The gift of grace

[Anakin7]

   Five Solas We LDS want The True Grace of Jesus Christ, not the grace offered to us by anti LDS protestant polemicists  - http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/review/22/1/S00010-5176a159eeb0510Gee.pdf . The before linked article by one LDS Sentinel/Warrior shows how that the True Doctrine of Grace was viewed within The Walls of The Heavenly Jerusalem by God The Father The Monarch of The Universe, Jesus Christ The Vice Monarch of The Universe, The Holy Ghost/Spirit the Great Testator/Sanctifier of The Universe, Archangels/Angels/ Righteousness/Truth/,True Old Testament Prophets Hebrew/Israelites, New Testament Prophets/Apostles/Saints/Christians.May you clearly see the Definition as was held in the hearts and minds of the Ancient middle eastern individual in the middle east within the pages of Holy Writ.

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Robes In The Blood Of The Lamb

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

Edited September 5, 2016 by Anakin7

[Anakin7]

14 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Appreciate the candid reply, Glenn.  Obviously grace matters hugely to Christians and is a primary doctrine by any account (it's one of the Solas, per my user name/alias).  But it isn't terribly important for LDS.  LDS are welcome to have radically opposing views/definitions when it comes to understanding this term.  As we've demonstrated right here on the thread--you're comfortable with the common definition of grace as "unmerited favor" while your fellow LDS, Vance, considers this a "false definition," "written by evangelicals."  We'd have to work hard to find deeper disagreement on this forum!

Perhaps the main takeaway from this thread is that Utchdorf's words don't really matter (whatever he may have intended by them) to most LDS.  Tempest in a teacup...

;0)

--Erik

    A view of Grace by a non LDS Christian who shows from his research that Grace is not unmerited favor - http://www.donimon.org/graceunmeritedfavor.html  However we LDS recognize that unmerited factor is one of the ancient definitions of True Grace.

The Atonement it Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment/Robe In The Blood Of The Lamb

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

Edited September 5, 2016 by Anakin7

[Vance]

13 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Out of respect for the OP author's intent--I won't turn this thread into a rehash of the one you linked from last year.  Feel free to take it up with Glenn101, should he wish to debate your definition with you. 

To keep things on topic, I'll ask again, do you think Uchtdorf's address moves away from what DBMormon called "correlated teaching" and towards the common meaning/usage (which you reject) as acknowledged by Robinson, et al? 

Your opinion, please.  Yes or no?

--Erik

President Uchtdorf's address is consistent with what I have said and I find nothing in it that "moves away" from what I learn when I study the scriptures.

 

It is rather obvious that you have barely (if at all) done a cursory look at his talk.

 

1) He never uses the term "unmerited" in relation to grace.

He does say this,

A powerful expression of that love is what the scriptures often call the

grace of God—the divine assistance and endowment of strength by which we grow from the flawed and limited beings we are now into exalted beings of “truth and light, until [we are] glorified in truth and [know] all things.”⁸

It is a most wondrous thing, this grace of God. Yet it is often misunderstood.⁹ Even so, we should know about God’s grace if we intend to inherit what has been prepared for us in His eternal kingdom.

And this,

It is by God’s amazing grace that His children can overcome the undercurrents and quicksands of the deceiver, rise above sin, and “be perfect[ed] in Christ.”

Though we all have weaknesses, we can overcome them. Indeed it is by the grace of God that, if we humble ourselves and have faith, weak things can become strong.

2) He doesn't alleviate the need for obedience, (which is the whole purpose of Evangelicals inserting the term "unmerited" into the definition.)

He says this,

If grace is a gift of God, why then is obedience to God’s commandments so important? Why bother with God’s commandments—or repentance, for that matter? Why not just admit we’re sinful and let God save us? 

Trying to understand God’s gift of grace with all our heart and mind gives us all the more reasons to love and obey our Heavenly Father with meekness and gratitude. As we walk the path of discipleship, it refines us, it improves us, it helps us to become more like Him, and it leads us back to His presence. “The Spirit of the Lord [our God]” brings about such “a mighty change in us, … that we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually.”²⁸

Therefore, our obedience to God’s commandments comes as a natural outgrowth of our endless love and gratitude for the goodness of God. This form of genuine love and gratitude will miraculously merge our works with God’s grace.

