The Work of Salvation and Exaltation.

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Navidad said:

I am familiar with this quote from Joseph Smith. Can someone explain to me more about that which is "only appendages?" What confuses me is it seems when I get into a doctrinal discussion with members of the church, every stick or piece of doctrine is essential. That is why in my mind I relate my  LDS friends to my fundamentalist friends within non-LDS Christianity. The doctrine that says I can't possibly have the gift of the Holy Spirit is essential, not an appendage. The anthropomorphism of the Father is essential. The doctrine of spirit children is essential. The doctrine of eternal families is essential. The whole doctrine of exaltation as distinct from salvation is not an appendage, but is essential. The doctrine that only LDS priesthood holders have authority to perform ordinances for all of Christianity is essential. It seems that  individual agency would kick in on the appendages - perhaps an individual member of the church could vary in his or her belief about the appendages. Could someone give me an example of LDS principles that are included in the "all other things" that are "only appendages."

The fundamental principles as stated above are indeed for me, the fundamental principles of Christianity and very few other beliefs qualify as such. Am I more in line with Joseph Smith than today's typical member of the LDS church? Has everything become a fundamental principle?

I think I see a central contradiction here. In one sentence you say you want to follow the simple Gospel of salvation. Belief in Jesus Christ is all you need to be saved.

On the other hand you want to take on all these academic theological issues, and bemoan the fact that we don't do that in Sunday School.

What am I missing?

How does heavy academic theology fit with a simple understanding of the Bible?

[Ahab]

28 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I wholeheartedly agree. I believe you should not knowingly reject what you believe is commanded to you by God. I would say exactly the same for me. I should not and do not reject what I believe is commanded to me by God. I am not a member of the LDS church. You are not a member of the Mennonite Church. We have equally strong beliefs in what God teaches us through our respective understanding of His word and through our respective church. The difference is I respect and believe your beliefs are indeed your very best understanding of what God wants for you. You also believe that your very best understanding of what God wants for you is also what He wants for me! That is our difference!

I think you are fine (spiritually) just as you are. You don't believe I am fine (spiritually) just as I am. As I have said on here a bunch of times before, I am quite content with my faith and the assurance I have of my salvation and opportunity for sanctification within my faith. I am also fascinated with LDS doctrine and especially its connection to its history, culture, and society. I am an inside-outsider or an outside-insider. That is all I want to be. I cause myself lots of issues in that. To be betwixt and between is not a pleasant place. It is where, however I believe God wants me to be right now.

I think one of the questions we should both ask here is:  What would I miss out on if I did not accept some of your teachings which are true?  

I try to stay open to any true teachings, about anything that is true, any "truth", that I may not know about now.  Do you know of any more truth which you would like to share with me?  Things necessary for my eternal salvation/exaltation?

From what I know about what you know, it seems to me that I know a lot of truth that you don't seem to know now, even though I have tried to share the truth about some things with you.  Things which I believe are necessary for your eternal salvation/exaltation.

So far you haven't accepted those teachings as truth, though, or at least it doesn't seem that way to me.  Truth about why ordinances are necessary and why it is necessary to have the proper priesthood authority to administer those ordinances.

Maybe later you will accept some of these teachings as truth, or maybe not.  Until then we can at least discuss these things and maybe somehow that will help you but I think what you really need is more testimony from the Holy Spirit to convince you of the truth of these things.

Quote

Two weeks ago after our Elder's Quorum, a man who just returned to our ward from three years as temple president in one of the largest LDS temples in Latin America came up to me. He grew up in our colony and ward.  My wife and I weren't there when he left, but are there now that he has returned. You all would certainly know his last name; he is from LDS royalty. He shook his head and commented that he had never heard or met anyone like me. I wasn't sure what to say. I wasn't sure if it was a compliment or a criticism! Probably a little bit of both! That is the essence of my life right now. I am not sure if I am excavating a canyon or building a bridge! Most of the folks I reach out to are happy on their side of the canyon, occasionally lobbing rocks at those on the other side. I often get hit by the rocks!

I'm going to try to say this as nice as I know how to say it: You seem to be a bit slow at catching on to what you have been told.  You seem to be resistant to accepting the truth of some things, for some reason. I don't know why.  It isn't necessarily bad.  Maybe you just need more time or some other experiences in your life to help you to catch on.  Brigham Young said it took him a while to catch on to some things and look how he turned out! I suggest you just keep trying to learn as much and as well as you can.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Ahab

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Interesting insight. Mine is almost the opposite (not that it matters). I rarely hear or see the LDS spending time discussing semantics, or any other specifics of doctrinal formation. The sacrament talks are devotionals or testimonies. No semantic discussion there. Elder's Quorum is a review of a conference talk - every Elder's Quorum Sunday - it is a devotional. Gospel doctrine is a mini-review of certain devotional texts selected by the teacher, both when it was about the Bible and now that it is about the BOM. I see and hear no doctrinal discussion, especially on semantics in the regular services of the LDS church. No Wednesday night prayer meetings or Bible Study. No Thursday night verse by verse exposition of scriptures. No men's breakfast scripture study. Virtually no teaching at all.

