The Work of Salvation and Exaltation.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Navidad said:

I find reading these kinds of discussions among faithful members of the LDS church fascinating. It seems that your doctrine is so complex and difficult to understand that you don't agree on what must be the most critical and basic aspects of any Christian faith - salvation and eternal life with the Father. No, the people are!

Of course, I must be fair and acknowledge that there are also cases in which non-LDS Christians don't agree with each other across denominations about what is ultimately needed for salvation as well. I am speaking now across the wide perspective of 2.3 billion Christians. I am speaking about that which is essential and that which is not. A lot of this however is between differing Christian traditions and groups, not within one group as it appears to be within the LDS church as evidenced by this thread. “The fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 121).

For example it seems that some non-LDS Christians believe it is essential to have a certain understanding of the trinity to be truly saved. I reject that; others don't. The whole idea of the ability to lose one's salvation - the doctrine of eternal security is different among different Christian groups. I believe it is fair to say that my LDS friends don't believe in eternal security, while my Baptist friends do. There are at least five or six major differentiations in the understanding of baptism as necessary for salvation across the spectrum of Christian groups. I personally don't believe we can, with certainty say this or that specific view is right or wrong when each one is very complicated in and of itself. We can only with humility say, "This is what I believe" or with trepidation say "here I stand." Humility is certainly a better attribute when discussing these things than is certainty. Saying, this is what I believe in no way requires the second affirmation "therefore if you believe differently, you are wrong." That second affirmation is in and of itself wrong since we know that right now we see through a glass darkly. Pride is rarely if ever a fruit of the Spirit; neither is certainty. At least many of us are doing our very best to see through the glass of faith. 

Your current discussion in this thread points out your own lack of absolute clarity and confidence within your own faith community. I find that wonderfully healthy. I also certainly hope that these discussions foster an atmosphere more heavily laden with humility than with certainty.  Moroni 10 talks about "these things" being true. It seems that the challenge is figuring out "these things" and then how all "these things" fit together in the grand scheme of Heavenly Father. Even the small group of LDS Christians on this forum go beyond pondering (Moroni 10 as well) and discuss, debate, dialogue, and yes at times even challenge each other with rightly dividing the "these things" of LDS faith, like which ordinance is necessary for what and where. I am glad that you all struggle to understand the "truth" of it all. I know I do. I find that humility and certainty in Christ can go hand-in-hand (not that I'm any expert!), and that discussing and talking through the semantics is a wonderfully healthy exercise in that.

notes above

Edited February 29, 2020 by CV75

[Stargazer]

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

I find reading these kinds of discussions among faithful members of the LDS church fascinating. It seems that your doctrine is so complex and difficult to understand that you don't agree on what must be the most critical and basic aspects of any Christian faith - salvation and eternal life with the Father.

I think that non-LDS Christian doctrine is also complex and difficult to understand.  Why else do universities have PhD-degree granting programs in theology?  In my opinion, the simplest understanding of the gospel is that which Joseph Smith articulated as follows: "the fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 121).  I don't think that any Christian organization would feel it necessary to gainsay this statement.  They would only disagree about the appendages.

You must be aware that there were times that Jesus enjoined the apostles from teaching certain things before the people were ready. He used the phrase "casting pearls before swine", which sounds rude, but goes along with the softer concept of "milk before meat". 

“I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now.” (John 16:12.)

This clearly suggests that things may be more complicated than we want to believe -- Jesus did not say that they couldn't bear what he had to say to neophytes in Christianity, but to men who had been with him for 3 years and who had strong testimonies of his mission and who he was.  Certainly not as strong as they would be, later, but they were his chosen leaders. And still they were not ready.  Because things were not as simple as we would like to believe.

And after Christ's resurrection He spent how many days teaching the apostles about the gospel before the apostles were actually sent forth after His ascension?  He said during the Last Supper, "These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father." (John 16:25)  But what happens after this?  The crucifixion and the resurrection.  So whatever He intended to teach them from that point on would be taught by the resurrected Christ. Do we have a record of what he taught them?  Not much of one.  But we know there must have been a lot that was taught, because from what we read in Acts and various letters the apostles seemed to have learned things not mentioned in the gospels.  As John said at the end of his gospel: "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written."  This confirms that things must have been more complicated than we know.

