Brad Wilcox'S View On Grace

[Bob Crockett]

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?

Yes. The only ones who will be save in the end are those who keep God's commands. The most important, of course, being repentence. The kingdom of God is not filthy. No unclean thing can enter therein. The only way to be clean is to repent . If you can't do that, you won't be saved. The grace of God won't save you in your sins.

Bro. Reel would engraft the very form of evangelicalism that Joseph Smith condemned onto the core doctrines of the Church, bypassing the Abrahmic Covenant.

Bro. Reel says that works have no merit, yet he is forced accept the Church's position that they are required for salvation. This highly contradictory position abuses the logic of the atonement, in my view. (I would further submit that I don't think that Bro. Reel really has an understanding of any of this; when he had his crisis of faith as he tells us, rather than realizing how important repentance is and how everybody can do it, he's come up some sort of personalized doctrine that says that all we have to do is try and God's grace will take care of the rest. I don't think he gets what Wilcox is really saying, is that we have to rely upon God to help us repent; instead, Bro. Reel treats us to a doctrine which would make us Baptists.)

As Elder Scott said in an 1991 conference, after discussing the covenant of Abraham: "The Lord has the power to bless us at any time. Yet we see that to count on His help, we must consistently obey His commandments."

What makes LDS doctrine unique, and different, from the rest of Christianity is that we have a legal covenant with God to be exalted, and have worlds of own (the blessings of Abraham), but we have an obligation. That is to keep God's commandments. That obligation cannot be excused. It is mandatory. Thus, all the fancy words in the world won't overcome the fact that repentance, a work of righteosness, has to be done.

Normally, this kind of "angels on the head of a pin" argument is not one in which I'd wade, something is a little off.

As I am not just repeating myself endlessly, and Bro. Reel isn't really reading my posts it seems; my part of this discussion is over. This stuff isn't really my bag.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[danielwoods]

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.

I would contend that we don't ever merit a gift or earn a relationship.

[Lightbearer]

The following seems to indicate that keeping the commandments is possible and in fact is essential for eternal life:

"And, if you keep my commandments and endure to the end you shall have eternal life, which gift is the greatest of all the gifts of God." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 14:7)

It also indicates that eternal life is a gift, Also Nephi testifies that God does not give us impossible commandments:

"And it came to pass that I, Nephi, said unto my father: I will go and do the things which the Lord hath commanded, for I know that the Lord giveth no commandments unto the children of men, save he shall prepare a way for them that they may accomplish the thing which he commandeth them." (Book of Mormon | 1 Nephi 3:7)

We can do all things through our faith in Christ. This transformation from the natural man is done through our enduring to the end... that does not mean just sitting around and enduring persecution or the pains of this life... but enduring temptation and forsaking our sins and coming unto Christ. We were sent here to be tested and we are judged by our works. In fact God has stated:

"For I the Lord cannot look upon sin with the least degree of allowance; Nevertheless, he that repents and does the commandments of the Lord shall be forgiven; And he that repents not, from him shall be taken even the light which he has received; for my Spirit shall not always strive with man, saith the Lord of Hosts." (Doctrine and Covenants | Section 1:31-33)

Thus apparently we are required to keep His commandments and to repent and if we do not then Lord's spirit will not stay with us if we fail to repent and continue in sin.

So while we may not be able to keep all the commandments at once, we must eventually stay on the strait and narrow path until we can keep all the commandments. Once we have done this, and only then by being valiant in the testimony of Christ can we be exalted in the manisions of the father.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Lightbearer

[DBMormon]

Bob Crockett would engraft tree roots into iced tea and would raise zombies from the dead!!!

Edited - saw I spelled your name wrong -I had Christmnas on the brain - for that sincerely sorry

Edited May 12, 2013 by DBMormon

[volgadon]

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.

The Power and the Glory is a far better parable, IMHO, of the sacrifice that moulds us in Christ's image.

[Bob Crockett]

Bob cratchett would engraft tree roots into iced tea and would raise zombies from the dead!!!

How unfortunate.

I wish you well in your ministry. You are still a very young man, many things to do in the Church. I love the Church because, in part, of the many wonderful people in it. Bishops willing to sacrifice and save their flock. I had a wonderful bishop save my 29-year-old widowed mother and her young children from terrible unhappiness -- Bishop Joseph B. Wirthlin. I hope all bishops are the same. Full of good works.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[DBMormon]

you say works have merit.