Maybe we're not being clear here on what we mean by "semantics".   Maybe it would help if I said semantics is all about what words mean, like definitions.  And which words to use when.  

So maybe now with that idea in your mind you can see that everything we talk about is all about semantics, or definitions.   Like, what does [fill in the blank] mean?  What is [that]?  Has it a name?  What are you talking about when you talk about something?

Like that.  We do it all the time, pretty much.  It's like a regular occurrence. I know we do it, or at least every time I am ever involved in a discussion, and I have noticed that I am not the only person on this planet who tries to explain and describe what I am talking about.

 

[Navidad]

13 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I agree that you should do what God commands of you. Just know that there are others who think differently and it's okay to think differently.

In a sense I feel that you do not permit us to think differently than you and think that everyone should believe in the simple gospel.

I want to climb into the Mysteries and wrap myself in them. Please know that that is what I believe God is commanding me to do.

 

I may have a blind spot. In fact, I probably do. I do not see myself as not permitting others to think differently than me. I have constantly said for some years on this forum that I think my LDS brothers and sisters are spiritually fine just as you are (in terms of salvation). I do get upset when my LDS brothers and sisters insist for example that I cannot possibly have the gift of the Holy Spirit in my current state, or that my baptism wasn't adequate, and even more so when they assert the same for my dear Godly wife. When LDS beliefs are aimed at me in a negative way I may be guilty of picking up a rock or two myself! But for sure I don't think any LDS faithful member has to become Mennonite, Baptist, or Catholic to find heaven (with the father). I grant you your path to the Father via what I know of your belief in the atonement. Nothing else matters to me except when you deny me my path to Him via my understanding of that very same atonement. Outside of the sociological concepts taught about the LDS by Hardy, Mauss, Moore, and others I don't quite understand the LDS need to do that. I am skeptical that it came via revelation.

R. Laurence Moore (a highly regarded retired Cornell history professor) offers a perspective. "Mormons were different because they said they were different and because their claims, frequently advanced in the most obnoxious way possible, prompted others to agree to treat them as such. The notion of Mormon difference, that is, was a deliberate invention elaborated over time. It was both cause and result of a conflict in which all parties discovered reasons to stress not what Mormons had in common with other Americans, which was a great deal, but what they did not have in common." I am not comfortable with some of that, but it offers some insight into why LDS folks are so determined to be different. B Carmon Hardy, the now-deceased former history professor at BYU said it this way, "Most contemporary scholarship dealing with early Mormon theology and social life explains their evolution as attempts at defining boundaries and exercising control." These are two very powerful group norms. Armand Mauss, a lifelong faithful member of the church and sociologist, posits that from 1890 to 1950 or so, the Mormons sought to become mainstream. They then went too far mainstream and have been seeking to retrench as a peculiar, different, and unique people ever since. This isn't an exact quote, but as close as I can come without his books in front of me. I think the intersections of LDS history, doctrine, and sociology is what I find so very fascinating and interesting. It reminds me so very much of the first 150 years of the Mennonite faith. It is a given in the study of religion that doctrine (especially when it becomes dogma), history, and sociology are so very inter-connected in the life and development of any faith group. Most of the faithful will deny the last two as particularly relevant, but they are three fascinating correlates as far as I am concerned. 

So, perhaps I am happy to allow my LDS friends to have their own understanding of the gospel except when it demeans my own. Perhaps that is just natural and maybe therein is my inconsistency or blind spot. I do not see how that is being Christ-like, how that pleases the Father of all of us, or how that serves to draw others in to your faith. Again, maybe all of that is my own blind spot! We all have them you know!

I love the concept of climbing into the Mysteries of faith, history, sociology, and Christianity. That makes me spiritually stronger. Both my wife and I have said repeatedly that our time in the LDS ward has made us stronger spiritually. It is through the love and role-modeling of the folks; not through the doctrine, beliefs, or teachings. We love the former and miss the latter. 

[Sunslight]

55 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Good stuff to discuss.  I'm glad the manual is raising this issue so we can discuss it some more.

One of the reasons I think the word "salvation" generally refers to Celestial salvation/glory is because we had Celestial glory before we came here and the whole point of the atonement of our Savior was to provide a way back to the presence of our Father after we are done here.

Those who don't quite make it but come close will be receiving either Telestial or Terrestrial glory, which is still pretty good, but not as good or well as they could have done, and not the main purpose of our Father in heaven.

