Brad Wilcox'S View On Grace

[Bob Crockett]

I think of all the "Especially for Mormons" genre, that is my most hated one.

I would much rather hear a speaker weep over Peter's denial of Christ rather than the train switch parable.

[Yep]

If it's done within the context of a relationship with God. What I mean is the scripture states, "every knee will bow..." but that doesn't mean everyone will be in Heaven.

From an LDS perspective I don't believe this is true, people must decide to not go to Heaven. The lowest glory of the Telestial is still in Heaven. From an LDS perspective everyone who does not willingly rebel goes to Heaven, regardless of the relationship.

Now, degrees of glory are determined by works and attitude/intent/etc... the "relationship" as it were.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Yep

[Bob Crockett]

Now, degrees of glory are determined by works and attitude/intent/etc... the "relationship" as it were.

That is true. St. Augustine was forced to concede that the sacraments (ordinances) of the church were necessary works. One had to work to get baptized (well, one's parents) and one had to engage in the works of confession and Mass to be saved. Otherwise he invented the fictional doctrine that works play no role in meriting God's covenant with us at baptism.

Think about it. Bro Reel gives us the evangelical position that works can't be meritorious. Yet, when we were baptized, God made a covenant with us that if we kept his commandments we'd be saved. A covenant is a legal deal where something happens if you do your part. If I pay 100k I get the property. Sounds like works have meaning. Real meaning, not just lip service.

[DBMormon]

That is true. St. Augustine was forced to concede that the sacraments (ordinances) of the church were necessary works. One had to work to get baptized (well, one's parents) and one had to engage in the works of confession and Mass to be saved. Otherwise he invented the fictional doctrine that works play no role in meriting God's covenant with us at baptism.

Think about it. Bro Reel gives us the evangelical position that works can't be meritorious. Yet, when we were baptized, God made a covenant with us that if we kept his commandments we'd be saved. A covenant is a legal deal where something happens if you do your part. If I pay 100k I get the property. Sounds like works have meaning. Real meaning, not just lip service.

We promise to keep the commandments but his side of the agreement is that we are wiling. Check out Mosiah 18 and the bread prayer vs water prayer

"O God, the Eternal Father, we ask thee in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ, to bless and sanctify this bread to the souls of all those who partake of it; that they may eat in remembrance of the body of thy Son, and witness unto thee, O God, the Eternal Father, that they are willing to take upon them the name of thy Son, and always remember him, and keep his commandments which he has^[3] given them, that they may always have his Spirit to be with them. Amen." (Book of Moroni 4:3, Doctrine and Covenants 20:77)

Every week I promise to be willing - and I am.

If my promise was to keep the commandments and if I do he promises his spirit, well, unfortunately, i'll fail before the day is out and he no longer is bound. But if I promise to be willing as the prayer says to do these three things. Now all he holds me to is that I keep trying... weird it matches this as well

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

Because of personal choices, everyone also experiences the effects of sin (see 1 John 1:8–10; Mosiah 16:4). These effects are called spiritual death. No one can return to the presence of God without divine grace. Through the Atonement, we all can be forgiven of our sins; we can become clean before God. To receive this enabling power, we must obey the gospel of Jesus Christ, which includes having faith in Him, repenting of our sins, being baptized, receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost, and trying to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ for the rest of our lives (see Ephesians 2:8–9; James 2:17–22; 2 Nephi 25:23; 31:20

While some leaders have spoken in ways that places absolutes on keeping the commandments, others do not. I do need to keep the commandments perfectly and that will happen at some point as I keep heading that way, but it is not an absolute requirement this moment - Instead he ask that I be willing and trying and pressing forward towards it.

A prophet is only a prophet when speaking as such so when I see some teachings that on the surface seem in conflict I then decide based on the Holy Ghost. I do not take every leader at his word nor am I supposed to.