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Of course, I must be fair and acknowledge that there are also cases in which non-LDS Christians don't agree with each other across denominations about what is ultimately needed for salvation as well. I am speaking now across the wide perspective of 2.3 billion Christians. I am speaking about that which is essential and that which is not. A lot of this however is between differing Christian traditions and groups, not within one group as it appears to be within the LDS church as evidenced by this thread.

We are all in different levels of understanding with regard to the gospel of Christ.  I notice myself that my understanding now is far greater than it was 20 years ago.  Or at least different.

Elder Spencer Condie wrote about the Atonement in the Ensign magazine in 1996, and I think what he had to say corresponds with what I have been trying to elucidate in this thread. It might be instructive to read what Elder Condie wrote: The Fall and Infinite Atonement 

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

For example it seems that some non-LDS Christians believe it is essential to have a certain understanding of the trinity to be truly saved. I reject that; others don't. The whole idea of the ability to lose one's salvation - the doctrine of eternal security is different among different Christian groups. I believe it is fair to say that my LDS friends don't believe in eternal security, while my Baptist friends do. There are at least five or six major differentiations in the understanding of baptism as necessary for salvation across the spectrum of Christian groups. I personally don't believe we can, with certainty say this or that specific view is right or wrong when each one is very complicated in and of itself. We can only with humility say, "This is what I believe" or with trepidation say "here I stand." Humility is certainly a better attribute when discussing these things than is certainty. Saying, this is what I believe in no way requires the second affirmation "therefore if you believe differently, you are wrong." That second affirmation is in and of itself wrong since we know that right now we see through a glass darkly. Pride is rarely if ever a fruit of the Spirit; neither is certainty. At least many of us are doing our very best to see through the glass of faith. 

You understand that I believe certain things, and I am pretty darned certain that what I believe is pretty darned close to absolutely true. And if I am right, then those who believe differently must be definitely wrong. Facts don't care about feelings, in one sense, but it is hardly my place to condemn anyone who hasn't come up to my expert level of understanding. LOL.  We'll see, later but maybe sooner, just how expert my understanding actually is. Probably not as expert as I think it is.

Nevertheless, there have been some living upon the earth at various times and places who could say, with Peter: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed..."  (2 Peter 1:19)

3 hours ago, Navidad said:

Your current discussion in this thread points out your own lack of absolute clarity and confidence within your own faith community. I find that wonderfully healthy. I also certainly hope that these discussions foster an atmosphere more heavily laden with humility than with certainty.  Moroni 10 talks about "these things" being true. It seems that the challenge is figuring out "these things" and then how all "these things" fit together in the grand scheme of Heavenly Father. Even the small group of LDS Christians on this forum go beyond pondering (Moroni 10 as well) and discuss, debate, dialogue, and yes at times even challenge each other with rightly dividing the "these things" of LDS faith, like which ordinance is necessary for what and where. I am glad that you all struggle to understand the "truth" of it all. I know I do. 

We will always struggle to understand the truth of all of it.  Until that perfect day when all shall be revealed in its glory.

[Stargazer]

36 minutes ago, CV75 said:

notes above

I enjoyed seeing that your notes corresponded rather well with my more lengthy (or wordy) notes. Perhaps there is great value in being more pithy and concise!

[Calm]

Quote

I find reading these kinds of discussions among faithful members of the LDS church fascinating. It seems that your doctrine is so complex and difficult to understand that you don't agree on what must be the most critical and basic aspects of any Christian faith - salvation and eternal life with the Father.

I don't believe what we have is that difficult to understand.  The Gospel Principles manual, which provides a great overview of our doctrine imo, is simple and can be read in a short time.

We, however, do not approach theology as a church as something that needs to be reasoned out; doctrine is revealed, not reasoned.  This can leave gaps waiting for future revelation and this is where it can become complicated through people wanting to fill in the gaps with their own reasonings...which don't always match the reasonings of the person sitting next to them on the pew.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I enjoyed seeing that your notes corresponded rather well with my more lengthy (or wordy) notes. Perhaps there is great value in being more pithy and concise!

I don't know what to say!

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Sunslight said:

As far as I understand it, salvation means being saved from physical and spiritual death and entails all ordinances except for the marriage/ sealing ordinance. Exaltation is the crowning ordinance of the marriage covenant and ordinance.

Another perspective:

One needs to have the Gospel offered, accept the offer in faith, and then be baptized and receive all the ordinances, and then reject them to become Perdition.

