Can Only Latter-Day Saints Access God'S Grace

[DBMormon]

You err, as I have pointed out directly from the teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith. You need to rely upon what he has taught, rather that pull out your little helps out of context from various sources. This is really core and fundamental LDS. doctrine. A lot don't like it, and are troubled by the exclusive claim the Church makes. There are some on this board. You are one of them. But in my view such persons are not in harmony with the Brethren or in fellowship with the Saints.

Quote

I am ok with being a fast talking saleman with bad grammar, an apostate bishop, whose theology is wrong and closer to that of the Evangelicals as stated by 3-5 individuals here. Honestly I can live with that.

When I was in the priesthood structure, I would hear people in church meetings sometimes say that a Terrestial kingdom approach to life is the best that some can handle. But Jesus opens his arms even to you to repent and submit yourself to His will.

Then I am better off being an apostate in your mind. You have just discounted billions of people because they don't run to the church in this life.

I am asking this in a kind tone. Let's agree to disagree. I can not come to believe a theology you propose. I can't do it. I can't believe a God who measures people by outward behavior... My God looketh on the heart. That is where Is stand and while you may feel that is a dangerous place to be, I am using my agency and standing there. I don't believe the LDS church stands on the explanation you have given (my opinion, yes)

[T-Shirt]

In my understanding, The LDS member could easily be said to be Terrestrial Material while the Lutheran is Celestial. Yet he has turned down the church (in this life), and has not received the ordinances.

Simply put, exaltation requires two things, living the words of Christ, and authorized ordinances. I suppose there will be those who have the authorized ordinances, but lack the Christlike living, who do not qualify for exaltation, but by the same token, the Christlike individual cannot leapfrog the ordinances, he will need them at some point. Your theory about the hypothetical Lutheran, essentially, renders the ordinances useless.

[Bob Crockett]

Then I am better off being an apostate in your mind. You have just discounted billions of people because they don't run to the church in this life.

You basically say things the way you want them said, rather than read what I have said to you. When it comes to the need for the ordinances, death is not the dividing line. Judgment day is the dividing line. So your phrase "because they don't run to the church in this life" has nothing to do what I've said thus far.

You quoted me something from Elder McConkie. I think you misunderstand him, but before discussing his views, I beg you to take each one of the quotes I've given you from the Prophet Joseph Smith and tell me if you agree or disagree with them.

Simply put, exaltation requires two things, living the words of Christ, and authorized ordinances. I suppose there will be those who have the authorized ordinances, but lack the Christlike living, who do not qualify for exaltation, but by the same token, the Christlike individual cannot leapfrog the ordinances, he will need them at some point. Your theory about the hypothetical Lutheran, essentially, renders the ordinances useless.

What this poster, T-Shirt, says, is as succinct as Church doctrine is on this point. I know the exclusivity of the Church is hard to take, but it was that very doctrine that led so many saints into the Gospel in Joseph Smiths' day. The Church is not a social club, or another good faith, or another means to make a name for one's self. It claims the exclusive right to show people how to merit God's grace, in this life and the next.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[CV75]

But it is not a way to excuse Paul's use of it in the New Testament. So, I stand corrected and was wrong, there are more then one way to use salvation, though it doesn't correct the incorrect loophole that this issue tries to fit through.

Where is the loophole in this (already posted but likely lost in the sauce):

I don’t see how they disagree. From the article: “…the term salvation as used in the scriptures does not mean physical resurrection alone. As Elder Bruce R. McConkie has pointed out, salvation is synonymous with exaltation…” So the scriptures do refer to both kinds of salvation (physical resurrection and exaltation), and according to McConkie, exaltation being the “true and full meaning... With few exceptions this is the salvation of which the scriptures speak.” So there are scriptural exceptions to the use of the word "salvation" as "exaltation" and as long as there are, there are more than one variety, and I think the argument can be made that tehre are many kinds of salvation.