And then this,

Grace is a gift of God, and

our desire to be obedient to each of God’s commandments is the reaching out of our mortal hand to receive this sacred gift from our Heavenly Father.

I pray that we will show our love for God and

our gratitude for the gift of God’s infinite grace by keeping His commandments and joyfully “walk[ing] in [a] newness of life.”

I find myself in 100% agreement with Pres Uchtdorf.  This has been my understanding of grace for many many years, regardless of what the correlated teachings may or may not have presented.

[Vance]

Quote

 

It is by God’s amazing grace that His children can overcome the undercurrents and quicksands of the deceiver, rise above sin, and “be perfect[ed] in Christ.”

Though we all have weaknesses, we can overcome them. Indeed it is by the grace of God that, if we humble ourselves and have faith, weak things can become strong.

 

2) He doesn't alleviate the need for obedience, (which is the whole purpose of Evangelicals inserting the term "unmerited" into the definition.)

He says this,

Quote

If grace is a gift of God, why then is obedience to God’s commandments so important? Why bother with God’s commandments—or repentance, for that matter? Why not just admit we’re sinful and let God save us? 

 

Quote

 

Trying to understand God’s gift of grace with all our heart and mind gives us all the more reasons to love and obey our Heavenly Father with meekness and gratitude. As we walk the path of discipleship, it refines us, it improves us, it helps us to become more like Him, and it leads us back to His presence. “The Spirit of the Lord [our God]” brings about such “a mighty change in us, … that we have no more disposition to do evil, but to do good continually.”²⁸

Therefore, our obedience to God’s commandments comes as a natural outgrowth of our endless love and gratitude for the goodness of God. This form of genuine love and gratitude will miraculously merge our works with God’s grace.

 

And then this,

 

Quote

 

Grace is a gift of God, and our desire to be obedient to each of God’s commandments is the reaching out of our mortal hand to receive this sacred gift from our Heavenly Father.

 

 

Quote

 

I pray that we will show our love for God and our gratitude for the gift of God’s infinite grace by keeping His commandments and joyfully “walk[ing] in [a] newness of life.”

 

I find myself in 100% agreement with Pres Uchtdorf.  This has been my understanding of grace for many many years, regardless of what the correlated teachings may or may not have presented.

[Anakin7]

10 hours ago, Anakin7 said:

   Five Solas We LDS want The True Grace of Jesus Christ, not the grace offered to us by anti LDS protestant polemicists  - http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/review/22/1/S00010-5176a159eeb0510Gee.pdf . The before linked article by one LDS Sentinel/Warrior shows how that the True Doctrine of Grace was viewed within The Walls of The Heavenly Jerusalem by God The Father The Monarch of The Universe, Jesus Christ The Vice Monarch of The Universe, The Holy Ghost/Spirit the Great Testator/Sanctifier of The Universe, Archangels/Angels/ Righteousness/Truth/,True Old Testament Prophets Hebrew/Israelites, New Testament Prophets/Apostles/Saints/Christians.May you clearly see the Definition as was held in the hearts and minds of the Ancient middle eastern individual in the middle east within the pages of Holy Writ.

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Robes In The Blood Of The Lamb

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

       Repost for Five Solas.

Salvation is Absolutely Free but it Costs you your very Life

Washing My Garments/Robes In The Blood Of The Lamb

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

Edited September 5, 2016 by Anakin7

[DBMormon]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

And where do you think Brad Wilcox got it from?

Larger Christianity, Lds scripture understood a new way (2nd nephi 25:23 for instance), coat tails of Millet and Robinson, the Holy Ghost but definitely not correlated Mormonism

Edited September 5, 2016 by DBMormon

[Calm]

3 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

Larger Christianity, Lds scripture understood a new way (2nd nephi 25:23 for instance), coat tails of Millet and Robinson, the Holy Ghost but definitely not correlated Mormonism

And yet he quotes Elder Hafen quite a bit.  Why do you ignore that contribution?

