Individual or Group Salvation

[6EQUJ5]

The Church has encouraged members to promote morality and oppose those things in our culture that are immoral.  I love this.  I really believe that God will pour out blessings to those who do good.  I think a society built by moral and noble people will be a moral and noble society.

I haven't really heard this from LDS people but Evangelicals will often refer to how America is under condemnation for issue __________.  What is the LDS view on this generally?  I'm not sure I think this is right.

Would God withhold blessings form you for something your neighbor does?  You don't go to prison when your cousin commits a crime.  I think it is kind of a one-way street here.  Our Gospel living will bring blessings to our society but societies immorality will not bring condemnation on us.

[6EQUJ5]

My thread title is misleading.  It should read "Individual or Group Blessings & Condemnations"

[Buckeye]

LDS scripture shows a God who approves of a people collectively (D/C 1:31) and who issues condemnations to a people collectively (D/C 84:43-61). 

In the long term, I do not believe anyone is denied any blessing due to anyone's choices but his own. But certainly in the short term our blessings, agency, and happiness are determined to a large degree by others' choices. Consider slavery's limitation on personal freedom and the LDS church's 100+ year refusal to allow people of color access to temple rites.

Also, I do strongly believe that salvation itself is inherently a collective process. Only be jostling together in the stream of life do we rough stones become smooth.

Edited February 1, 2016 by Buckeye

[Bobbieaware]

17 minutes ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

The Church has encouraged members to promote morality and oppose those things in our culture that are immoral.  I love this.  I really believe that God will pour out blessings to those who do good.  I think a society built by moral and noble people will be a moral and noble society.

I haven't really heard this from LDS people but Evangelicals will often refer to how America is under condemnation for issue __________.  What is the LDS view on this generally?  I'm not sure I think this is right.

Would God withhold blessings form you for something your neighbor does?  You don't go to prison when your cousin commits a crime.  I think it is kind of a one-way street here.  Our Gospel living will bring blessings to our society but societies immorality will not bring condemnation on us.

The righteous among the Nephites were often called upon to suffer the same divine punishments that were poured out because of the siins of their unrighteousness brethren. "When the wicked rule, the righteous mourn." (Proverbs 29:2)

[Ahab]

According to Articles of Faith #2  we believe that all men (and women) will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression, but clearly Adam's transgression affected everyone born through his loins. Likewise the sins of anyone can affect their family or neighbors as far as others are involved in the consequences.  

The idea of no man being an island to himself works both ways, for good and for bad. And I particularly appreciate it when one man's actions bring blessings to others,  like how our Savior's actions gave blessings to everybody. 

[VideoGameJunkie]

When Joseph Smith proposed to Helen Mar Kimball, he promised her and her entire family would receive exaltation. I guess group salvation was happening for families just for marrying Joseph Smith.

[JLHPROF]

2nd Article of Faith - We believe that man will be punished FOR HIS OWN sins, and not for Adam's transgression.
Moses 6:54 - Hence came the saying abroad among the people, that the Son of God hath atoned for original guilt, wherein the sins of the parents cannot be answered upon the heads of the children, for they are whole from the foundation of the world.

but
D&C 124:50 And the iniquity and transgression of my holy laws and commandments I will visit upon the heads of those who hindered my work, unto the third and fourth generation, so long as they repent not, and hate me, saith the Lord God.

There is definitely an argument for both group and individual blessings and cursings.
There are plenty of examples in scripture of both.


 

[Maidservant]

10 hours ago, Buckeye said:

Also, I do strongly believe that salvation itself is inherently a collective process. Only be jostling together in the stream of life do we rough stones become smooth.

I agree.

I've never understood the "individual salvation" emphasis.  I know why--because we each have to make choices, and no one can do that for us.

However, choices about what?  About how we treat and love each other.  About how we bear one anothers' burdens.  Etc.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Didn't Joseph Smith promise entire families exaltation when he proposed to plural wives to be sealed to him?