Where grace is fundamental to salvation, it follows that grace is required for both resurrection and exaltation, demonstrating grace unto salvation and a grace unto exaltation. This makes sense because the Atonement, the ultimate expression of God's grace, brings about both conditions. As long as both salvation and exaltation are offered, we have at least two levels of grace. One is tied in with our works, and the other is tied only to the Savior’s work.

Granted, you may see one grace, but others can see its application on many levels, as in the term “grace for grace” until we "receive of His fulness and of His grace."

[DBMormon]

The point of the Elder Lund's article is that many LDS try to justify that Paul's "believe and be saved" is out of harmony with the Doctrine. He shows the ways we explain it away and teaches that these are not sufficient. That indeed Paul's use of Saved or Salvation is exhaltation.

I agree

Works have value - but only in that they demonstrate our inner commitment and desires. By themselves - they have no value toward salvation. they allow us to learn godly attributes and gain experience and to become more Christlike

We are required to keep the commandments, though not in having merit towards our salvation but rather to give us path that by obeying leads us to being refined and heading towards Christ. If there were no commandments there would be little growth and self reflection.

Ordinances are necessary - but they have no merit by themselves. It is the inner making and keeping of a covenant that has the value. The ordinance itself is the outward action that implies an inward commitment. It is symbolic of what is going on inwardly. Does it have to take place... yes (this life or the next) but only as a submission inwardly to God's plan and gospel.

[DBMormon]

Simply put, exaltation requires two things, living the words of Christ, and authorized ordinances. I suppose there will be those who have the authorized ordinances, but lack the Christlike living, who do not qualify for exaltation, but by the same token, the Christlike individual cannot leapfrog the ordinances, he will need them at some point. Your theory about the hypothetical Lutheran, essentially, renders the ordinances useless.

First I completely agree with all you wrote but the last sentence. And the last sentence does not take into consideration that I believe that same Lutheran once on the other side will happily accept the ordinances of the Lord he loved and worshiped sincerely in this life. If he accepts them, he will be exhalted.

[DBMormon]

Where is the loophole in this (already posted but likely lost in the sauce):

I don’t see how they disagree. From the article: “…the term salvation as used in the scriptures does not mean physical resurrection alone. As Elder Bruce R. McConkie has pointed out, salvation is synonymous with exaltation…” So the scriptures do refer to both kinds of salvation (physical resurrection and exaltation), and according to McConkie, exaltation being the “true and full meaning... With few exceptions this is the salvation of which the scriptures speak.” So there are scriptural exceptions to the use of the word "salvation" as "exaltation" and as long as there are, there are more than one variety, and I think the argument can be made that tehre are many kinds of salvation.

Where grace is fundamental to salvation, it follows that grace is required for both resurrection and exaltation, demonstrating grace unto salvation and a grace unto exaltation. This makes sense because the Atonement, the ultimate expression of God's grace, brings about both conditions. As long as both salvation and exaltation are offered, we have at least two levels of grace. One is tied in with our works, and the other is tied only to the Savior’s work.

Granted, you may see one grace, but others can see its application on many levels, as in the term “grace for grace” until we "receive of His fulness and of His grace."

to me grace for grace is one being enabled by grace to change and then again to change more. So maybe we are saying the same thing maybe not.

[DBMormon]

This battle as to whether ordinances are salvific or not has been fought and won many times before (Augustine/Pelagius, Luther/Eck). As Joseph Smith taught with regard to baptism, there is "no other ordinance admitted, whereby men could be saved." (Teachings, p. 264.)

Only the LDS Ordinances are authorized. That i agree. Also this is a manual not a GA directly speaking. I would need to read in context.

Regarding the ordinances of God, "nothing will save a man but a legal administrator [of the ordinances]; for none others will be acknowledged either by God or angels." Teachings, p. 274.

Other faiths ordinances are not authorized - I agree - This church has the sanctioned ordinances - again want to see in context

As Joseph Smith pointed out, quoting from the OT, the people of God have "departed from his ordinances." "He is not a doer of God's will, not a fulfiller of His laws." Teachings, p. 253.

Correct, one who truly loves god will accept his ordinances once they they have a testimony it comes from him.