At the same time it should be remembered that not every statement made by a Church leader, past or present, necessarily constitutes doctrine. It is commonly understood in the Church that a statement made by one leader on a single occasion often represents a personal, though well-considered, opinion, not meant to be official or binding for the whole Church. The Prophet Joseph Smith taught that “a prophet [is] a prophet only when he [is] acting as such.”⁵

But I am not even sure there is a conflict. They say we must keep the commandments. We must, but it is not something we will be perfect at here or God demands this moment and if we die before getting there then we lose out. We must get there though and be heading that way and doing so with a continuous effort.

Elder Maxwell said

"Now may I speak . . . to those buffeted by false insecurity, who, though laboring devotedly in the Kingdom, have recurring feelings of falling forever short. . . .

. . . This feeling of inadequacy is . . . normal. There is no way the Church can honestly describe where we must yet go and what we must yet do without creating a sense of immense distance. . . .

. . . This is a gospel of grand expectations, but God’s grace is sufficient for each of us. [CR, October 1976, 14, 16; “Notwithstanding My Weakness,” Ensign, November 1976, 12, 14

I am all for obedience and God requires it. Agreed but "why" so that we will make the effort to become like him. Football Coaches require practice, but not because Practice literally wins the game, but rather it prepares us and conditions us to meet the goal.

Edited May 11, 2013 by DBMormon

[Bob Crockett]

It is interesting that you would respond by indicating that Joseph Smith may not be speaking as a prophet or that what he says may not be doctrine. But I'm citing to and quoting from the current RS and Priesthood manual. I've never seen Bro. Wilcox quoted in that manual.

I refer you to the Church's website. One cannot be saved without keeping the commandments. http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/commandments-of-god?lang=eng. Seems mandatory. No authority in the church you've cited seems to say otherwise. Bro. Wilcox is not an authority.

People make errors in doctrine all the time and I don't really care a whit. There is a lot of room for private tomfoolery. But it becomes a matter of public discussion when we see somebody like Bishop Kloosterman flying to Salt Lake to speak at an apostate conference and note that he is a current bishop.

[Tacenda]

It is interesting that you would respond by indicating that Joseph Smith may not be speaking as a prophet or that what he says may not be doctrine. But I'm citing to and quoting from the current RS and Priesthood manual. I've never seen Bro. Wilcox quoted in that manual.

I refer you to the Church's website. One cannot be saved without keeping the commandments. http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/commandments-of-god?lang=eng. Seems mandatory. No authority in the church you've cited seems to say otherwise. Bro. Wilcox is not an authority.

People make errors in doctrine all the time and I don't really care a whit. There is a lot of room for private tomfoolery. But it becomes a matter of public discussion when we see somebody like Bishop Kloosterman flying to Salt Lake to speak at an apostate conference and note that he is a current bishop.

For a lawyer you sure get facts wrong alot. Maybe you're talking about DB, he's a current bishop. But Kloosterman is not.

ETA: Oops, sorry Bob, you're right, DB informed me that he was a bishop when he flew to SLC. In my head it was the recent Mormon's in Middle conference. I need to learn to get my facts right now.

Edited May 11, 2013 by Tacenda

[DBMormon]

It is interesting that you would respond by indicating that Joseph Smith may not be speaking as a prophet or that what he says may not be doctrine. But I'm citing to and quoting from the current RS and Priesthood manual. I've never seen Bro. Wilcox quoted in that manual.

I refer you to the Church's website. One cannot be saved without keeping the commandments. http://www.lds.org/scriptures/gs/commandments-of-god?lang=eng. Seems mandatory. No authority in the church you've cited seems to say otherwise. Bro. Wilcox is not an authority.

People make errors in doctrine all the time and I don't really care a whit. There is a lot of room for private tomfoolery. But it becomes a matter of public discussion when we see somebody like Bishop Kloosterman flying to Salt Lake to speak at an apostate conference and note that he is a current bishop.

Bob - let me be clear as your mis quoting me again. I have never said one does not need to keep commandments. I have simply said that God does not consider me and others unworthy of the celestial kingdom becasuse we are not keeping them perfectly right now.

