Belief, Works And Savation- Salvation Available Without Works?

[seriously honestly]

How so?

Well for starters, the Father does not reside in the terrestrial kingdom. It is also a place for those who did not have a testimony of Jesus in this life but received one in the next, and who were blinded by the craftiness of men.

That is not the Christian concept of heaven. We believe heaven is where the Father resides, and that it is a place for those who had placed their faith in Christ while they were living.

[wenglund]

In one respect, there is also universal salvation without faith in Christ or works. It is called salvation from physical death, or simply resurrection.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 8, 2011 by wenglund

[Cobalt-70]

Correct but incomplete. Salvation is more than just saving from hell. Salvation is receiving all that the Father hath.

That is the definition of exaltation. Mormons traditionally distinguish between salvation and exaltation.

[Rob Osborn]

What is damnation? Is it, in one sense, the lack of an ability to progress in all areas?

No, damnation is to be "condemned". There is no definition accepted by scholars that states damnation is the inability to not progress in one or more areas.

[LeSellers]

No, damnation is to be "condemned". There is no definition accepted by scholars that states damnation is the inability to not progress in one or more areas.

Who gives the first flyin' fig about what scholars say when prophets have spoken on the matter?

Lehi

[Mudcat]

So I ask- Are we deceiving ourselves and other religions when we teach that our doctrine doesn't teach a "salvation without works" model whenin fact we do have such a model within our doctrinal framework?

Hi Rob,

Hopefully I won't sound trite here. I am not trying to be. But I don't think people of other beliefs that are even remotely familiar with your religion actually think that LDS are promoting a "salvation without works" model.

I am curious about why you would think that would be what external perceptions of LDS teach? I don't see it, but likely I am missing something.

Regards,

Mudcat

[Rob Osborn]

Who gives the first flyin' fig about what scholars say when prophets have spoken on the matter?

Lehi

And I believe that Joseph Smith who translated the Book of Mormon never meant it in the way that we modern LDS interpret it. Joseph was raised in the protetant ways and beliefs in biblical word use. Joseph used the word in translation in the typical fashion of "condemnation to hell."

[Rob Osborn]

Hi Rob,

Hopefully I won't sound trite here. I am not trying to be. But I don't think people of other beliefs that are even remotely familiar with your religion actually think that LDS are promoting a "salvation without works" model.

I am curious about why you would think that would be what external perceptions of LDS teach? I don't see it, but likely I am missing something.

Regards,

Mudcat

The questions I have proposed are for an LDS audience- those familiar with our doctrine. I am not making a case of us against anuone else, but merely hoping to open fellow eyes to something a bit deeper and of importance.

[Rob Osborn]

Rob Osborn:

LDS accept what Jesus said about Baptism.

I fully agree. However, LDS also believe in a doctrine where people can be saved from the eternal hell without the baptism, this is the "telestial salvation model. That is what i am after here in this post- to explain that our doctrine does teach a salvation without works model.

[altersteve]

I fully agree. However, LDS also believe in a doctrine where people can be saved from the eternal hell without the baptism, this is the "telestial salvation model. That is what i am after here in this post- to explain that our doctrine does teach a salvation without works model.

The telestial kingdom is not salvation. Salvation, in LDS terms, is not from eternal damnation, but from not being able to live with our Heavenly Father for eternity. Those who receive telestial glory are given such by the grace of God, but they are not truly "saved" from what God wants to save us from.

[Rob Osborn]

The telestial kingdom is not salvation. Salvation, in LDS terms, is not from eternal damnation, but from not being able to live with our Heavenly Father for eternity. Those who receive telestial glory are given such by the grace of God, but they are not truly "saved" from what God wants to save us from.

They're saved from hell though aren't they? Is this not what the Book of Mormon speaks about over and over again- being saved from this eternal hell? Is not this being "saved" called "salvation"? If being saved to the telestial kingdom is not salvation what else can it be?

[supersnail]

So I ask- Are we deceiving ourselves and other religions when we teach that our doctrine doesn't teach a "salvation without works" model when in fact we do have such a model within our doctrinal framework?

I'm not a member of the church, so my post here is more for my own clarification rather than to make an argument. I'm very much still studying and don't have a firm grasp of some ideas.

As you point out, the context of this is ideas about faith versus works regarding salvation (and justification).

I'm familiar with the phrase "faith without works," which actually is from the Bible and has a negative connotation. Calvinists and other Protestants talk about salvation by faith alone. Their emphasis is on faith, not "without works."

In a very broad sense, I think some degree of heaven (to use a phrase I've heard some LDS use, but I'm not sure how correct that is) could be reached without works. So I see how you could get "salvation without works."