[DBMormon]

18 hours ago, Calm said:

From Bro. Wilcox's talk...besides many scripture references that I am certain Pres. Uchtdorf is familiar with, Wilcox also quotes:

And if you went into their talks, who would you find they were quoting?

He put several independent quotes into a expansive paradigm.   You ask Mormons 10 years ago to explain Grace and they do not tell you what Brad Wilcox has taught

[Calm]

58 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

53 minutes ago, DBMormon said:

He put several independent quotes into a expansive paradigm.   You ask Mormons 10 years ago to explain Grace and they do not tell you what Brad Wilcox has taught

 

[Calm]

Ignore above glitch please.

If Mormons weren't explaining things this way 10 years ago then how do you explain Believing Christ being the top selling Mormon book for around a decade, or Robinson's articles being printed in the Ensign including this one in 1992 https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/04/believing-christ?lang=eng as well Millet's that appeared the same year https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/06/putting-off-the-natural-man-an-enemy-to-god?lang=eng and even Bruce R McConkie back in 1966 in Mormon Doctrine no less and in 1981 here:

Salvation is free." (2 Nephi 2:4) Justification is free. Neither of them can be purchased; neither can be earned; neither comes by the law of Moses, or by good works, or by any power or ability that man has.... When the prophets who were before Christ preached that salvation is free, they were announcing the same doctrine that would thereafter fall from apostolic lips in the pronouncement that we are saved by grace. The questions then are: What salvation is free? What salvation comes by the grace of God? With all the emphasis of the rolling thunders of Sinai, we answer: All salvation is free; all comes by the merits and mercy and grace of the Holy Messiah; there is no salvation of any kind, nature, or degree that is not bound to Christ and his atonement. 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. 346-347).

The books Believing Christ was published in 92 and Millet's By Grace We Are Saved in 89.  Do you think these books just sat on the shelf unread all these years?

Influence is rarely one path from A to B, especially something like religious thought.  

Why do you think (at least appear to) that Elder Uchtdorf never read anything by Robinson, Millet, or McConkie on grace himself or read the scriptures that way for himself or encountered ideas of grace from numerous sources (considering it is one of the most discussed topics in Christianity, both now and historically), but had to have it all pre digested for him by Wilcox?

Edited September 5, 2016 by Calm

[Five Solas]

8 hours ago, Vance said:

President Uchtdorf's address is consistent with what I have said and I find nothing in it that "moves away" from what I learn when I study the scriptures.

...

I actually agree with you here, Vance. 

I disagree with DBMormon's suggestion that there's anything net new to be found in Uchtdorf's address.  I could be wrong.  I could be persuaded.  I certainly do think Robinson's work was helpful (I can't speak to the other two DBMormon cited).  But has he/they actually re-framed an understanding of grace for senior leadership such as Uchtdorf?  Maybe so and this was just too subtle for my cognition.  Again, I'm happy to be persuaded.  I'd love to see LDS work towards the common Christian lexicon since so many interfaith discussions get lost in definitions, or so it seems to me.    

--Erik

[Vance]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

I actually agree with you here, Vance. 

I disagree with DBMormon's suggestion that there's anything net new to be found in Uchtdorf's address.  I could be wrong.  I could be persuaded.  I certainly do think Robinson's work was helpful (I can't speak to the other two DBMormon cited).  But has he/they actually re-framed an understanding of grace for senior leadership such as Uchtdorf?  Maybe so and this was just too subtle for my cognition.  Again, I'm happy to be persuaded.  I'd love to see LDS work towards the common Christian lexicon since so many interfaith discussions get lost in definitions, or so it seems to me.    

--Erik

Actually, what is happening is that "the common Christian Lexicon" (meaning the Evangelical Lexicon) is working its way towards the LDS view.  The problem is that the Evangelical (antiMormon) misrepresentation of our doctrine has been so persistent for so long they actually believe that we are the ones moving.  What is really happening is that they are finally starting to listen and thus understanding and thus accepting our more complete/more full doctrine.