If keeping the commandments perfectly is the standard and anyone who doesn't is out, then there may only be a handful in the Celestial Kingdom.

Also I wasn't referring to Joseph but to Elder Oak's talk. I do not automatically accept that a prophet or an apostle necessarily knows more about a principle or doctrine then a lay member. Their Testimony is special not necessarily their grasp of every single gospel principle. I can cite examples if needed.

Where do I say one must not keep commandments? CFR. I have said yes we must head there, we must improve, and eventually into the eternities we will lay hold on it if we continue in that direction. But If I fall short of doing so in the here and now I am assured to miss out on Celestial Glory? No one makes it.

If Only complete obedience and commandment keeping allows me to inherit Celestial Glory, there may be between 3 and 12 people there. In the end I can't do it anyway without his grace.

Do you keep all the Commandments Bob? all of them? Assuming you answered no, if you die today are you out of luck, not ever going to see the Celestial kingdom?

if you answered there is still hope, then you have acknowledged that for those who do not keep the commandments perfectly but who continue to try that there is still a chance and commandment keeping is not the end all be all in the here and now.

Alma 22:14 14 And since man had fallen he could not merit anything of himself; but the sufferings and death of Christ atone for their sins, through faith and repentance, and so forth; and that he breaketh the bands of death, that the grave shall have no victory, and that the sting of death should be swallowed up in the hopes of glory; and Aaron did expound all these things unto the king.

faith and repentance shows willingness but this same person obviously does not keep all the commandments. If they did, they wouldn't need to repent.

Does Pres. Monson still repent? sure he does. Therefore he is not keeping all the commandments. Darn, he missed it.

Did Joseph make serious mistakes that the Lord decided to call him to repentance in scripture? yep - darn he missed it.

Your arguing whether I think keeping the commandments are required? your building a strawman. I freely admit they are required. I simply see the why much differently. I see a loving Father in Heaven who wants nothing more then for us to reach our potential to be like him. He gave the gospel and commandments for us to have structure to provide experiences and refining exercises that will shape us and help us to become like him. He didn't set a bar so that many would miss it, he set a bar so people would push towards it.

You seem to assume that Bro. Wilcox is teaching a false concept - yet his view made it into a church magazine. Why don't you write an article sharing your view and see if they print it. Also CFR about what in his view is false or incorrect?

you also say no general authority espuses the view I do

Elder Holland - I know that there is no other name given under heaven whereby a man can be saved and that only by relying wholly upon His merits, mercy, and everlasting grace¹⁹ can we gain eternal life.

I quoted Elder Maxwell already

Elder McConkie " Salvation is not in works—not even in those revealed of God—but in Christ and his atonement.

Elder Oaks - “The repenting sinner must suffer for his sins, but this suffering has a different purpose than punishment or payment. Its purpose is change”

Elder Dallin H. Oaks (The Lord’s Way [salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1991],

Your focused on the works and I am focused on the change. If someone is changing, I am happy with progress. Eventually they will get there.

You see commandment keeping as the door to eternal life and I see it as the exercise that puts us in shape to be Christlike.

Still waiting for you to be specific about what I am saying that is false. Please quote me rather then summarize what I am saying as you seem to mis-summarize me

By the way I have CFR'd you about 2 dozen time in all our communication and don't think you have once responded to any of them specifically.

Edited May 11, 2013 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

For a lawyer you sure get facts wrong alot. Maybe you're talking about DB, he's a current bishop. But Kloosterman is not.

When he went to Utah he was a current Bishop

[danielwoods]

And you cannot form that connection without responding with deeds.

Right, the connection is formed first and our heart is changed and as a result so are our actions or deeds.

[danielwoods]

Nice and precise.

An analogy--a marriage relationship isn't in place until both say "I do".