The OT and NT do not contain the word MERIT. The BOM (Most correct book) does

Do you disagree with these scriptures

And since man had fallen he could not merit anything of himself

relying alone upon the merits of Christ, who was the author and the finisher of their faith

relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save.

If I can not Merit anything of myself and must rely wholly and alone upon Christ's merits, right? how can I say Works have merit.

Edited May 12, 2013 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

How unfortunate.

If I offended you by insinuating you make ice tea and raise Zombies, I am sorry.

I have asked you to quote me when you insinuate me saying something, yet since you still do not, I assume you can't find where I said it.

you stated -

Bro. Reel would engraft the very form of evangelicalism that Joseph Smith condemned onto the core doctrines of the Church, bypassing the Abrahamic Covenant.

Which is untrue. I asked you how you deal with breaking the bread prayer as you understand it (unbinding God by not keeping all his commandments) - no answer

I ask you if you keep all the commandments? no answer

I ask you to tell me since the top leaders still fail to keep every jot and title are they lost forever? no answer

I explain how I interpret mosiah 18 and the Bread prayer and you choose not to respond

I ask you to back up the things you said about Bro Wilcox and you decline

I ask you to be specific on where I am wrong you state by me saying our works do not have merit. I show you scriptures that explain it clearly and

yet once again I'll ask you a question

show me a book of mormon scripture with the word merit and where it implies what we do has merit.

There are 7 verses in the Book of Mormon (most correct book in regards to the Doctrine of the atonement) that use the word merit. Surely if your right, one of them will back up your view?

In the previous thread where you were booted, it was for saying things you had no evidence of. It's your style. You accuse me of heresy and then you fail to show anything other then your bias

So I thought I would put words in your mouth that you raise Zombies? I can say whatever I want and not back it up right?

You have a hit and run style that avoids ever defining how your right and anyone different then you is wrong

[danielwoods]

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?

True. In human sense they aren't "married" until after the ceremony. However, the relationship doesn't actually change from before the ceremony to after. The love they have is the same, which compelled them to get married. So, I'm not sure what your point is?

I don't think everyone is automatically saved, I think that its true there is a minimal relationship there, with God providing all the resources and waiting. Our response to him dictates where that relationship goes.

[danielwoods]

The following seems to indicate that keeping the commandments is possible and in fact is essential for eternal life:

It also indicates that eternal life is a gift, Also Nephi testifies that God does not give us impossible commandments:

We can do all things through our faith in Christ. This transformation from the natural man is done through our enduring to the end... that does not mean just sitting around and enduring persecution or the pains of this life... but enduring temptation and forsaking our sins and coming unto Christ. We were sent here to be tested and we are judged by our works. In fact God has stated: Thus apparently we are required to keep His commandments and to repent and if we do not then Lord's spirit will not stay with us if we fail to repent and continue in sin.

So while we may not be able to keep all the commandments at once, we must eventually stay on the strait and narrow path until we can keep all the commandments. Once we have done this, and only then by being valiant in the testimony of Christ can we be exalted in the manisions of the father.

In the world of LDS it appears that gifts are earned ("if you do this, then I will give you this gift").

It also appears to me that the idea that we must keep all the commandments is at variance with the whole reason that Christ took the punishment of our sins, because we are't able to keep all the commandments.

[Tacenda]

In the world of LDS it appears that gifts are earned ("if you do this, then I will give you this gift").

It also appears to me that the idea that we must keep all the commandments is at variance with the whole reason that Christ took the punishment of our sins, because we are't able to keep all the commandments.

In a nutshell...this!

[Duncan]

you say works have merit.

The OT and NT do not contain the word MERIT. The BOM (Most correct book) does

Do you disagree with these scriptures

If I can not Merit anything of myself and must rely wholly and alone upon Christ's merits, right? how can I say Works have merit.

I think it was Robert Millet who said that works are necessary but are insufficient, I don't know if that helps out or not but!

[DBMormon]

I think it was Robert Millet who said that works are necessary but are insufficient, I don't know if that helps out or not but!

I also agree completely with the view of Robert Millet. He defines Grace beautifully in these talks

http://www.byutv.org...ert-millet-1998

http://speeches.byu....viewitem&id=589 - only one section on grace

http://www.byutv.org/watch/4c198ffd-2dc7-46ac-8170-cba1c700ca21/byu-education-week-robert-l-millet-2009

Edited May 12, 2013 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

no matter how hard I work, I am an unprofitable servant. Even when I work my hardest I am in the negative.