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

I disagree with DBMormon's suggestion that there's anything net new to be found in Uchtdorf's address.  I could be wrong.  I could be persuaded.  I certainly do think Robinson's work was helpful (I can't speak to the other two DBMormon cited).  But has he/they actually re-framed an understanding of grace for senior leadership such as Uchtdorf? 

President Uchtdorf lived in Germany until 2004 (when he became an apostle) surrounded by nonmembers.  I suspect that he was heavily exposed to nonLDS thought there, he hardly has to rely on someone who has probably spent most of his life in Utah (which is not to say Bro. Wilcox has not looked to those outside of Utah in his own studies, I am just suggesting there were likely many more other nonLDS Christian writers Pres. Uchtdorf has had a chance to study without the need of an LDS translator) to figure out how other Christians view grace.

[Calm]

Brother Millet describes his own experience growing up in the South having greatly influenced how his father and others there (I am assuming) taught grace.  But not everyone in the Church grew up in the South or had aggressive encounters with Baptists.  There is no need to assume that the entire Mormon membership couldn't get there from just reading the same scriptures Millet, Robinson, Hafen, and Wilcox are using today.  I know for a fact when Believing Christ (including my mother and my husband and pretty much every other family member of his and mine (and his family is what is usually viewed as typical Utahn, his dad a BYU professor) came out many of those I discussed it with were very grateful for a book that spoke to how they had been teaching grace to their families, as missionaries, as teachers and from the pulpit for years.  Everyone I knew were buying it as a gift or passing it around so that all those others could understand salvation and grace like they did (which makes me wonder if most of those "others" felt the same way and what we really lacked was communication skills, but many got it by the 'gut').

We are, imo, getting better at understanding what other Christians mean by grace and I think that is essentially for understanding as is not forming our own definition of grace based on reactions to those who attack us as happened in the environment that Bro. Millet grew up in (and thus led to his biased perception of LDS thought on this, imo).  I see Robinson as being closer to mainstream LDS thought in his observations than Millet, but both probably have simplified the understanding, which is understandable because it is easier to get their own POV across in contrast.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Calm

[boblloyd91]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Brother Millet describes his own experience growing up in the South having greatly influenced how his father and others there (I am assuming) taught grace.  But not everyone in the Church grew up in the South or had aggressive encounters with Baptists.  There is no need to assume that the entire Mormon membership couldn't get there from just reading the same scriptures Millet, Robinson, Hafen, and Wilcox are using today.  I know for a fact when Believing Christ came out many of those I discussed it with were very grateful for a book that spoke to how they had been teaching grace to their families, as missionaries, as teachers and from the pulpit for years.

We are, imo, getting better at understanding what other Christians mean by grace and I think that is essentially for understanding as is not forming our own definition of grace based on reactions to those who attack us as happened in the environment that Bro. Millet grew up in (and thus led to his biased perception of LDS thought on this, imo).  I see Robinson as being closer to mainstream LDS thought in his observations than Millet, but both probably have simplified the understanding, which is understandable because it is easier to get their own POV across in contrast.

LDS have always believed in God's goodness and kindness, and that he is our Savior. I wonder if one reason why the word grace has only recently been more used the in LDS contexts is due to years of bad blood between us and Evangelicals. I was reading a bunch of old Ensigns last night and came to the realization that a word used a great deal was "atonement" which was used in the same context as grace. 

[Calm]

Much the same thing has been said imo using the terms "saved" and "salvation".  The term "grace" is simply now used to identify what God does where before it was not labeled...or so it seems to me in my readings.  The Atonement is of course connected into the conversation because that is how God is able to offer us his grace.

Edited September 5, 2016 by Calm

[Vance]

From an 1981 Ensign article found here,

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1981/04/salvation-by-grace-or-by-works?lang=eng

It quotes Pres Joseph Fielding Smith saying this,

“So Paul taught these people—who thought that they could be saved by some power that was within them, or by observing the law of Moses—he pointed out to them the fact that if it were not for the mission of Jesus Christ, if it were not for this great atoning sacrifice, they could not be redeemed. And therefore it was by the grace of God that they are saved, not by any work on their part, for they were absolutely helpless. Paul was absolutely right.

