Grace, Mercy, And Works And The Revealed Role Of Each

[DBMormon]

But I don't think that a person who is saved in the afterlife can thereafter sin and fall from grace.

here I will also part ways somewhat.. as your kinda saying the same things. I see Moroni 10:32-33 as a eternal process. That the putting off of ungodliness may take more then this life to do. So with my not being perfect in this life and yet my goal is to be perfect somehwere down the road in the next, there must be growth in the hereafter. For there to be opportunity to grow, agency must still have some place... perhaps not sin but still a choice to choose positive growth or to turn it down, which in some sense may still be considered sin. We assume in LDS theology a short time span between judgement and glory and yet perhaps between spirit worls and judgement and then judgement and glory is an eternity to work out the kinks.

How can there be eternal progression without the freedom to regress if one chooses. If no chance to regress then the progression is forced? lack of agency?

Edited May 10, 2012 by reelmormon

[DBMormon]

once one has passed their first and second estate they have proven themselves. They have shown they are determined to get to the end goal.

If a resurrected, Celestial being sins, does she fall from her Celestial status?

we were capable of failing the first estate, and the second estate, I do not know so my thought here is only me thinking about it, but I wonder if it is possible for one to fall from Glory in our third estate (paradise) and 4th estate (Celestial Kingdom)... are there more estates after that? I don't know. Teryl Givens was once hounded by a coworker who was upset over the LDS belief in eternal progression... Teryl looked at the man and asked him what will you be doing in one million years... the guy had no answer for that!

[DBMormon]

D&C 19 says nothing about, and there is no precedent within Christianity for, the idea that God's retribution for sin has the effect of justifying or sanctifying a person, and making them free from sin. Such a view would be incompatible with the idea of atonement in Mormonism, circa 1830.

I will kindly part ways here as well. we can not be permitted to disregard this section 19 solely becasue Joseph says something later that seems to come from a different angle. One possibility is a theology that allows both statements to have their role.

Will our minds condemn us? sure if we choose to not have a broken heart or contrite spirit. If we choose to not come unto Christ. If we choose mammon instead of God... to me it is about never changing, never trying to follow him. Sanctification never occurs so one will upon final judgement look back with remorse for thier neglect of spiritual things.

Regardless, Justification will occur no matter what. Section 19 is in the voice of Christ, so if one accepts it as revelation, one must find a way to fit it in their theology. Christ warns us to repent, and then proceeds to tell us that if we don't we must suffer even as he did (even as he did = same way). He then relates the suffereing to his physical suffering (not remose or guilt) but an actual physical torment. For those who do not utilize the atonement and his grace must suffer as no sin can go without a consequence. many will lose out on a celestial glory but each has sinned in different degrees even within the same kingdom. Justice must be satisfied. We are given a chance to repent on this side and perhaps on the other too, but if I turn that opportunity down, themn my sins must be atoned for, and yet I have turned down Christ's atonement in cleansing me. his atonement can not cleanse me for something in which I will not accept his atonemnet to do

Edited May 10, 2012 by reelmormon

[Cobalt-70]

Cobalt would you also say you agree with New Testament James that Faith without works is dead? that if works (within that person's physical and mental ability) are not present then faith is absent as well? Obviously God is the judge but the scripture is given that we might look at ourselves in the mirror and recognize from how we treat others and act within gospel?

I agree.

Cobalt obviously we will disagree on the need for temple ordinances but what are your feelings in regards for the need to be baptised or given the Holy ghost as a gift?

I don't know if we disagree or not. I don't think temple ordinances are necessary for salvation, but I do think they are necessary for exaltation.

Baptism is necessary for salvation because it is a manifestation of faith. Anyone who will refuse to be baptized, or to accept baptism in the afterlife, does not have faith. I think that LDS theology on the "Gift of the Holy Ghost" is somewhat confused and muddled now. I don't know whether the ordinance of Confirmation is always necessary for salvation, but a "baptism of fire" is necessary. The muddled part is that according to Mormon scripture, sometimes the baptism of fire has nothing to do with confirmation or even water baptism (see, e.g., Mosiah 27:28), and sometimes the baptism of fire is associated with water baptism rather than a separate laying on of hands (3 Ne. 31:13, 17, Moroni 6:4). I think that the Book of Mormon simply reflects a Wesleyan understanding of the issue: the baptism of fire comes as a result of faith (as it did for Alma the Younger), and it is confirmed through baptism and confirmation.