One cannot be born of God without the ordinances. "Being born again comes by the Spirit of God through ordinances." Teachings, p. 162.

Through the ordinance or covenants of the gospel one enters the straight and narrow path of the gospel. Through the baptismal ordinance one enters the gospel covenant. I agree. Grace can come in before that and this covenant can happen in this life or the next.

[Bob Crockett]

Well, Mr. Reel, I could agree with everything you say too if I restated it to my liking. I didn't ask you whether you could restate Joseph Smith's teachings to your liking. I asked you if you agreed with what he said. (What is the deal with disparaging what he said because it is in a manual? I don't get that. Aren't manuals authoritative?)

"Grace can come in before that" you say? Sure thing, Mr. Reel. Under LDS doctrine, salvific grace comes at judgment day and not before.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

In another thread the following question and statement were made by another poster?

My followup question was

1.) Do only baptized LDS have access to God's Grace?

2.) Does one have to receive ordinances to have God's enabling power work in their lives?

3.) Is Grace a blessing of the atonement not available to non-members? what about non-Christians?

If we are supposed to be his children, then no...all can have his grace.

[DBMormon]

Well, Brother Crocket

Since from Day One you have taken an uncalled tone (which I have happily thrown back at you), mocked my fat fingers hitting wrong keys and my illiterate mis-spelled words, minimized my membership in the church,

and accused me of several other issues.... and now I am no longer even spoken to as your brother in Christ, but rather as Mr. Reel which obviously is done for dramatics.

You obviously have not taken one chance to be kind or cordial, so unfortunately you have lost my attention . Good luck and God Bless.

[CV75]

Paul's use of Saved or Salvation is exhaltation.

If that is where you are coming from, your OP questions would have been more appropriately phrased as:

"Using Paul’s use of the word “saved” or “salvation” and addressing the role of grace in each:

1. Are only baptized LDS exalted?

2. Does one have to receive ordinances to be exalted?

3. Is exaltation a blessing of the atonement not available to non-members? What about non-Christians?"

Otherwise you set up and then penalize LDS for having an understanding of salvation that goes beyond Paul's use of the word, by excluding from assumption any other LDS revelations and teachings.

To which I would answer:

Q1: No, baptized LDS are only exalted after receiving and keeping all other commandments. Grace is the enabling power, given of Christ by virtue of His atonement, to those that have faith in Him, which permits God’s children to receive and keep these ordinances and covenants and be exalted.

Q2: Yes, either in this world or the post-mortal spirit world (at which point they are, for all intents and purposes, LDS). Grace is the enabling power, given of Christ by virtue of His atonement, to those that have faith in Him, which permits God’s children to receive and keep these ordinances and covenants and be exalted.

Q3: Exaltation is available (extended) to all. Grace is the enabling power, offered of Christ by virtue of His atonement to all that they might have faith in Him, which permits God’s children to receive and keep these ordinances and covenants and be exalted.

[CV75]

to me grace for grace is one being enabled by grace to change and then again to change more. So maybe we are saying the same thing maybe not.

I will leave it to you to ponder that!

[Bob Crockett]

Well, Brother Crocket

Since from Day One you have taken an uncalled tone (which I have happily thrown back at you), mocked my fat fingers hitting wrong keys and my illiterate mis-spelled words, minimized my membership in the church,

and accused me of several other issues.... and now I am no longer even spoken to as your brother in Christ, but rather as Mr. Reel which obviously is done for dramatics.

You obviously have not taken one chance to be kind or cordial, so unfortunately you have lost my attention . Good luck and God Bless.

Well, you made me apologize before by PM and I apologize again. Seems though that there ought to be room for criticism without getting feelings hurt.

I think the only really serious thing I've said about you is that I have my doubts that your appearance on the John Dehlin Show received applause from bishops and stake presidents in your stake, but I have no way of course of contesting that without calling your SP, which I have zero interest in doing.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Bob Crockett

[Buckeye]

I think the only really serious thing I've said about you is that I have my doubts that your appearance on the John Dehlin Show received applause from bishops and stake presidents in your stake, but I have no way of course of contesting that without calling your SP, which I have zero interest in doing.