[volgadon]

In the world of LDS it appears that gifts are earned ("if you do this, then I will give you this gift").

It also appears to me that the idea that we must keep all the commandments is at variance with the whole reason that Christ took the punishment of our sins, because we are't able to keep all the commandments.

Not as mechanical as you would have it.

[teddyaware]

no matter how hard I work, I am an unprofitable servant. Even when I work my hardest I am in the negative.

Hi DB,

In light of the above, I'm wondering how you would interpret the following two verses of scripture from Moroni 10? This is not a trick question or a setup, I'm just curious to know if you see a connection with what you said, above, and what Moroni says here:

"24 And now I speak unto all the ends of the earth—that if the day cometh that the power and gifts of God shall be done away among you, it shall be because of unbelief.

25 And wo be unto the children of men if this be the case; for there shall be none that doeth good among you, no not one. For if there be one among you that doeth good, he shall work by the power and gifts of God."

Edited May 12, 2013 by teddyaware

[DBMormon]

Hi DB,

In light of the above, I'm wondering how you would interpret the following two verses of scripture from Moroni 10? This is not a trick question or a setup, I'm just curious to know if you see a connection with what you said, above, and what Moroni says here:

"24 And now I speak unto all the ends of the earth—that if the day cometh that the power and gifts of God shall be done away among you, it shall be because of unbelief.

25 And wo be unto the children of men if this be the case; for there shall be none that doeth good among you, no not one.

Any positive progress that I make in becoming like Christ is done with Christ by my side, his enabling power(Grace) assisting me.

Consider LDS.ORG statement on Grace

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

The grace of God helps us every day. It strengthens us to do good works we could not do on our own.

Since Grace is a "GIFT" and also Christ's enabling "POWER" I can easily see that sentence saying

For if there be one among you that doeth good, he shall work by the GRACE of God."

LDS.ORG's definiton states clearly that Grace allows me to do "good Works" I can not do on my own. So who gets merits for those good works getting done?... me? or Christ? It is Christ, as without him and his Grace, I can't do them on my own. I am an unprofitable servant, but with God all things are possible.

I would love to hear your response on if my explanation seems fair to you or why you think I am basing my stance on a view that is indefensible ?

Edited May 12, 2013 by DBMormon

[Bob Crockett]

Spencer W. Kimball: On pages 211-212 of his book The Miracle of Forgiveness, Kimball chastised members who "are doing nothing seriously wrong except in their failures to do the right things to earn their salvation" (emphasis mine).

John A. Widtsoe wrote: "Every person will inherit a glory of salvation, which will be the one that he has earned" (Joseph Smith--Seeker after Truth, Prophet of God, p.170, emphasis mine.).

Thomas S. Monson. "It is the celestial glory which we seek. It is in the presence of God we desire to dwell. It is a forever family in which we want membership. Such blessings must be earned" ("An Invitation to Exaltation," Ensign(Conference Edition), May 1988, p.53. Emphasis mine).

In Robert Millet’s book, Grace Works, he cherry picks from McConkie. Here is what he doesn’t quote. "Specifically, our Lord's atoning sacrifice brings all men forth in the resurrection with immortal bodies, thus freeing them from death, hell, the devil, and endless torment: and our Lord's atoning grace raises those who believe and obey, not only in immortality, but unto eternal life; it raises them to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in God's everlasting kingdom forever" (The Promised Messiah, pp.345-346, emphasis mine). Elder McConkie also taught, "Salvation grows automatically out of the resurrection, and the coming forth in the resurrection constitutes the receipt of whatever degree of salvation has been earned." (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 1:196. emphasis mine). In volume three of the same set, he wrote, "Salvation is free,' but it must also be purchased; and the price is obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel" (3:462, emphasis mine).

[Please note that I cut and pasted some of the above quotes from an anti-Mormon website which takes issue with Millet as pretending to bridge the wide gulf between evangelicalism and Mormonism, when it can't be bridged. I haven't personally verified these quotes.]

In Millet’s 1998 talk at BYU before a womens’ conference, he admits: Salvation is a two-way covenant. “We promise to do what we can do.” “ More is required . . . than a verbal confession.” He further says that his views may not be the Church’s.

FARM’s John Gee has reviewed Millet’s 1989 book, “By Grace We Are Saved.” http://maxwellinstit...l=2&num=1&id=35. It is generally favorable but notes that Millet really fails to tackle some of the significant issues of grace and works which which scholars have wrestled; in particular, he does not address the different definitions of “grace” in the scriptures.