“And on the other hand, James taught just as the Lord taught, just as Paul had taught in other scripture, that it is our duty, of necessity, to labor, to strive in diligence, and faith, keeping the commandments of the Lord, if we would obtain that inheritance which is promised to the faithful. …

“So it is easy to understand that we must accept the mission of Jesus Christ. We must believe that it is through his grace that we are saved, that he performed for us that labor which we were unable to perform for ourselves, and did for us those things which were essential to our salvation, which were beyond our power; and also that we are under the commandment and the necessity of performing the labors that are required of us as set forth in the commandments known as the gospel of Jesus Christ.” (Doctrines of Salvation, comp. Bruce R. McConkie, 3 vols., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1954–56, 2:310–11.)

 

Notice the date?

 

So, NO, this is not anything new!!!

 

[Five Solas]

38 minutes ago, boblloyd91 said:

LDS have always believed in God's goodness and kindness, and that he is our Savior. I wonder if one reason why the word grace has only recently been more used the in LDS contexts is due to years of bad blood between us and Evangelicals. I was reading a bunch of old Ensigns last night and came to the realization that a word used a great deal was "atonement" which was used in the same context as grace. 

Is that really the most plausible explanation you've been able to find, Bob?  Bad blood?!?  I suggest there's a much more obvious explanation at hand:  Grace (as Christians understand it) simply isn't a factor in LDS soteriology.  Period.  This would explain why Vance is so eager (desperate almost) to change the definition from "unmerited favor"--to something else.  He realizes that as it stands, it upends everything he believes. 

But I'll give you this, bad blood sounds way more exciting!  Depending on your audience, this may prove a winner...

;0)

--Erik

PS.  Did you take my advice & order yourself some Dan Dare?  Garth Ennis does it justice...

[Vance]

1 hour ago, Five Solas said:

This would explain why Vance is so eager (desperate almost) to change the definition from "unmerited favor"--to something else.  He realizes that as it stands, it upends everything he believes.

I am not interested in changing the definition.  My only interest is in correcting your false one.  No where in scripture is grace defined as "unmerited".  In fact I have clearly shown, using New Testament verses, your definition is untenable.

 

Yes, grace is a gift, and at times, even most times, it is unmerited.  Other times it is extended to only the obedient.  Obedience is necessary but insufficient.  Christ, speaking to the obedient on several occasions, has exclaimed that His grace is sufficient for them.

1. 2 Cor. 12: 9
     9 And he said unto me, 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.
2. Ether 12: 26-27
     26 And when I had said this, the Lord spake unto me, saying: Fools mock, but they shall mourn; and my grace is sufficient for the meek, that they shall take no advantage of your weakness;
     27 And if men come unto me I will show unto them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.
3. D&C 17: 8
     8 And if you do these last commandments of mine, which I have given you, the gates of hell shall not prevail against you; for my grace is sufficient for you, and you shall be lifted up at the last day.
4. D&C 18: 31
     31 And now I speak unto you, the Twelve—Behold, my grace is sufficient for you; you must walk uprightly before me and sin not.

 

[boblloyd91]

2 hours ago, Five Solas said:

Is that really the most plausible explanation you've been able to find, Bob?  Bad blood?!?  I suggest there's a much more obvious explanation at hand:  Grace (as Christians understand it) simply isn't a factor in LDS soteriology.  Period.  This would explain why Vance is so eager (desperate almost) to change the definition from "unmerited favor"--to something else.  He realizes that as it stands, it upends everything he believes. 

But I'll give you this, bad blood sounds way more exciting!  Depending on your audience, this may prove a winner...

;0)

--Erik

PS.  Did you take my advice & order yourself some Dan Dare?  Garth Ennis does it justice...