Not sure it is worth disputing, but the relationship (a couple in love) is already established before the "i do's". All the ceremony does is proclaim to everyone else what already exists in their hearts. The ceremony doesn't make the relationship.

[danielwoods]

required to become Christlike which is a requirement to be Celestial. How can we become like Christ if we do not do the works he does or at least be willing and trying to be like him and keep trying no matter how slow the progress. I don't feel there is a bar where so many works gets us in. I also see room for folks whose works are not outward, but inward the mighty change is happening and it just is not apparent to themselves or those observing. But if we have Christ's grace, it is the enabling power of Christ helping us to do and become what we otherwise can't on our own. And as we add Grace for Grace, we will improve, we will do more, we will be better. The difference is I see no bar, I simply press forward with steadfastness yielding my heart to Christ and his Grace is helping me to improve. I do not concern myself with what is required. I simply stay in covenant and realize him and I are heading towards a goal. It isn't me doing the progression. It is Christ and I working together.

I don't worry about time. I do not need to be perfect this moment. I simply am concerned with moving forward toward him and with him

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I think Works are required and necessary for exhaltation ( Also I define Salvation and Exhaltation the same to me salvation in the scriptures is the exhaltation I seek). But since I can't do it on my own and can only do it through and with him and his grace then I see no merit in my works. He is doing it as he takes my willingness and enables me. I do not concern myself with works. They come and I improve but it isn't a checklist of have to's and don'ts - It occurs naturally as I yield my heart to him and press forward towards becoming like him.

I won't dispute LDS doctrine. Being evangelical I don't have those levels of heaven to worry about. For me it is all about relationship and connection. When we see him we will know as we are known.

[DBMormon]

Right, the connection is formed first and our heart is changed and as a result so are our actions or deeds.

but the time between the changed heart and resulting works may have some distance between them

[bluebell]

Not sure it is worth disputing, but the relationship (a couple in love) is already established before the "i do's". All the ceremony does is proclaim to everyone else what already exists in their hearts. The ceremony doesn't make the relationship.

The ceremony doesn't make the relationship, but it makes a marriage and makes it 'legal'. The ceremony creates something that did not exist before it, and could not exist without it, regardless of what existed in the couples' hearts.

[Bob Crockett]

For a lawyer you sure get facts wrong alot.

Jesus didn't like lawyers either.

[Bob Crockett]

Also CFR about what in his view is false ...?

By the way I have CFR'd you about 2 dozen time in all our communication and don't think you have once responded to any of them specifically.

My first post in this thread was dedicated to responding to your first CFR.

As to your other CFRs, I'm not aware that you've made any other than what I've seen here. Point me to your other CFRs and I will answer.

What full-length Wilcox book do your possess? Let's move there and I might provide more support.

I think Bro. Wilcox is a wonderful person. But it just does not progress the discussion of faith and works to define salvation by grace as something contrary to Joseph Smith's teaching. Don't CFR me on that; my big post in this thread covers that. Redefining the vernacular is not something I can buy into.

[danielwoods]

but the time between the changed heart and resulting works may have some distance between them

I agree.

[danielwoods]

The ceremony doesn't make the relationship, but it makes a marriage and makes it 'legal'. The ceremony creates something that did not exist before it, and could not exist without it, regardless of what existed in the couples' hearts.

With an analogy it is important to connect the dots. For example, I am contending that our connection to God is what saves us. This connection is based solely on our relationship with him. The marriage ceremony then references those "works" or deeds we do as a result of that established relationship with God.

Now in what way do these works create something that didn't exist before (or couldn't exist)?

In what way do these works make our relationship with God "legal"?

[DBMormon]

What full-length Wilcox book do your possess? Let's move there and I might provide more support.

I possess "The Continuous Atonement" and "The Continuous Conversion" I also submit his talks

http://speeches.byu.edu/?act=viewitem&id=1966 - His Grace is Suffcient

http://ce.byu.edu/cw/womensconference/pdf/archive/2007/BradWilcoxandWendeeWilcox-2007.pdf - "Faith an Anchor to the Soul"

[Bob Crockett]

In what way do these works make our relationship with God "legal"?