The Church’s enemies have commented upon Dr. Millet’s teachings. John MacArthur is a major clergyman in my area (note, he wasn’t embarrassed ot hire Rex E. Lee before the California Supreme Court.) MacArthur declares that Millet’s doctrines are an “artificial harmony” with Evangelicalism. http://www.mrm.org/macarthur-on-millet

Mormon Research Ministry speculates that the Brethren have been called upon to publicly rebuke Millet’s doctrines of grace and works. http://www.mrm.org/m...d-protestantism. As when Bro. Pace was rebuked by Elder McConkie over developing a personal relationship with Christ, MRM seems to make a good point about Millet’s departure from nominal Mormonism.

Having said that, I don’t believe the gulf between Millet and the Church is wide enough to lead to some sort of actual rebuke. But I don’t think he’d be called upon to speak on the topic again. I don't think there is anything particularly dangerous in having you come forward here, state that you are a bishop, and advance your particular view of grace and works. But, I question the effort to solicit funds to conduct a ministry directed to stake presidents and bishops. If you were to hand out written material in connection with your ministry, I wonder how many would believe you?

Edited May 12, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[Bob Crockett]

In the previous thread where you were booted, it was for saying things you had no evidence of. It's your style.

I'd like to know who told you that.

What "things?" I would be pleased to address such "things" so long as they are on topic with your views of grace and works. Otherwise, I think I've said my piece and have provided evidence. It is my style to provide evidence. However, I just don't respond to CFRs which require me to research your prior posts to make sure I have what you're saying is correct. Your posts are very hard to understand, in the main.

You believe that works are meritless and that salvation cannot be earned. I think I have summarized your belief. Saying that works are meritless is the same thing, in the English language, as saying that works are not necessary. If something is necessary or required, then one receives the merit of accomplishing the required thing.

I believe that, under the Abrahamic covenant, we have to fulfill all of God's conditions before we receive the blessings of that covenant. That means "working" out our salvation to establish the merit of our effort. Once that has been completed, whether in this life or by judgment day, the blessings of Abraham are ours by the merits of Christ's sacrifice. There's merit in our obedience and effort; there's merit in Christ's sacrifice. But, we'd never be able to obtain salvation without Christ's sacrifice; similarly, Christ's sacrifice would never save us if we hadn't merited it.

What you seem to teach can be viewed by some as a license to sin. But, God can't save us in our sins.

Edited May 12, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[teddyaware]

Any positive progress that I make in becoming like Christ is done with Christ by my side, his enabling power(Grace) assisting me.

Consider LDS.ORG statement on Grace

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

Since Grace is a "GIFT" and also Christ's enabling "POWER" I can easily see that sentence saying

For if there be one among you that doeth good, he shall work by the GRACE of God."

LDS.ORG's definiton states clearly that Grace allows me to do "good Works" I can not do on my own. So who gets merits for those good works getting done?... me? or Christ? It is Christ, as without him and his Grace, I can't do them on my own. I am an unprofitable servant, but with God all things are possible.

I would love to hear your response on if my explanation seems fair to you or why you think I am basing my stance on a view that is indefensible ?

I ilke your response, DB. I was just asking you a simple question and I like your response, that's it. Perhaps the general adversarial tenor on this board might be putting our response mechanisms on hair trigger overdrive.

[DBMormon]

I ilke your response, DB. I was just asking you a simple question and I like your response, that's it. Perhaps the general adversarial tenor on this board might be putting our response mechanisms on hair trigger overdrive.

No, I took no offense at your questions but wanted to know if you leaned with seeing my view as valid (not that you agree but that you see room for me to hold that view and not be a heretic) or if you felt they were untenable? Please know I enjoy talking back and forth on this board and if you go back you will find that I have no problem communicating in a friendly way with the majority of those who disagree with me.

You have been nothing but respectful in the few posts you and I have communicated over time. I look forward to your response on my views

Have an awesome Sabbath

Edited May 12, 2013 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

I'd like to know who told you that.

I'd like things too.

[DBMormon]

Spencer W. Kimball: On pages 211-212 of his book The Miracle of Forgiveness, Kimball chastised members who "are doing nothing seriously wrong except in their failures to do the right things to earn their salvation" (emphasis mine).