To the first question I couldn't disagree more about the irrelevance of grace to LDS practice and belief, hence my stern reply a few posts back. Indeed Joseph Smith said (to paraphrase him at least) all things in our faith are but appendages to the atonement. The atonement is emphasized (in fact Evangelical scholar Gerald McDermott says obsessively emphasized) in the Book of Mormon. Also a perusal of the Doctrine and Covenants is also very Christ centric and any Latter Day Saint who reads their scriptures (which in this case I'm referring to the standard works) should know very well how important grace is. In regards to my musings about LDS and Evangelical bad blood, as I said I was "wondering". I'm sure the answers are more complex then that, but anecdotal experience (both mine and others whom I have associated with who have served missions or been around  evangelicals for an extended period of time) has indicated to me that some not all) Evangelicals hold to a form of grace that seems almost Antinomian in nature, where someone can confess Jesus and then do anything they want. I once had a Baptist minister tell me as much on my mission to Iowa. 

Not to speak for everyone but I myself take it very seriously the change that comes from the atonement. We take the transformation of heart and mind seriously, and how someone can be made holy by yielding to Christ. Of course this is much more then a behavioral change, however it is hard to have your mind and heart changed and not see tangible results. It goes back to our stereotypes of each other where Evangelicals think Mormons are trying to earn their salvation, and Mormons think Evangelicals are basically trying to get cheap grace and not truly commit to the Savior. I don't know that either side is completely wrong or right as there probably are Mormons who believe in earning salvation, and probably Evangelicals that think a confession without repentance is all that is needed. 

In regards to your second question, I must say that I quite liked Garth Ennis work in the Punisher, and looked at Dan Dare, which I put in my wish list. I appreciate the recommendations! It sounds like you're a comic book reader too.

[Anakin7]

On September 4, 2016 at 10:24 PM, Anakin7 said:

   Five Solas We LDS want The True Grace of Jesus Christ, not the grace offered to us by anti LDS protestant polemicists  - http://publications.mi.byu.edu/publications/review/22/1/S00010-5176a159eeb0510Gee.pdf . The before linked article by one LDS Sentinel/Warrior shows how that the True Doctrine of Grace was viewed within The Walls of The Heavenly Jerusalem by God The Father The Monarch of The Universe, Jesus Christ The Vice Monarch of The Universe, The Holy Ghost/Spirit the Great Testator/Sanctifier of The Universe, Archangels/Angels/ Righteousness/Truth/,True Old Testament Prophets Hebrew/Israelites, New Testament Prophets/Apostles/Saints/Christians.May you clearly see the Definition as was held in the hearts and minds of the Ancient middle eastern individual in the middle east within the pages of Holy Writ.

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Robes In The Blood Of The Lamb

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

    Repost To Five Solas once again concerning The True Grace of Christ.

The Atonement It Is The Central Doctrine

Washing My Garment/Robe In His Blood

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

Anakin7

[DBMormon]

23 hours ago, Calm said:

Ignore above glitch please.

If Mormons weren't explaining things this way 10 years ago then how do you explain Believing Christ being the top selling Mormon book for around a decade, or Robinson's articles being printed in the Ensign including this one in 1992 https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/04/believing-christ?lang=eng as well Millet's that appeared the same year https://www.lds.org/ensign/1992/06/putting-off-the-natural-man-an-enemy-to-god?lang=eng and even Bruce R McConkie back in 1966 in Mormon Doctrine no less and in 1981 here:

Salvation is free." (2 Nephi 2:4) Justification is free. Neither of them can be purchased; neither can be earned; neither comes by the law of Moses, or by good works, or by any power or ability that man has.... When the prophets who were before Christ preached that salvation is free, they were announcing the same doctrine that would thereafter fall from apostolic lips in the pronouncement that we are saved by grace. The questions then are: What salvation is free? What salvation comes by the grace of God? With all the emphasis of the rolling thunders of Sinai, we answer: All salvation is free; all comes by the merits and mercy and grace of the Holy Messiah; there is no salvation of any kind, nature, or degree that is not bound to Christ and his atonement. 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. 346-347).

The books Believing Christ was published in 92 and Millet's By Grace We Are Saved in 89.  Do you think these books just sat on the shelf unread all these years?

Influence is rarely one path from A to B, especially something like religious thought.  