One needs to have the Gospel offered, accept the offer in faith, and then be baptized and receive all the ordinances, and keep them to become exalted.

Every other kingdom: One needs to have the Gospel offered but may not accept the offer in faith (or "accept" it with other attitudes that are not consistent with becoming as a little child); may initially accept but then not receive the offered baptism and other ordinances; may accept and receive the ordinances, but "not live according to God in the spirit",  other permutations, etc. The Parable of the Sower reflects our attitudes and choices both during and after physical mortality.

[Sunslight]

32 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Another perspective:

One needs to have the Gospel offered, accept the offer in faith, and then be baptized and receive all the ordinances, and then reject them to become Perdition.

One needs to have the Gospel offered, accept the offer in faith, and then be baptized and receive all the ordinances, and keep them to become exalted.

Every other kingdom: One needs to have the Gospel offered but may not accept the offer in faith (or "accept" it with other attitudes that are not consistent with becoming as a little child); may initially accept but then not receive the offered baptism and other ordinances; may accept and receive the ordinances, but "not live according to God in the spirit",  other permutations, etc. The Parable of the Sower reflects our attitudes and choices both during and after physical mortality.

So, it sounds like you are saying that salvation is offered along a broad spectrum from basically receiving no ordinances all the way up to receiving all of the ordinances. Is that what you are suggesting?

[Sunslight]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

I don't believe what we have is that difficult to understand.  The Gospel Principles manual, which provides a great overview of our doctrine imo, is simple and can be read in a short time.

We, however, do not approach theology as a church as something that needs to be reasoned out; doctrine is revealed, not reasoned.  This can leave gaps waiting for future revelation and this is where it can become complicated through people wanting to fill in the gaps with their own reasonings...which don't always match the reasonings of the person sitting next to them on the pew.

Would it be fair to say that doctrine is revealed and then we reason as to its interpretation and that interpretation covers a broad range where somewhere in the middle people come to generally agree?

[Calm]

36 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

Would it be fair to say that doctrine is revealed and then we reason as to its interpretation and that interpretation covers a broad range where somewhere in the middle people come to generally agree?

Hopefully, but interpretation shouldn't be confused imo with revelation.

[CV75]

4 hours ago, Sunslight said:

So, it sounds like you are saying that salvation is offered along a broad spectrum from basically receiving no ordinances all the way up to receiving all of the ordinances. Is that what you are suggesting?

The accuracy of your summary partly depends on what you mean by salvation (resurrection, post-judgement degree of resurrected glory including exaltation, or just exaltation) and whether or not you are incorporating the other considerations I mentioned as assumptions.

Exaltation through the Atonement of Christ (the Gospel) is the only thing that is offered. The path to receiving it, including offer of the all the ordinances beginning with baptism, follows that. There are other elements to consider as well, but primarily individual agency.

[Sunslight]

7 hours ago, Calm said:

Hopefully, but interpretation shouldn't be confused imo with revelation.

One must still interpret revelation.

[Sunslight]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

The accuracy of your summary partly depends on what you mean by salvation (resurrection, post-judgement degree of resurrected glory including exaltation, or just exaltation) and whether or not you are incorporating the other considerations I mentioned as assumptions.

Exaltation through the Atonement of Christ (the Gospel) is the only thing that is offered. The path to receiving it, including offer of the all the ordinances beginning with baptism, follows that. There are other elements to consider as well, but primarily individual agency.

When I read the new handbook they use the wording in a way that separates salvation and exaltation as two distinct things. I think we can only use salvation in the context of being saved from physical and spiritual death. Exaltation is an ordinance beyond salvation.

[CV75]

13 hours ago, Sunslight said:

When I read the new handbook they use the wording in a way that separates salvation and exaltation as two distinct things. I think we can only use salvation in the context of being saved from physical and spiritual death. Exaltation is an ordinance beyond salvation.

In that case, what would you say is the disposition of those those who choose not to submit to baptism and the other ordinances but otherwise "live according to God" at a lesser degree, according to their conscience, and of those who submit to the ordinances (outwardly at least) but choose not to "live according to God" to one or another degree?

[Sunslight]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

In that case, what would you say is the disposition of those those who choose not to submit to baptism and the other ordinances but otherwise "live according to God" at a lesser degree, according to their conscience, and of those who submit to the ordinances (outwardly at least) but choose not to "live according to God" to one or another degree?