This is where we will part. You will accept all that a prophet and apostle say, write, or teach at least if it supports your view. If I presented multiple leaders who say why Priesthood was withheld prior to 78' does that make it true? It doesn't. So

1.) I don't accept this book as Doctrine or as the gospel and neither Does Elder. Kimball (apostle at the time) in the beginning of the book.

2.) He also says Homosexuality is a learned behavior , that too is not accepted in the church's view today.

I love the book but am not bound to hold any of it's views that are not upheld by all 15 current leaders as doctrine.

John A. Widtsoe wrote: "Every person will inherit a glory of salvation, which will be the one that he has earned" (Joseph Smith--Seeker after Truth, Prophet of God, p.170, emphasis mine.).

- 1951 publishing, again not doctrinal as the book is not binding on the church.

Thomas S. Monson. "It is the celestial glory which we seek. It is in the presence of God we desire to dwell. It is a forever family in which we want membership. Such blessings must be earned" ("An Invitation to Exaltation," Ensign(Conference Edition), May 1988, p.53. Emphasis mine).

1.) Refer to #1 above

2.) I need to have him define how it is earned. If he said we earn by continually trying and be willing and by continually repenting - then that fits fine with me. If he says it is earned by keeping all the commandments and doing so many good works in this life then I would disagree with it. But since he leaves it off at this we are left to figure out how such blessings are earned. For example

I completely agree with

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

Have no problem having to do things such as the quote above and in my doing I make exhaltation available to myself. I don't like the word earn as it implies I do something on my own when "ACCORDING TO LDS DOCTRINE" I can only do it with his Grace assisting me. but I won't split hairs. There is a big difference as I said before between saying

my good works earn my salvation

and

By living the gospel (quote above) I in part earn salvation

. But any discussion on my earning something downplays Christ' infinite contribution to my adding in a negative loss and together due to his infinite postive balance we do something positive.

In Robert Millet’s book, Grace Works, he cherry picks from McConkie. Here is what he doesn’t quote. "Specifically, our Lord's atoning sacrifice brings all men forth in the resurrection with immortal bodies, thus freeing them from death, hell, the devil, and endless torment: and our Lord's atoning grace raises those who believe and obey, not only in immortality, but unto eternal life; it raises them to sit down with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in God's everlasting kingdom forever" (The Promised Messiah, pp.345-346, emphasis mine). Elder McConkie also taught, "Salvation grows automatically out of the resurrection, and the coming forth in the resurrection constitutes the receipt of whatever degree of salvation has been earned." (Doctrinal New Testament Commentary, 1:196. emphasis mine). In volume three of the same set, he wrote, "Salvation is free,' but it must also be purchased; and the price is obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel" (3:462, emphasis mine).

1.) While I love and admire Elder McConkie I don't agree with every word he says. Just as you point out this quote from him

2.) he wrote that quote in a non doctrinal book in 1965 and wasn't an apostle at that time. Would you accept Marlin Jensen's comments as binding on the church?

In 1984 as an apostle he said

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

3.) Elder Anderson says

A few question their faith when they find a statement made by a Church leader decades ago that seems incongruent with our doctrine. There is an important principle that governs the doctrine of the Church. The doctrine is taught by all 15 members of the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve. It is not hidden in an obscure paragraph of one talk. True principles are taught frequently and by many. Our doctrine is not difficult to find.

And seeing that new revelation trumps old stances (polygamy, ph to blacks, mission age, ect....) I am hopeful you can find something from the last 25 years???

so far you have shared 1988 (Elder Monson at the time), 1951 (Elder Widstoe), 1965 (seventy McConkie), and 1969 (Elder Kimball at the time)

three are non doctrinal and non binding just as my Wilcox or Millet quotes and one doesn't define earn in a way that we can substantiate what is meant. And even if it was defined there in a way I disagreed with we have the issue of if all 15 men taught it that way and if newer revelation views from the Brethren have done away with it.

Having said that, I don’t believe the gulf between Millet and the Church is wide enough to lead to some sort of actual rebuke. But I don’t think he’d be called upon to speak on the topic again. I don't think there is anything particularly dangerous in having you come forward here, state that you are a bishop, and advance your particular view of grace and works. But, I question the effort to solicit funds to conduct a ministry directed to stake presidents and bishops. If you were to hand out written material in connection with your ministry, I wonder how many would believe you?

a minstry? your using loaded words there aren't you?

seeking funds to run a podcast. Does FAIR solicit Funds to do what they do? is that a minstry?