[filovirus]

10 hours ago, Ahab said:

According to Articles of Faith #2  we believe that all men (and women) will be punished for their own sins and not for Adam's transgression, but clearly Adam's transgression affected everyone born through his loins. Likewise the sins of anyone can affect their family or neighbors as far as others are involved in the consequences. 

I've always understood the 2nd AofF to refer to Eternal punishment after we have been judged by Christ. In this respect, it is very personal and pertains to the individual alone.

[SamIam]

11 hours ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

The Church has encouraged members to promote morality and oppose those things in our culture that are immoral.  I love this.  I really believe that God will pour out blessings to those who do good.  I think a society built by moral and noble people will be a moral and noble society.

I haven't really heard this from LDS people but Evangelicals will often refer to how America is under condemnation for issue __________.  What is the LDS view on this generally?  I'm not sure I think this is right.

Would God withhold blessings form you for something your neighbor does?  You don't go to prison when your cousin commits a crime.  I think it is kind of a one-way street here.  Our Gospel living will bring blessings to our society but societies immorality will not bring condemnation on us.

This is a prinicple that is found clearly described in the Old Testament and yes our response to evil of another can make the group culpable for transgression:

Please consider:

Quote

Deuteronomy 19:8-10

7 Wherefore I command thee, saying, Thou shalt separate three cities for thee.

8 And if the Lord thy God enlarge thy coast, as he hath sworn unto thy fathers, and give thee all the land which he promised to give unto thy fathers;

9 If thou shalt keep all these commandments to do them, which I command thee this day, to love the Lord thy God, and to walk ever in his ways; then shalt thou add three cities more for thee, beside these three:

10 That innocent blood be not shed in thy land, which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, and so blood be upon thee

11 But if any man hate his neighbour, and lie in wait for him, and rise up against him, and smite him mortally that he die, and fleeth into one of these cities:

12 Then the elders of his city shall send and fetch him thence, and deliver him into the hand of the avenger of blood, that he may die.

13 Thine eye shall not pity him, but thou shalt put away the guilt of innocent blood from Israel, that it may go well with thee.

 

The essence is, if someone should slay an innocent person, then any and all who fail to address the evil, then the group becomes liable for the innocent blood which was shed.  This is also a type of the shedding of Christ's blood and defines an aspect of the atonement.  Those who are valiant in defense of Christ and his Kingdom are not held accountable to the innocent blood.  While those that simply fail to acknowledge the shedding of that innocent blood by living lives that ignore the gift, though they themselves did not actually perform the act of its shedding nonetheless pay a price of culpability for the responsibility that all mankind bears to that sacrifice.  The ultimate price is those who would kill intentionally are sons of perdition, while those who live riotous lives are telestial and those who simply were not valiant enough but sought to serve are terrestrial.  Finally those who would give everything to defend his life even to the sacrifice of their own receive the celestial kingdom completely vindicated from any culpability in the shedding of innocent blood. 

It is this same principle that defines our own status before God.  We may live and be good people but the issue is those that are valiant are the ones that receive the ultimate blessing while everyone else receives varying degrees of glory depending on how they withstood the world and defended the kingdom.

The chapter headings in Ezekial also allude to this concept:

Chapter 16

Jerusalem has become as a harlot, reveling in her idols and worshipping false gods—She has partaken of all the sins of Egypt and the nations round about, and she is rejected—Yet in the last days, the Lord will again establish His covenant with her.

Chapter 18

Men will be punished for their own sins—Sinners will die, and the righteous will surely live—A righteous man who sins will be damned, and a sinner who repents will be saved.

Thus by analysis we are not only culpable for our own sins but we are judged for our response to the sinful activities of society around us based on our response to that evil.