Edited May 10, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[DBMormon]

I don't know if we disagree or not. I don't think temple ordinances are necessary for salvation, but I do think they are necessary for exaltation.

Elder Lund and Elder McConkie were sure that salvation and exhaltation at least in the way Paul used Salvation were synomous. I agree with them. Also I think the BOM seems to indicate that as well in it's use of the term.

Edited May 10, 2012 by reelmormon

[DBMormon]

zerinus - still waiting for your reply to LDS.ORG's definition.... any other takers?

[Cobalt-70]

Elder Lund and Elder McConkie were sure that salvation and exhaltation at least in the way Paul used Salvation were synomous. I agree with them. Also I think the BOM seems to indicate that as well in it's use of the term.

The Book of Mormon does not use the word "exaltation." The idea of exaltation grew out of the Methodist idea of Christian perfection. Exaltation is the end result of sanctification, while the justified are saved, so long as they don't fall from grace. The Book of Mormon does talk a great deal about sanctification. Sanctification is a "second grace" that comes to true believers, when they live faithful lives, and gradually become perfected, until the day that they become like God (exalted).

[DBMormon]

I really expected this thread to generate a lot more buzz. I would have thought a discussion on Grace and Works taking into context all the above scriptures would have had a strong discussion with many contributors.

Cobalt - While I agree that the term Exhaltaion comes from Methodist concepts, I think there is a difference in LDS theology. The way I see it, there was a need to describe two different things going on in regards to Salvation. One being immortal and resurrected and the other to be glorified and live in the presence of GOD. I think in order to find terms to define these two things, LDS early leaders applied the word Salvation and the word exhaltation, yet it is obvious these words mean the same thing in some places and different ideas in others. Kind of like us calling The Savior Jesus and his answering to that name while in reality his name is Yashua or Joshua and jesus is a translated name attached to him.

Cobalt, If I can ask a personal Question.... what is your relationship to the church and with the church???

[Anakin7]

I am reminded of Hugh Nibley's statement - " Work we must but the lunch is Free".

In His Debt/Grace

Anakin7

LDS JEDI KNIGHT

[Calm]

I really expected this thread to generate a lot more buzz. I would have thought a discussion on Grace and Works taking into context all the above scriptures would have had a strong discussion with many contributors.

We have had a lot of past discussions on the general topic, 6 pages for a relatively noncontroversial subject, but more doctrinal isn't bad.

I have to admit that I think this is the first time I looked at the thread, having been occupied with other projects I'm not really in the mood for a serious discussion. Perhaps there are others like me, it is spring and time to clean house and get outside and enjoy life....get me in the middle of winter with this topic and if I am awake enough, I'll probably have something to say.

[davidkm]

I think there's a lot to learn from those not of the LDS faith who believe that grace is obtained through belief in Christ alone. I've been thinking recently of how I try hard to do my part and live as the Savior would like me to, but I that as a Latter-Day-Saint I rely too much on my own works and not enough on the Savior. I know both faith and works are necessary, but I am trying to find some middle-ground. I can quote the scriptures and perhaps even explain this concept well in doctrinal terms, but I'm really searching for practical application in my life right now.

And I've read the talk posted; it's a great one.

[zerinus]

I really expected this thread to generate a lot more buzz. I would have thought a discussion on Grace and Works taking into context all the above scriptures would have had a strong discussion with many contributors.

That is because your entire thread is agenda driven from top to bottom. It does not inspire people with the desire to want to participate.

[Storm Rider]

here I will also part ways somewhat.. as your kinda saying the same things. I see Moroni 10:32-33 as a eternal process. That the putting off of ungodliness may take more then this life to do. So with my not being perfect in this life and yet my goal is to be perfect somehwere down the road in the next, there must be growth in the hereafter. For there to be opportunity to grow, agency must still have some place... perhaps not sin but still a choice to choose positive growth or to turn it down, which in some sense may still be considered sin. We assume in LDS theology a short time span between judgement and glory and yet perhaps between spirit worls and judgement and then judgement and glory is an eternity to work out the kinks.

How can there be eternal progression without the freedom to regress if one chooses. If no chance to regress then the progression is forced? lack of agency?