I'm not sure it's possible to live according to God and yet reject baptism. That's kind of an oxymoron isn't it?

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Sunslight said:

I'm not sure it's possible to live according to God and yet reject baptism. That's kind of an oxymoron isn't it?

No, it's just an absence of fulness. In which case, what would you say is the disposition of those those who choose not to submit to baptism and the other ordinances but otherwise "live according to God" to a lesser degree, according to their conscience, and of those who submit to the ordinances (outwardly at least) but choose not to "live according to God" to one or another degree?

Edited March 1, 2020 by CV75

[Sunslight]

4 minutes ago, CV75 said:

No, it's just an absence of fulness. In which case, what would you say is the disposition of those those who choose not to submit to baptism and the other ordinances but otherwise "live according to God" to a lesser degree, according to their conscience, and of those who submit to the ordinances (outwardly at least) but choose not to "live according to God" to one or another degree?

I guess I have a hard time trying to understand why or how someone could live according to God in the spirit but not accept baptism. Isn't the phrase "live according to God" mean that they are obeying him?

[CV75]

5 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

I guess I have a hard time trying to understand why or how someone could live according to God in the spirit but not accept baptism. Isn't the phrase "live according to God" mean that they are obeying him?

Nephi called it, more accurately than the biblical translation allows, living "after the manner of happiness." It is done in degrees, hopefully someday in perfection, but those that refuse baptism aren't living according to the manner of perfection. They are blind (as in rejecting the light of Christ given them) yet honorable (as in living according to the light of Christ they do receive). "For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding," and some willfully limit their language and their understanding.

More simply put, someone can obey God in some things and disobey Him in others.

[Sunslight]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Nephi called it, more accurately than the biblical translation allows, living "after the manner of happiness." It is done in degrees, hopefully someday in perfection, but those that refuse baptism aren't living according to the manner of perfection. They are blind (as in rejecting the light of Christ given them) yet honorable (as in living according to the light of Christ they do receive). "For the Lord God giveth light unto the understanding; for he speaketh unto men according to their language, unto their understanding," and some willfully limit their language and their understanding.

More simply put, someone can obey God in some things and disobey Him in others.

Humm...not sure I agree with everything you suggest but good points.

[CV75]

52 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

Humm...not sure I agree with everything you suggest but good points.

Thank you. To expand a bit from Alma 12:

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to ^aknow the ^bmysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart ^conly according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will ^aharden his heart, the same receiveth the ^blesser portion of the word; and he that will ^cnot harden his heart, to him is ^dgiven the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser ^aportion of the word until they ^bknow nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the ^cchains of ^dhell.

The chains of hell are not hell itself, but the power and means of captivity, which are the lesser portion of the word, according to the will of the devil. Some are bound more than others.

Exaltation is an ordinance, and so is resurrection, the difference being that exaltation is the culmination of adherence to the chain of saving ordinances that must be received in mortality, while resurrection is not, as evidenced by an order of resurrection (“first”, “next” and “last”).

[mfbukowski]

On 2/29/2020 at 2:44 AM, Navidad said:

Now you have piqued my interest . . . what sentinels? Guarding against what? Who appoints them (who is the "we")? Which realm? Is the concept of sentinels to screen out unworthy ones LDS doctrine? Is this a common belief among all LDS members?

The problem here is one I have cited before, and that is your incomplete understanding of beliefs and doctrine - which is not your fault but because you are studying from OUTSIDE the church, and not as "one of us".

That is the reason people keep telling you to become a member and get baptized, because that opens the door to the temple to you, and most of what we speak about here is taught in the temple and nowhere else, and we never directly quote any of that because of its sacred character.

So there is much of LDS belief one will NEVER know without actually being a member.   All you see is the over-simplified shell of the egg without even knowing there is a huge "yolk" inside.   It is not your fault, but you ask questions and receive insufficient answers because you do not believe the possibility that what we are telling you is correct

Brigham Young sort of answered your question:

Quote

Let me give you a definition in brief. Your endowment is, to receive all those ordinances in the house of the Lord, which are necessary for you, after you have departed this life, to enable you to walk back to the presence of the Father, passing the angels who stand as sentinels (DBY, 416).

Yes, that is as doctrinal as it comes.  