Bob,

I am in Bishop Reel's Stake. I can vouch that his appearance on Mormon Stories received "applause" from at least one bishop. I can't speak as to applause from the Stake President, but I do know that both he and the bishops in the stake all think very highly of Bishop Reel.

[DBMormon]

Well, you made me apologize before by PM and I apologize again. Seems though that there ought to be room for criticism without getting feelings hurt.

I think the only really serious thing I've said about you is that I have my doubts that your appearance on the John Dehlin Show received applause from bishops and stake presidents in your stake, but I have no way of course of contesting that without calling your SP, which I have zero interest in doing.

I said several outside my stake thanked me along with some inside my stake

For every person who has been critical like you, I have had Bishops and stake presidents both in and out of my stake write me or notify me of how grateful they were for my interview and how well they thought I did. Personally your opinon matters very little. Do I make mistakes... yep. But I count their opinion ten-fold over yours.

The stake president who thanked me came from outside my stake

[ERayR]

1.) Do only baptized LDS have access to God's Grace?

2.) Does one have to receive ordinances to have God's enabling power work in their lives?

3.) Is Grace a blessing of the atonement not available to non-members? what about non-Christians?

Now I have more time let me revisit your 3 questions:

1) The answer is no. All partake of the Grace of God through resurrection. To receive of the fullness of his grace they must be baptized as a member of Christs church. If they are living that would be COJCOLDS. If they are deceased when administered it is not designated as the COJCOLDS.

2) The answer is no. God's enabling power can work in ones life in many ways. However to be exalted one must receive the saving ordinances administered by one having authority.

3)The answer is no. Resurrection is available to all through the grace of God. However, resurrection is only the beginning. To go any further one must partake of the saving ordinances.

Edited September 6, 2012 by ERayR

[DBMormon]

Buckeye - Thank you.....

[Bob Crockett]

Bob,

I am in Bishop Reel's Stake. I can vouch that his appearance on Mormon Stories received "applause" from at least one bishop. I can't speak as to applause from the Stake President, but I do know that both he and the bishops in the stake all think very highly of Bishop Reel.

Well, will wonders never cease.

[ERayR]

Bob,

I am in Bishop Reel's Stake. I can vouch that his appearance on Mormon Stories received "applause" from at least one bishop. I can't speak as to applause from the Stake President, but I do know that both he and the bishops in the stake all think very highly of Bishop Reel.

And this is important to the discussion, why?

[Buckeye]

And this is important to the discussion, why?

My personal knowledge serves to support DBMormon's factual assertion that his appearance on MS was well received. I'm not sure why anyone would doubt that, but I can confirm it.

[Buckeye]

Well, will wonders never cease.

Not so long as God continues to work through man.

[ERayR]

My personal knowledge serves to support DBMormon's factual assertion that his appearance on MS was well received. I'm not sure why anyone would doubt that, but I can confirm it.

It depends. It may have been well received within a limited population but by expanding the population that may change. You name only one stake president. In a population of one stake president that would be "well received". However, there are over 2,900 stakes in the church. In a population of 2,900 it may well be that it would not be well received. With bishops it may be even more problematic as there are over 21,000 bishops. Do you see the problem?

[Buckeye]

It depends. It may have been well received within a limited population but by expanding the population that may change. You name only one stake president. In a population of one stake president that would be "well received". However, there are over 2,900 stakes in the church. In a population of 2,900 it may well be that it would not be well received. With bishops it may be even more problematic as there are over 21,000 bishops. Do you see the problem?

Good grief. All I was doing was backing up DBMormon's statement that some church members appreciated his appearance. Neither he nor I claimed that most or all church leaders did so. I would be surprised if more than 50 stake presidents and bishops have even listened to the interview.

[DBMormon]

Buckeye... you have to catch on.... rather then apoligize and say Sorry I doubted you, my mistake.... it is easier to deflect accountability, create new branches of discussion, and mock you as the fool for even speaking up.

You should know this by now.