You seem to equate eternal progression with personal progress or the same way that we progress in this life. You also introduce perfection as if it is a companion along this route. This conflicts with my understanding of the Atonement and Christ's gift of being a joint-heir with him. He makes us perfect; it is his Atonement that allows us to enter into the Father's presence. In a very real sense it is his perfection that makes us perfect; we become perfect through Christ.

We have little understanding of what the eternities will hold for each of us. I assume that we will have an eternitiy to experience all that our Father would have us experience; we would assist him in creation of other worlds, universes, all that he creates or not. Regardless of what we do; our "work" will glorify the Godhead.

The value of works is simply to reflect where are heart is; what is it that we value most. I am separating or at least keeping separate the work we accomplish in ordinances.

[DBMormon]

That is because your entire thread is agenda driven from top to bottom. It does not inspire people with the desire to want to participate.

I am still looking forward to your interpretation of the LDS.ORG definition and how it fits with your view. That would make a great discussion. You continiue to disagree but not deal with the scriptures or talks I am sharing. I am open to a better understanding but one can't ignore my point of view based on evidence and simply expect me to agree. I am eager to see your thoughts on what I share as well. You will need to deal with these if there is going to be a discussion.

You seem to equate eternal progression with personal progress or the same way that we progress in this life. You also introduce perfection as if it is a companion along this route. This conflicts with my understanding of the Atonement and Christ's gift of being a joint-heir with him. He makes us perfect; it is his Atonement that allows us to enter into the Father's presence. In a very real sense it is his perfection that makes us perfect; we become perfect through Christ.

We will never be perfect in this life, but can be perfected in Christ as we covenant with him. We do what we can (have faith, repent, and keep trying) and he does for us what we can not do. But in the eternity somewhere in the distance as we continue to with the grace og God to make more and more weaknesses strengths (ether 12:27; helamen 3:35; Moroni 10:32-33) we will eventually be perfect.... it may be a million years away but it will happen.

The value of works is simply to reflect where are heart is; what is it that we value most. I am separating or at least keeping separate the work we accomplish in ordinances.

agreed. I don't see ordinances as works but rather specific moments in time where we yielded our hearts to God

[DBMormon]

In his talk Bro. Brad Wilcox says the following

Elder Dallin H. Oaks has said, referring to President Spencer W. Kimball’s explanation, “The repenting sinner must suffer for his sins, but this suffering has a different purpose than punishment or payment. Its purpose is change”

“A life impacted by grace eventually begins to look like Christ’s life.”

“While many Christians view Christ’s suffering as only a huge favor He did for us, Latter-day Saints also recognize it as a huge investment He made in us.”

As Moroni puts it, grace isn’t just about being saved. It is also about becoming like the Savior.

In the past I had a picture in my mind of what the final judgment would be like, and it went something like this: Jesus standing there with a clipboard and Brad standing on the other side of the room nervously looking at Jesus.

Jesus checks His clipboard and says, “Oh, shoot, Brad. You missed it by two points.”

Brad begs Jesus, “Please, check the essay question one more time! There have to be two points you can squeeze out of that essay.” That’s how I always saw it.

But the older I get, and the more I understand this wonderful plan of redemption, the more I realize that in the final judgment it will not be the unrepentant sinner begging Jesus, “Let me stay.” No, he will probably be saying, “Get me out of here!” Knowing Christ’s character, I believe that if anyone is going to be begging on that occasion, it would probably be Jesus begging the unrepentant sinner, “Please, choose to stay. Please, use my Atonement—not just to be cleansed but to be changed so that you want to stay.”

In all of these cases there should never be just two options: perfection or giving up. When learning the piano, are the only options performing at Carnegie Hall or quitting? No. Growth and development take time. Learning takes time. When we understand grace, we understand that God is long-suffering, that change is a process, and that repentance is a pattern in our lives. When we understand grace, we understand that the blessings of Christ’s Atonement are continuous and His strength is perfect in our weakness (see 2 Corinthians 12:9). When we understand grace, we can, as it says in the Doctrine and Covenants, “continue in patience until [we] are perfected” (D&C 67:13).

I think this is so important for others to see, that I have been adament in posting all this. I am open to other views but they must reconcile the scriptures and talks given in the OP of this thread. We don't transform ourselves... Christ through his grace makes our weaknesses strengths...thereby with our willing heart transforms and perfects us.