How many would believe me???? it is an interesting question. Assuming I am suggestion the same ideas that Bro. Wilcox has and that his talk is the #1 talk on BYU speeches even though is isn't even 2 years old implies that it is a message that at the very least calls for attention and more discussion.

In 60+ years (since widstoe quote) you have shown 4 works, 3 of which are non binding and the 4th doesn't explain enough to draw lines. cmon Bob, there has to be more then that.

You could have at least pulled out elder Faust's

All of us have sinned and need to repent to fully pay our part of the debt.

though I understand what he was saying I disagree with his choice of words. Nothing I can do pays the debt as I can serve him all the days of my life and yet I am an unprofittable servant. One in the negative can not create a positive balance. Edited May 12, 2013 by DBMormon

[Bob Crockett]

Are there any general authorities' words you'd accept to show the error of your position? I've run the words "earned" and "salvation" through general conference addresses. Seems my point about the Abrahamic Covenant and doing your part to earn the blessings of salvation is an overwhelming theme. I am prepared to give you 20 or more, including more statements than I have from Joseph Smith.

This part of Mormon Doctrine has been very consistent and is a major bone of contention with our evangelical friends. I couldn't get into a PhD program at Fuller Institute, in religion, because of this very problem. The dean of admissions said our doctrine of merits and salvation was incompatible with Christianity.

It isn't very convincing to point to other things you don't like about the church, irrelevant to this issue, as a means to refute me.

FAIR is a non profit.

What is the cite to Elder Jensen?

Edited May 13, 2013 by Bob Crockett

[DBMormon]

Are there any general authorities' words you'd accept to show the error of your position? I've run the words "earned" and "salvation" through general conference addresses. Seems my point about the Abrahamic Covenant and doing your part to earn the blessings of salvation is an overwhelming theme. I am prepared to give you 20 or more.

This part of Mormon Doctrine has been very consistent and is a major bone of contention with our evangelical friends. I couldn't get into a PhD program at Fuller Institute, in religion, because of this very problem. The dean of admissions said our doctrine of merits and salvation was incompatible with Christianity.

It isn't very convincing to point to other things you don't like about the church, irrelevant to this issue, as a means to refute me.

FAIR is a non profit.

What is the cite to Elder Jensen?

In regards to Fair, if you are speaking of legal set up as a non profit - correct but in the spirit of definition as in not making a profit we are the same. In fact in a non profit 501C3 you can still have a paid staff and even pay yourself. So in that sense I am more non profit then them. But yes if you want to use loaded words and be a critic then you are legally correct I am not a 501c3.

in regards to Elder Jensen -My point is you and I both know you would not consider a statement made by a seventy binding on the church. the fact you need to know what statement is first before deciding whether to back it or not attests to that.

Now back to the focus. I Would love to see your 20 references. I also will then provide 20 of my own that back my view and we will be back to where we started which is this definiton is still a gray area where we both can maintain our stance and use scripture and the words of the prophets to defend.

example

http://www.lds.org/m...-faith?lang=eng

Inquirer: But what, then, is the status of one who is sincerely striving but who still has far to go along the path toward perfection? can a person enjoy the companionship of the Holy Ghost if he is really trying to live the commandments but has not completely succeeded?

Answer: Yes, as long as he in sincerely trying to live the gospel. If he is doing the best he can, the Lord will allow him to enjoy the companionship of the Spirit and the blessings of the gospel just as though he were already living the whole law. In this way he is justified in receiving the Holy Spirit because of his desires for righteousness. (See Joseph Smith—Vision of the Celestial Kingdom 9; Moses 6:60; D&C 20:30, 32, 33.) The grace of God, manifest through the atonement of Christ, makes justification possible for those who seek righteousness. But if a man is not doing his best to overcome the world, the Spirit will withdraw from him. President Joseph Fielding Smith explained further: “If a person violates a covenant, whether it be of baptism, ordination, marriage or anything else, the Spirit withdraws the stamp of approval, and the blessings will not be received.

One can be trying inwardly and failing outwardly and still be justified and can be in state of exhalted grace simply on his desires for righteousness

I have never said your view is untenable simply that I disagree with it. Whereas you have in ways accused me as a heretic which If you like I will match you quote for quote showing both views have weight.

So please your 20 if you want to waste a day going tat for tat, or you could at least concede that both views have weight and you simply disagree with mine.

Edited May 13, 2013 by DBMormon