The most important teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ are found in the temple both explicitly and symbolically, and the reason we stress individual revelation so much is that the temple is constructed to teach us symbolically - and for us to discover the meanings symbolically

Without experiencing the temple ordinances, one will never fully grasp the Church of Jesus Christ, and that is why people keep pushing you in that direction.

We don't talk about it.   

They believe they are encouraging you to gain a greater understanding of God now, and for after you pass on.  They and we also want the best for you, and are certain that after you do pass on, you will see enough evidence to accept the ordinances someone will most certainly provide for you!   Your devotion to Christ is obvious, and we just want you to grow in the gospel, and believe that eventually you will see the wisdom in that, either on this side of the veil or the other!   So please my brother, take it in the context in which it is offered! 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_(Latter_Day_Saints)

 

 

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Exaltation is an ordinance, and so is resurrection, the difference being that exaltation is the culmination of adherence to the chain of saving ordinances that must be received in mortality, while resurrection is not, as evidenced by an order of resurrection (“first”, “next” and “last”).

Here again we have an orderly progression of continued learning and education.  "Eternal Progression" is symbolized in the order of ordinances itself, and within the ordinances themselves which becomes obvious in the endowment

[Sunslight]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Thank you. To expand a bit from Alma 12:

9 And now Alma began to expound these things unto him, saying: It is given unto many to ^aknow the ^bmysteries of God; nevertheless they are laid under a strict command that they shall not impart ^conly according to the portion of his word which he doth grant unto the children of men, according to the heed and diligence which they give unto him.

10 And therefore, he that will ^aharden his heart, the same receiveth the ^blesser portion of the word; and he that will ^cnot harden his heart, to him is ^dgiven the greater portion of the word, until it is given unto him to know the mysteries of God until he know them in full.

11 And they that will harden their hearts, to them is given the lesser ^aportion of the word until they ^bknow nothing concerning his mysteries; and then they are taken captive by the devil, and led by his will down to destruction. Now this is what is meant by the ^cchains of ^dhell.

The chains of hell are not hell itself, but the power and means of captivity, which are the lesser portion of the word, according to the will of the devil. Some are bound more than others.

Exaltation is an ordinance, and so is resurrection, the difference being that exaltation is the culmination of adherence to the chain of saving ordinances that must be received in mortality, while resurrection is not, as evidenced by an order of resurrection (“first”, “next” and “last”).

I see exaltation exclusively as the eternal marriage covenant which contains ordinances. I look at all the other ordinances that pertain to salvation which is what savesus as all ordinances up to the marriage covenant.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Sunslight

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, Sunslight said:

I see exaltation exclusively as the eternal marriage covenant which contains ordinances. I look at all the other ordinances that pertain to salvation which is what savesus as all ordinances up to the marriage covenant.

Maybe this is where you go wrong.

Exaltation includes having an eternal marriage. It is the kind of marriage God has. Exaltation means becoming gods, and yes being sealed forever is one requirement for being exalted, but sealing is only one of all the requirements.

DC 132

"20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them."

...."37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods. "

THAT is exaltation.

Sealing PLUS following all the commandments, etc

Sealing is one requirement of exaltation, not exaltation itself

Edited March 2, 2020 by mfbukowski

[Sunslight]

5 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Maybe this is where you go wrong.

Exaltation includes having an eternal marriage. It is the kind of marriage God has. Exaltation means becoming gods, and yes being sealed forever is one requirement for being exalted, but sealing is only one of all the requirements.

DC 132

"20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them."

...."37 Abraham received concubines, and they bore him children; and it was accounted unto him for righteousness, because they were given unto him, and he abode in my law; as Isaac also and Jacob did none other things than that which they were commanded; and because they did none other things than that which they were commanded, they have entered into their exaltation, according to the promises, and sit upon thrones, and are not angels but are gods. "

THAT is exaltation.

Sealing PLUS following all the commandments, etc

Sealing is one requirement of exaltation, not exaltation itself

We are saying the same thing. Exaltation is the highest crown. One can have salvation without exaltation but one cannot have exaltation without salvation.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Sunslight said:

I see exaltation exclusively as the eternal marriage covenant which contains ordinances. I look at all the other ordinances that pertain to salvation which is what savesus as all ordinances up to the marriage covenant.

Are you saying that one cannot be resurrected without entering into and keeping the baptismal covenant, but otherwise live an honorable life (whether here or in the hereafter)?