an abusive and adulterous father deceased while in his sins, can I be saved if my family is not? I say yes. The acceptance and application of the atonement is purely between Christ and myself. That does not mean I will not embrace the 4-fold mission of the church.

[nicolasconnault]

The larger question of whether or not we can be saved without others is very multifaceted and has so many issues involved as to make it a difficult effort to try to answer in this life with our current understanding. Things like free agency and progression between kingdoms make it very complex. As someone whose entire family of 10 is inactive(except 1) with an abusive and adulterous father deceased while in his sins, can I be saved if my family is not? I say yes. The acceptance and application of the atonement is purely between Christ and myself. That does not mean I will not embrace the 4-fold mission of the church.

I think I understand what you mean. You're asking: "Is my salvation dependent on other people's use (or misuse) of their free agency? If they fail, will I lose my salvation regardless of my individual efforts?". I'm certain that mercyngrace would answer "no" to both of these questions, because that's not what she has in mind when she speaks of "communal salvation" (correct me if I'm wrong!). Salvation is dependent on individual efforts, but these efforts necessarily include helping others achieve their own salvation, and accepting help from others when it is available.

If we refuse to assist others, their salvation will remain in their hands, although it might be more painful to achieve, but ours will be compromised.

[Mansquatch]

I think I understand what you mean. You're asking: "Is my salvation dependent on other people's use (or misuse) of their free agency? If they fail, will I lose my salvation regardless of my individual efforts?".

"Collective salvation" and the term "communal" make many LDS think that someone is answering "yes" to those questions. As by definition that is "collective salvation".

I'm certain that mercyngrace would answer "no" to both of these questions, because that's not what she has in mind when she speaks of "communal salvation" (correct me if I'm wrong!).

I don't think that is what was meant. But it does remind many LDS of the aforementioned philosophies (myself included, I just don't freak out and start calling everyone a commie, as some do. I see a separation)

Salvation is dependent on individual efforts, but these efforts necessarily include helping others achieve their own salvation, and accepting help from others when it is available.

If we refuse to assist others, their salvation will remain in their hands, although it might be more painful to achieve, but ours will be compromised.

Amen

[mercyngrace]

nicolas,

I think you have a pretty good handle on what I mean but when you consider that we must be "without accusers" to enter heaven (Joseph Smith) and can't be perfect without our dead - it seems there is a little more to it than "I can be saved independently but part of my salvation is in helping others".

mansquatch,

Of course, you are right that we react to the terms without thinking the concepts through. A few years ago, I probably would have felt my own knee jerking There is no conflict with the principle of individual agency that I see, however, because in order to be like God, we have to share His work, glory, and will. That means our exercise of agency is to the same end that God desires - the salvation of His children.

I'm not really suggesting that as you are prepared to progress, you are held back until all your ancestors back to Adam are ready (that would be in direct conflict with several authoritative statements which suggest we progress as we are ready) but it means our efforts continue toward that end and our progression is tied to the progression of others.

How's that for being even less clear...? LOL.

[BCSpace]

"Communal" is quite the loaded word so I think perhaps "brother's keeper" might be better. In the sense that we are to provide good examples, teachings, and help we are our brother's keeper. In the sense that we are ultimately responsible for another's choices, we are not our brother's keeper, though we may bear some culpability in certain circumstances.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks for the info on the sacred dance - very interesting.

There were some threads referencing communal salvation here a few months back which elicited fiery response from a few posters. I've been pondering the whole concept ever since. It seems very obvious to me that hell is emobodied, as nicolas implied, in the isolation of the individual - Am I my brother's keeper? The notion that our salvation is independent of others is, to my understanding, completely unsupported by scripture.

I think some of our national love affair with rugged individualism has bled into our LDS culture. And of course, the idea that we don't have to be responsible for others and that we can be saved regardless of the condition of our relationships and interpersonal or social interactions is highly appealing to the natural man. "I am free!"

But again, I don't see it in scripture, though I could be wrong.

Uh, if I were you I'd watch your back if you are going to talk like that.

It makes you sound like a DEMOCRAT!

[BCSpace]

Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.

Philippians 2:12

It is of course much easier to work out one's own salvation when someone is there to lend a hand. But under Satan's plan, no one does any of their own work, so hands are to be lent only when needed.

[nicolasconnault]

nicolas,

I think you have a pretty good handle on what I mean but when you consider that we must be "without accusers" to enter heaven (Joseph Smith) and can't be perfect without our dead - it seems there is a little more to it than "I can be saved independently but part of my salvation is in helping others".

I'm pretty sure that Joseph was only speaking about rightful accusers: will anyone be able to justly witness against me? Otherwise he might have died with much less conviction of his own salvation, considering his martyrdom!

As far as not being perfect without our dead, it still doesn't imply that our own salvation may be jeopardised because of someone else's failure to exercise their agency. I don't think this particular teaching means that our "dead" must be saved before we can be.

[mfbukowski]

We can all talk about the church being a family and a community and all, but unless you are doing 100% Home/Visiting Teaching and being a good member missionary and doing your work for the dead, it's all talk.

That's why I am not concerned with worrying about being "too communal", and totalitarian coercion etc- until we actually have concern for other members I think the pendulum would probably do better to swing in the direction of community.

I think it's great that a Catholic parish near my house used to have a sign out which said "Saint X Catholic Church" (withholding the name) and now it has been changed to "Saint X Catholic Community".

At first I didn't understand why they did that, but now I am beginning to understand!

[mercyngrace]

"Communal" is quite the loaded word so I think perhaps "brother's keeper" might be better. In the sense that we are to provide good examples, teachings, and help we are our brother's keeper. In the sense that we are ultimately responsible for another's choices, we are not our brother's keeper, though we may bear some culpability in certain circumstances.

Yes - it is a loaded word but there are none of us so intellectually incapable that we can't unload it. We don't need to be beholden to the way the world mangles language

I'm much more interested in the implications of being bound together than in the semantics.

[mercyngrace]

Uh, if I were you I'd watch your back if you are going to talk like that.

It makes you sound like a DEMOCRAT!

LOL. Well, it will likely shock some but I am not now, nor have I ever been, a Democrat. What I am is considering the pre-mortal covenant that Elder Widstoe said I made and wondering whether my efforts to fulfill it impact my own salvation...

Again:

"In our pre-existent state, in the day of the great council, we made a certain agreement with the Almighty. The Lord proposed a plan, conceived by him. We accepted it . Since the plan is intended for all men, we become parties to the salvation of every person under the plan. We agreed, right then and there, to be not only saviors for ourselves, but measurably saviors for the whole human family ."