 

Edited February 2, 2016 by SamIam

[6EQUJ5]

21 hours ago, SamIam said:

This is a prinicple that is found clearly described in the Old Testament and yes our response to evil of another can make the group culpable for transgression:

Please consider:

 

The essence is, if someone should slay an innocent person, then any and all who fail to address the evil, then the group becomes liable for the innocent blood which was shed.  This is also a type of the shedding of Christ's blood and defines an aspect of the atonement.  Those who are valiant in defense of Christ and his Kingdom are not held accountable to the innocent blood.  While those that simply fail to acknowledge the shedding of that innocent blood by living lives that ignore the gift, though they themselves did not actually perform the act of its shedding nonetheless pay a price of culpability for the responsibility that all mankind bears to that sacrifice.  The ultimate price is those who would kill intentionally are sons of perdition, while those who live riotous lives are telestial and those who simply were not valiant enough but sought to serve are terrestrial.  Finally those who would give everything to defend his life even to the sacrifice of their own receive the celestial kingdom completely vindicated from any culpability in the shedding of innocent blood. 

It is this same principle that defines our own status before God.  We may live and be good people but the issue is those that are valiant are the ones that receive the ultimate blessing while everyone else receives varying degrees of glory depending on how they withstood the world and defended the kingdom.

The chapter headings in Ezekial also allude to this concept:

Chapter 16

Jerusalem has become as a harlot, reveling in her idols and worshipping false gods—She has partaken of all the sins of Egypt and the nations round about, and she is rejected—Yet in the last days, the Lord will again establish His covenant with her.

Chapter 18

Men will be punished for their own sins—Sinners will die, and the righteous will surely live—A righteous man who sins will be damned, and a sinner who repents will be saved.

Thus by analysis we are not only culpable for our own sins but we are judged for our response to the sinful activities of society around us based on our response to that evil.

 

So it looks like mostly the old covenant is used to support the position.  

[Jeanne]

The only thing connecting to my thoughts on this...and I may be misunderstanding the question okay?  But I was taught that moral decline would bring the downfall of our country..That being said, the constitution would always stand.  As a people we can be blessed with freedom or lose that liberty that coincides with our agency.

[The Nehor]

47 minutes ago, Jeanne said:

The only thing connecting to my thoughts on this...and I may be misunderstanding the question okay?  But I was taught that moral decline would bring the downfall of our country..That being said, the constitution would always stand.  As a people we can be blessed with freedom or lose that liberty that coincides with our agency.

No, the Constitution is going away when the Savior returns.

[Jeanne]

19 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

No, the Constitution is going away when the Savior returns.

Oh...Well..I had that Wrong..thanks for the clarification.

[SamIam]

1 hour ago, 6EQUJ5 said:

So it looks like mostly the old covenant is used to support the position.  

When a set of criteria are borrowed upon to establish a covenant or to establish a standard of preferred existence such as is the case in the Old Testament when the Lord establishes his covenant with the House of Israel it is a mistake to ignore the principles that combine to form the foundation of those covenants and standards.  Some tend to ignore the Old Testament as a fulfilled covenant and thus not applicable to our day and age. I am not such a one and find that the principles are as eternal as God.  Thus the Old Testament is as of exceptional value for this day and age as in days of yore though it requires a more perceptive effort to discern such.  The principles of group culpability for tolerating sin as well as individual culpability for committing sin are just as viable now as then.

Edited February 3, 2016 by SamIam

[VideoGameJunkie]

So did Joseph Smith really promise Helen Mar Kimball that her whole family would have eternal life if she married him?

[Bernard Gui]

If the Lord causes a drought to bring wayward children back in humility, He does not provide special rainclouds

for the righteous farmers. 

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Bernard Gui said:

If the Lord causes a drought to bring wayward children back in humility, He does not provide special rainclouds

for the righteous farmers. 

He does provide endless meal and oil replacement receptacles in some cases.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, VideoGameJunkie said:

So did Joseph Smith really promise Helen Mar Kimball that her whole family would have eternal life if she married him?

I assume you have read what Helen reports him saying and her own opinion about plural marriage.  So what do you think, did he promise her that or did he promise something slightly different (something more along the lines of what happens when parents are sealed together and have children bic).