But if you look at what Protestants themselves say about solifidianism (by faith alone), the history of that idea, and what it's all about it, I don't feel the thrust of solifidianism is really contained in LDS belief as I understand it. For example, if I'm not mistaken, even avowed atheists who happen to do what they think is the right thing to do can obtain a degree of glory. In what way does that have anything to do with solifidianism.

Consider the flip side of this: those who believe and yet ignore God's commandments and even act in opposition to the "works" of others. Aren't they actually closer to being sons of perdition than to be saved in any full sense?

Believing and not acting can be worse than not believing at all. I think that message comes through in the BoM (as well as other scriptures). For attaining minimal glory, belief in Jesus Christ while on earth actually is not the most important thing. (I don't say that to take away from the importance of receiving the gospel while still living on this earth, but for the topic of this thread, it's worth thinking about.)

If I have totally misunderstood the issue, please let me know.

[Rob Osborn]

supersnail,

That is a pretty good summary you posted of what I am getting at. I would like to stress that I bring this up solely in th econtext of seeing a lot of my fellow members running around comparing our religion to others on this topic of faith and works thinking how much better our doctrine is and yet, I am not so sure that we ourselves are being a little hypocritical because even in our doctrine we have this salvation model that if we were to really look at it bluntly, could be shot through with a lot of holes. I see it as problematic because we go and say how much better our doctrine is than another and then we find hidden or misguided comfort in this fact. We don't find comfort in what is truth, but rather in comparing one flawed model (although not noticed) with perhaps another from another religion and as long as ours sounds better- we must be right. Have we spent so much time trying to make holes in the neighbors boat that we have forgotten to fix our own sinking boat?

[supersnail]

Adding to my previous post, I am aware that people have an opportunity to accept the gospel after mortal death though they didn't have faith while on earth. Nonetheless, most Protestants wouldn't agree with such a concept. That's not what they mean by faith alone.

I talk about Protestants again, because most of the modern day faith verse works controversy originated with the Reformation. In that context, it could actually be shown that LDS doctrine about faith and works has more in common with Catholicism (notwithstanding Joseph's Smith Protestant background) than with some Protestant doctrines that have people as going to hell forever if they haven't accepted Jesus as their Savior by the time they die and relegate works to a subordinate status.

If you think of this visually in terms of a continuum and where the LDS Church would be on a line, I don't see how LDS belief would even fall in the middle, between Catholicism and Protestantism. One could redefine the words "salvation" and "works" to make LDS belief appear similar to mainstream Evangelicalism, but at the end of the day how can LDS belief really be seen as having more to do with Protestant solifidianism historically and theologically than with its alternatives?

[supersnail]

supersnail,

That is a pretty good summary you posted of what I am getting at. I would like to stress that I bring this up solely in th econtext of seeing a lot of my fellow members running around comparing our religion to others on this topic of faith and works thinking how much better our doctrine is and yet, I am not so sure that we ourselves are being a little hypocritical because even in our doctrine we have this salvation model that if we were to really look at it bluntly, could be shot through with a lot of holes. I see it as problematic because we go and say how much better our doctrine is than another and then we find hidden or misguided comfort in this fact. We don't find comfort in what is truth, but rather in comparing one flawed model (although not noticed) with perhaps another from another religion and as long as ours sounds better- we must be right. Have we spent so much time trying to make holes in the neighbors boat that we have forgotten to fix our own sinking boat?

I'd like to respond just really quickly before I have to log off.

If it were not for D&C 76, I might actually not have gone on to read the Book of Mormon. When I read that section, I knew it was the truth, at least the idea of degrees of glory. I mean it struck me as being true. I didn't have to know much about Joseph Smith. I didn't stumble over his history or anything like that.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, why fix what might not be broken?

I'd agree LDS views of salvation and exaltation are more complicated than they might appear by reading just one passage in a scripture. However, I don't understand how the LDS doctrine related to faith and works could really be put in the same category as Protestant solifidianism if one looks at the history and theory behind "by faith alone," in the sense that phrase is commonly used in conversations today.

Someone else pointed out that everyone is saved in terms of resurrection of the body. That just goes to show that words are being removed from their original meanings or context, because the doctrine of the Resurrection (though true) is clearly (in my opinion) not what is being addressed by solifidianism.

And just to clarify, my comment about some atheists being able to enter at least the telestial kingdom was not intended to express some kind of criticism or disagreement with the doctrine

[thesometimesaint]

Cobalt-70:

In LDS theology Salvation and Exaltation can be the same thing, but not necessarily. There is Salvation from physical death, ALL who were ever born on this earth will be resurrected thus recieve some level of Salvation. Exaltation is Salvation from spiritual death, and includes saving from the lesser Kingdoms of Glory.