Edited May 15, 2012 by reelmormon

[zerinus]

In his talk Bro. Brad Wilcox says the following

<snip>

I think this is so important for others to see, that I have been adament in posting all this. I am open to other views but they must reconcile the scriptures and talks given in the OP of this thread. We don't transform ourselves... Christ through his grace makes our weaknesses strengths...thereby with our willing heart transforms and perfects us.

Why do you think that is "important" to me? I don't think it is important to me at all. I decide what is important to me, not you.

[DBMormon]

Welcome back Zerinus, still curious on your thoughts on the LDS.ORG definition on GRACE?

looking forward to your input.

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?locale=0&sourceId=679f2f2324d98010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&vgnextoid=bbd508f54922d010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD

[Cobalt-70]

Cobalt - While I agree that the term Exhaltaion comes from Methodist concepts, I think there is a difference in LDS theology. The way I see it, there was a need to describe two different things going on in regards to Salvation. One being immortal and resurrected and the other to be glorified and live in the presence of GOD. I think in order to find terms to define these two things, LDS early leaders applied the word Salvation and the word exhaltation, yet it is obvious these words mean the same thing in some places and different ideas in others. Kind of like us calling The Savior Jesus and his answering to that name while in reality his name is Yashua or Joshua and jesus is a translated name attached to him.

I don't think the word "exaltation" appears in this sense until D&C 132 (1843). At least I'm not aware of any such reference prior to that.

But there was always a very Methodist distinction between justification and sanctification. That distinction is clear in the Book of Mormon and in the church's 1830 "Constitution" (now D&C 20). These early documents teach that justification comes through grace to all those with enough faith to repent and be baptized. Thereafter, sanctification comes gradually to those who obey the will of God and do good works throughout their lives. Anyone who is justified will be saved as long as they endure to the end in faith, but it is possible to "fall from grace." Anyone who is not justified, on the other hand, would be eternally damned.

D&C 19 (1830) and 76 (1832) tweaked that formula a little. According to these documents, everyone would eventually be justified and saved in a heaven glorious beyond imagination, except the sons of Perdition, who would be eternally damned. However, only the sanctified--the Melchizedek priests (76:56-57)--would merit the highest glory. This was like a mixture of Methodism and universalism. There is no indication in these documents that either justification or sanctification comes through any means other than through the grace of Jesus.

By late 1832, however, Smith started down a more gnostic path that dramatically departed from the earlier theology. In D&C 88, "sanctification" became more metaphysical. Bodies would be physically "sanctified" and made glorious at the resurrection, and even the earth itself would be physically "sanctified." Moreover, justification and sanctification happened on a "per-kingdom" basis. It wasn't the case anymore that only those in the Celestial kingdom were sanctified. If you were justified by Celestial law, you would become sanctified by Celestial glory. If you were justified by Terrestrial law, you would become sanctified by Terrestrial glory, etc. (88:29-31). Smith also introduced a hierarchy of sub-Terrestrial kingdoms (88:24, 32), each with their own law. Salvation was no longer a matter of God judging you and assigning you your fate. Rather, you became part of the kingdom which had the law in which you were willing to obey (88:32).

While I don't think that D&C 88 did away with the doctrine of grace, I do think that Smith re-framed the doctrine of grace within a more gnostic context. D&C 88 says that we are sanctified by the "law" of the kingdom in which we dwell (v. 33-34). That doesn't mean "salvation by works," however, because the "law" is transmitted to all kingdoms by the gnostic "light of Christ" (88:13) and therefore this "light" is ultimately a manifestation of God's grace.

So I think that the doctrine of salvation by grace survived D&C 88, just through a more gnostic mechanism. So if you accept the light/law of a particular kingdom, you would be justified in that kingdom, and by obedience you would become sanctified by the laws of that kingdom (88:35-39) via a gnostic transmission of God's grace.

Cobalt, If I can ask a personal Question.... what is your relationship to the church and with the church???

I'm a very active member. You could describe me as a "Greg Prince Mormon": active and enthusiastic, but not really an apologist for the flaws of the church and its leaders.

[DBMormon]

Thereafter, sanctification comes gradually to those who obey the will of God and do good works throughout their lives

Helaman 3:35 - "sanctification cometh because of their yielding their hearts unto God"

nothing about what we do but rather where our heart is, what we are willing to do.

You imply that we obey God on our own and do good works on our own..... I completely agree we must do those but that this process occurs through God's grace as well?