We are beneficiaries of the Abrahamic covenant. God is bound by His law to save us if we do as he commands. They aren't an "exercise" without merits as Bro. Reel opines.

We do our part, God does His part.

As many other Christians point out, the doctrine that works have no merit in obtaining God's grace is simply a license to sin. I would not tolerate any bishop teaching my teenage sons that.

Bro. Reel gets upset with me because he thinks that doing as God commands is impossible. But repentance is among God's commands. We must do all that God commands to merit His grace.

When counseling the youth, I would emphasize the doctrine of repentance. But I would never assert that doing all that God commands is impossible.

[Calm]

Not sure it is worth disputing, but the relationship (a couple in love) is already established before the "i do's". All the ceremony does is proclaim to everyone else what already exists in their hearts. The ceremony doesn't make the relationship.

It makes the marriage relationship...they aren't married until the ceremony (whatever that is).

A loving relationship is established by a couple expressing their love for each other in various ways. Expression is an action.

If one assumes that God is our creator, then there is already a relationship in place no matter what else God does (same if one assumes God is the father of our spirits). Because there is that previous relationship, does that mean people are automatically saved or does another relationship have to be established? And if it is established, how is it established...does God just say "I do" so to speak and ignore whatever the individual might say?

[Calm]

But I would never assert that doing all that God commands is impossible.

So you believe that any one person from this moment forward could keep all that God commands? Or you believe that in the end when the process of redemption is complete, any one person will be able to keep (and thus be spoken of as having kept all commands) all that God commands?

(not debating here, looking for clarification only)

Edited May 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[DBMormon]

So you believe that any one person from this moment forward could keep all that God commands?

I disagree completely. We all fall short, perfection absolutely can not and will not be achieved in this life

Or you believe that in the end when the process of redemption is complete, any one person will be able to keep (and thus be spoken of as having kept all commands) all that God commands?

I agree completely - We are working towards an eternal perfection with the help of Christ and his Grace.

Like Paul -

My grace is sufficient for thee: for my strength is made perfect in weakness. Most gladly therefore will I rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon me.

Again I assert what I am saying is doctrinal. What Bob claims I am saying is not. Bob please quote me as you are putting words down as things I assert but you have yet to quote me saying what your asserting I have stated.

Edited May 11, 2013 by DBMormon

[Calm]

I disagree completely. We all fall short, perfection absolutely can not and will not be achieved in this life...

I agree completely - We are working towards an eternal perfection with the help of Christ and his Grace.

I think you have made your position quite clear, I am more unsure about Bob's in some of the nuances, which is why I asked for clarification.

At this point it seems to me that you two are focusing on different parts of the process...but I want to make sure I understand before I accept that conclusion.

[Calm]

I would much rather hear a speaker weep over Peter's denial of Christ rather than the train switch parable.

It is not even a good parable because it is the Son who offered himself as a sacrifice, not the Father. Christ was not a clueless child who placed himself in danger and forced his father into making a horrible decision nor will his sacrifice be made for those who have no knowledge of it. And the sacrifice of the child on the bridge only allowed the passengers to continue their lives as they were doing before with absolutely no effect on them whatsoever (that is even a main part of the parable...to supposedly show how cruel we are at times to the Father)....Christ's sacrifice allows us to change into beings that are capable of being one with the Father and the Son. Edited May 11, 2013 by calmoriah

[DBMormon]

I think you have made your position quite clear, I am more unsure about Bob's in some of the nuances, which is why I asked for clarification.

At this point it seems to me that you two are focusing on different parts of the process...but I want to make sure I understand before I accept that conclusion.

I understand Cal but Bob keeps insinuating I disagree with both of those by the way he paints my view with a broad brush, so I am left to keep stating where I stand as he seems to keep missing it and then stating "my" views when they are not mine.