[Flyonthewall]

Just to throw this out there...I believe all those who go to the Telestial kingdom will spend time in "hell" for their actions.

The norm is, works are required to complete ones faith, and it is through one's faith that we are "saved". I believe we will still have the opportunity to perform works in the afterlife...I just don't have a solid idea of what they are..perhaps it consists of accepting the teachings of Christ and teaching others, things that do not require a physical body.

The afterlife may just be a bustling world with lots to do...

[Rob Osborn]

Cobalt-70:

In LDS theology Salvation and Exaltation can be the same thing, but not necessarily. There is Salvation from physical death, ALL who were ever born on this earth will be resurrected thus recieve some level of Salvation. Exaltation is Salvation from spiritual death, and includes saving from the lesser Kingdoms of Glory.

I would disagree with those definitions. Salvation is to be saved from both physical and spiritual death. Exaltation is the highest glory within the celestial kingdom reserved for married eternal couples.

[supersnail]

The original question of this thread deals with whether one might be wrong to consider other Christian denominations as having an undesirable doctrine of salvation by faith without works when LDS belief itself supposedly contains a similar view at least for some lower degree of heaven.

Unlike LDS ideas about conversion in the spirit world, the ideas of most Protestants in the U.S. do not permit entry at any point of someone into heaven who has not accepted Jesus Christ in mortal life. Those ideas also do not allow multiple degrees of glory or kingdoms of heaven based on agency and works, or faith, repentance, baptism, remission of sins, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. If you really look into it, the Protestant doctrine of sola fide, and related doctrines (such as some Protestant doctrines of election) to which it is often connected, are just alien to LDS belief as I understand it.

Someone who merely believes but somehow does not have any worthy works is actually in a precarious position according to LDS belief as I've learned it so far. More than once, the Book of Mormon compares people who supposedly believe in Jesus Christ with people who for whatever reason don't, but are more righteous than the Christians. In Jacob 3, the Nephites are warned that they have actually fallen behind the Lamanites in righteousness and risk becoming "angels to the devil."

Jacob 3:7 Behold, their husbands love their wives, and their wives love their husbands; and their husbands and their wives love their children; and their unbelief and their hatred towards you is because of the iniquity of their fathers; wherefore, how much better are you than they, in the sight of your great Creator?

Being in a situation where you could end up either remaining in hell as a son of perdition or going to the telestial kingdom (or some lower internal division within that kingdom) is not a good situation to be in. Which brings me to the issue that I have never met an LDS member "in real life" who suggested that celestial glory was not something for converts or prospective converts to aspire to. Admittedly my view of what the LDS Church teaches is very limited, but I don't see Protestant solifidianism really being taught anywhere by Mormons. If there is some "hole" or loophole in the LDS doctrine that allows easy entry into heaven without works as if one could be comfortable with sinning, I am not sure who is taking advantage of it or what the real issue is.

I do feel one should not change what he or she is saying just to make their ideas seem more consistent with those of mainstream Christians in one country. That is not to say that is the intent here, but elsewhere on the Internet (and I could be blowing this out of proportion) I have noticed something of a tendency to want to make Mormonism more palatable to Evangelicals.

It is true that the doctrine of bodily resurrection involves something happening "without works" on the part of the resurrected, but that has nothing to do with Protestant solafidianism, the key word being "fide": faith.

I feel the LDS doctrine of salvation is complex. Some areas of that doctrine or the Book of Mormon may seem more conventional/traditional than others, but the doctrine is unique, and there is nothing wrong with being unique.

One could do semantic gymnastics to make the plan of salvation seem like something you know from somewhere else. In terms of real substance, though, I think Protestant solifidianism is just not characteristic of Mormonism--and there is nothing wrong with that.

[Calm]

Well said....and well analyzed, IMO.

LDS believe that the choices of the heart----that which is valued---- are manifested in action and while someone may believe in a truth, if they do not value it that belief is ultimately worthless to them and others.

I think LDS in general tend to be an interesting mix of the practical/concrete and the ideal. We teach the ideal...the celestial...but envision it in a very 'down to earth' way, focusing primarily on the eternal nature of a celestial family with other more abstract, less immediate concepts being referred to, taught, but not as 'embedded in the soul' in my experience. I find most LDS speak of heaven in the terms of relationship....except for the concept of eternal progression and the very individualistic idea of being able to continue to learn and grow and experience, which most find extremely appealing...again in my experience.