Let me ask who makes your weakness become a strength? Ether 12:27

Whose strength is made perfect in weakness? 2nd COR 12:9

I can do all things through ____?____ who strengthenth me. Phillipians 4:13

Scripture tells us the answer to all three questions is Christ. So how am to obey god? How am I to do Good works? How am I to overcome my flaws? through Christ .... not by my willpower.... but by his power.

I have never disagreed on the requirements, just hoping others see that it is through Christ's Grace and our willingness that the long slow process of sanctification takes place where through his grace we eventually become perfected. Christ gives us the added strength and the enabling power to overcome all things and to do all things if we acknowledge him and yoke with him, lean on him, rely wholly upon him. We can do nothing of ourselves but break commandments and fall short... Not that we can't do any good, not that we can will some good choices along the way, just that no amount of good pays the debt or makes up for just one sin. God doesn't require perfection. He requires a broken heart and contrite spirit and as we humble ourselves and yield to him, his grace enables us to improve to move forward and be better then we were working towards perfection.

Justification/sanctification = Cleansed/Changed

Edited May 15, 2012 by reelmormon

[DBMormon]

Cobalt, enjoyed your thread on Sola Fide.... I think you and I likely have a lot of common ground

[zerinus]

Welcome back Zerinus, still curious on your thoughts on the LDS.ORG definition on GRACE?

looking forward to your input.

http://www.lds.org/l...0004d82620aRCRD

I have nothing to say about the LDS.ORG definition of grace. What did you want me to say about it?

[DBMormon]

Zerinus,

your replies seem a lot to me like your ignoring valid points and simply pretending they are not there.

You do see that others will see this too? you dissagree so vehemently with my position on Grace as shown in some of the critical words you have used in assuming who I am, yet you seem unable to deal with evidence that supports my view.

I was hoping you would respond to the contrast of your view that one must keep the commandments perfectly while the church seems to offcially state salvation is connected to the trying or effort. I believe there is a case to make of being saved after all we can do, but one must also deal with those stating his Grace is Suffcient and the value in the effort along with Salvation and Exhaltation being the same thing on this subject.

Almost seems like a immature scorched earth policy is what I keep getting..... here is hoping you hold some ground

Edited May 16, 2012 by reelmormon

[Log]

However, only the sanctified--the Melchizedek priests (76:56-57)--would merit the highest glory.

How curious. I wanted to give you a rep point for this sentence alone - because it caused me to consider what it meant for one who has been ordained to the Melchizedek priesthood to become fully sanctified, and a reason why one holding that priesthood might not qualify for sanctification.

However, I also wanted to deduct rep points for the three other sentences containing the word "gnostic," a buzzword with little-to-no content, which would leave you at -2.

Edited May 16, 2012 by Log

[zerinus]

Zerinus,

your replies seem a lot to me like your ignoring valid points and simply pretending they are not there.

You do see that others will see this too? you dissagree so vehemently with my position on Grace as shown in some of the critical words you have used in assuming who I am, yet you seem unable to deal with evidence that supports my view.

I was hoping you would respond to the contrast of your view that one must keep the commandments perfectly while the church seems to offcially state salvation is connected to the trying or effort. I believe there is a case to make of being saved after all we can do, but one must also deal with those stating his Grace is Suffcient and the value in the effort along with Salvation and Exhaltation being the same thing on this subject.

Almost seems like a immature scorched earth policy is what I keep getting..... here is hoping you hold some ground

That is because you keep shifting your ground, trying to drive home your peculiar agenda, thinking that people don't notice. But you are wrong. People do notice. Anybody can read through this thread, and find out for themselves how the discussion went.

You did not reply to my previous post. Why do you think that is "important" to me? I don't think it is important to me. Why do you think it is?

You need too cool down.

[CV75]

I have a bunch more, but we will start there.

I didn't look at the video, but I think the Church (perhaps more correctly, the Gift of the Holy Ghost that we have) teaches that grace, mercy and works, regardles of who displays them, are tied together as manifestations of God's love (charity), the overarching principle of the Gospel, work and glory. This is how 2 Nephi 25:23 makes sense. God's love saves us, and our love is reflected and expressed in all we can do. We pray for charity so that we can reconcile His love and our love through Christ's atonement. Yes, I've heard in General Conference that we don't / may not teach it enough; I don't think this is a criticism or recognition of a failure (or an Apostle's "opinion"); I think it is a correct observation that the principle can never be taught enough, or in other words, we can not get too close to the Spirit in understanding this matter.