Why do you think (at least appear to) that Elder Uchtdorf never read anything by Robinson, Millet, or McConkie on grace himself or read the scriptures that way for himself or encountered ideas of grace from numerous sources (considering it is one of the most discussed topics in Christianity, both now and historically), but had to have it all pre digested for him by Wilcox?

And Stephen Robinson missed the main crux of Wilcox's paradigm.  Robinson insisted that that we each must give "all we can do" and in the case of Robinson's book the little girl saved all her pennies and made up the difference.  Robinson's view while different than correlated mormonism also imposed 2nd nephi 25:23 as a fundamental interpretation.

Wilcox on the other hand says

Quote

"Jesus filled the whole space. He paid our debt in full. He didn’t pay it all except for a few coins. He paid it all. It is finished.”

When he says "coins" he is speaking directly to where Robinson fell short.  Also the reason Robinson's book sold so well was it conveyed Christ's grace in a way no LDS leader had encapsulated.

 

For those reading this thread I suggest 4 talks to listen to and then come back and let me know where in correlated Mormonism such a view can be found

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/stephen-e-robinson_believing-christ-practical-approach-atonement/  Robinson's talk listen or read  first

http://www.byutv.org/watch/60717463-af28-4478-b759-b51f0278d1cb Millet Women's Conference address - listen to 2nd (video only)

https://speeches.byu.edu/talks/brad-wilcox_his-grace-is-sufficient/   Wilcox  - listen / read  third

http://www.byutv.org/watch/ec905b03-9db3-47f3-a18f-05fedf670870/byu-womens-conference-wendee-and-bradley-wilcox-2007  -  Wilcox's earlier talk best listened to last to connect some dots.  text is found here https://womensconference.ce.byu.edu/sites/womensconference.ce.byu.edu/files/bradwilcoxandwendeewilcox-2007.pdf

 

Then CFR for anyone claiming this view of grace (wilcox's) was taught in correlated mormonism before Uchdorf's "Gift of Grace"

Also listen to Uchtdorf and see if you think he is borrowing strongly from Wilcox and the two others having gone before.   

https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2015/04/the-gift-of-grace?lang=eng

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2016 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

Mormonism has always stressed our works as "our part" to pay.  Uchtdorf changed the correlated game when he insisted that we do something out of appreciation and not out of something to contribute.  I welcome it shown in Correlated Mormonism that

- Our effort is only to show appreciation for the gift of the atonement.

- Christ paid the price in full with no part left for us to contribute to assist in redeeming ourselves.

- we are practicing here with no ability to be perfect in this life.  

-  Christ will be begging us to stay with him at judgement and not being graded based on our performance in this life.

- our willingness is all that counts and not our accomplishment.

- we have no coins to pay, it is finished.   He did it.  He did it all. 

-   he gave us our weakness and it is he who makes our weaknesses into strengths hence anything we accomplish above and beyond the natural man wasn't by our merits but 100% his and hence again there is nothing we can do but be willing and to try.  

- That we must be justified (made clean so as to stand at the judgement bar in God's presence), but also must be sanctified or changed (Christ's grace again gets all the credit) to stay there (in his presence) 

- That the law is designed to have us fail trying to keep it and in our failing it points us to Christ.  In other words the Law is designed to have us fall short and perceive we can't cut it trying to :Do all we can do" and in that failing we must look for a better way.  That way is Christ and his grace.  Hence we must begin a shift away from using accomplishment to measure ourselves and others and instead allow it to be about willingness and between that individual and God w/ no pressure to manipulate people into seeing accomplishment as the path to salvation.

We do not teach this.  We guilt and shame over falling short and guilt and shame people into doing more.  Mormonism focuses on outward behavior  Wilcox's paradigm calls for this to end. and to simply focus inward on one's willingness.  Any fruit from that is due to Christ's merits, mercy, and grace.  Not anything we did outwardly.  Again  God's grace gets any credit for anything we do above and beyond the natural man.

 

I grant this paradigm is in the scriptures but our leaders missed the mark generally and focused generally on works righteousness which is a false premise.

Edited September 6, 2016 by DBMormon

[DBMormon]

Also Ben Spackman seems to indicate there has been a shift as well

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/benjaminthescribe/2015/08/necessary-background-on-grace-faith-works-law-justification-for-the-coming-lds-gospel-doctrine-discussions/

 

Why didn’t LDS hear about grace more in the late 20th century?

As demonstrated both in our own scriptures (above) and by David Paulsen’s historical article (below, Resources), grace is definitely an LDS thing. So why did we go through a period in which we emphasized works? I’d posit two reasons.

Edited September 6, 2016 by DBMormon

[Calm]

I am not suggesting there hasn't been a shift in how we talk about grace or that Wilcox hasn't figured out the best analogy yet (though in 20 years there will probably be someone else with even a better one as each builds on the efforts of those who go before).  Analogies are never perfect because they only approach the meaning and never are the meaning.

My point is I think it is silly to suggest that Pres. Uchtdorf, of all the apostles in fact, has never been exposed to these ideas that flow through our own scriptures as well as in discussions taking place all over the world among LDS and nonLDS alike.

Good for posting Ben's stuff, I was debating whether to do it or if it was too off topic.  It shows that grace has always been there in LDS thought as well as elsewhere, how there has been great development over time in the grace discussion, constant movement as people put out ideas, others react to them, everyone refines their comments and it starts all over again demonstrating that it is not this linear progression where ideas move up through time from one person to the next.  

Wilcox may very well have contributed in part ideas to Elder Uchtdorf's own configuration of the grace discussion or Elder Uchtdorf may have simply drunk from the same fountain of knowledge that Wilcox did (the fountain that Ben documents in part).  I would be surprised, for example, if both had not been exposed to NT Wright as I hear he is very well known in this discussion and is considered the CS Lewis of this generation...even I have read him).  And most important, the scriptures**** on which the discussion is firmly based are there for everyone to read.  Add in inspiration (which I see Wilcox as much of a recipient of as Uchtdorf) and I just don't see one dimensional rigid pronouncements of idea sources as useful.  Sure, point out how well the talks mesh as the more we have of these concepts from different POV the better the refinement of the idea is, show how they belong in the same family of grace ideas, but please don't reduce it to such a monotone concept as that is one of the fundamental problems people can have in the Church, only accepting one voice as a legitmate source that all others must bow to and refusing to see the multifaceted contributions of the community as a whole (think of what happened when Elder McConkie's Mormon Doctrine was treated that way by so many).  It takes on the sense of idol worship.

****Ben collects a number of purely LDS scriptures teaching grace as well as pointing out verses in the Bible.  I assume there will be no debate that Elder Uchtdorf, Elder Maxwell, Elder Hafen as well as Bro. Wilcox all were wellversed in these scriptures and nothing prevents them from similar interpretations (especially if one accepts the same Spirit informing their study):

"Grace is a Mormon concept found in our own scriptures. 

We often hear about 2 Nephi 25:23, “we are saved by grace after all we can do” but misunderstand and misinterpret that latter half in a perfectionist way. Rather, we  should read with 2 Nephi 10:24- “after ye are reconciled unto God, that it is only in and through the grace of God that ye are saved.” This suggests that “all we can do” is “be reconciled unto God”, that is, commit to doing God’s will and trying to change when we fail to do so. That sounds a lot like the baptismal covenant, doesn’t it? More on covenant and relationships below. ( On 2 Nephi 25:23, see Joe Spencer’s articlehere.)

Other LDS passages- 2 Nephi 31:19; 3 Nephi 27:16, D&C 45:4-5 (D&C 38:3-4); Alma 33:11, 13 (Alma 41:6); 2 Nephi 2:3 (By whose righteousness is Jacob redeemed?), Moroni 10:32-33;

JST on Romans 3:24, 28 (not found in LDS quad) adds a significant word- “Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith alone without the deeds of the law.” (On making sense of this JST passage, see Kevin Barney’s article here.)

D&C 20:30- “we know that justification through the grace of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is just and true.”"

Edited September 6, 2016 by Calm