So when we think of what "salvation" is I think we should ask: salvation from what?  Saved from death, sure we'll all be saved from death.  Saved from sin?  What is sin all about?  I would say it is separation from our Father in heaven, to some degree.

What do you want to talk about next?

I rhink "salvation" is understood only in the context of being saved from physical and spiritual death. So, when the topic of "salvation" arises it should always be used in the context of being saved from both the physical and the spiritual death. Overcoming spiritual death requires ordinances. It appears the new handbook is acknowledging this truth. I think this principle and truth is well founded in Scripture. Now, if this then means that other parts of our understanding of doctrine must also be modified then so be it.

[Sunslight]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

Are you saying that a resurrected person remaining without salvation is still delivered (saved) from physical death, but not saved from being forever separated from God once he stands in His presence to be judged?

A resurrected person who doesn't gain salvation will be judged but then remain unpreserved from spiritual death.

[Navidad]

43 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I'm going to try to say this as nice as I know how to say it: You seem to be a bit slow at catching on to what you have been told.  You seem to be resistant to accepting the truth of some things, for some reason. I don't know why.  It isn't necessarily bad.  Maybe you just need more time or some other experiences in your life to help you to catch on.  Brigham Young said it took him a while to catch on to some things and look how he turned out! I suggest you just keep trying to learn as much and as well as you can.

Hi my friend. I never said I wasn't slow! However I will say that I am 71 years old and still trying to learn and understand. I probably don't have much more time left; but I will continue to seek knowledge, wisdom, and more of God as long as He grants me life.  My life verse is PS 42:1. I have a great thirst for more of the waterbrooks of my Lord and Savior. Perhaps you don't understand because you are so young 😀 that I simply have examined, prayed about, and thought about many of the beliefs of the LDS church and have rejected some, put some on hold, and seek to learn more about others. I won't waste time telling you about the strengths of the Mennonite faith, the purifying impact of all the persecution of the Mennonites, nor the singular strengths of the peculiar and specific beliefs of the Mennonites that are different from others'. Again, I think you are fine as you are spiritually. You might be able to learn a bit more humility, but that is just from me to you, not from God to me to you.

I also think I am fine as I am positionally with Christ. I certainly can, should, and will grow in the application of that spirituality to my life. That is how the Spirit moves in me; AND HE DOES! Ooops, sorry you don't believe I have the gift of the Spirit in my  life. You see, you young whippersnapper, in that you are very wrong. Simply wrong. You are an accountant. If I kept telling you that $1000 and $1000 equal $3000, no matter how many times I told you, you would not agree. Right? That is where we are with your teaching me that outside of a Mormon baptismal font there is no salvation. It is my personal life experience, belief and testimony that you are wrong on that one. Just plain wrong. And when you close your post with "I suggest you just keep trying to learn as much and as well as you can" I am more convinced than ever that you could use some humility. 🤠

[Sunslight]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

I think it more accurate to say that it is impossible to fully live according God while knowingly rejecting some thing(s) you believe is commanded to you by God.

True. I don't believe that condition can last though. If one is truly going to live according to God, in a greater duration such as in eternity, they must make covenants and receive and make ordinances.

[mfbukowski]

16 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I may have a blind spot. In fact, I probably do. I do not see myself as not permitting others to think differently than me. I have constantly said for some years on this forum that I think my LDS brothers and sisters are spiritually fine just as you are (in terms of salvation). I do get upset when my LDS brothers and sisters insist for example that I cannot possibly have the gift of the Holy Spirit in my current state, or that my baptism wasn't adequate, and even more so when they assert the same for my dear Godly wife. When LDS beliefs are aimed at me in a negative way I may be guilty of picking up a rock or two myself! But for sure I don't think any LDS faithful member has to become Mennonite, Baptist, or Catholic to find heaven (with the father). I grant you your path to the Father via what I know of your belief in the atonement. Nothing else matters to me except when you deny me my path to Him via my understanding of that very same atonement. Outside of the sociological concepts taught about the LDS by Hardy, Mauss, Moore, and others I don't quite understand the LDS need to do that. I am skeptical that it came via revelation.

R. Laurence Moore (a highly regarded retired Cornell history professor) offers a perspective. "Mormons were different because they said they were different and because their claims, frequently advanced in the most obnoxious way possible, prompted others to agree to treat them as such. The notion of Mormon difference, that is, was a deliberate invention elaborated over time. It was both cause and result of a conflict in which all parties discovered reasons to stress not what Mormons had in common with other Americans, which was a great deal, but what they did not have in common." I am not comfortable with some of that, but it offers some insight into why LDS folks are so determined to be different. B Carmon Hardy, the now-deceased former history professor at BYU said it this way, "Most contemporary scholarship dealing with early Mormon theology and social life explains their evolution as attempts at defining boundaries and exercising control." These are two very powerful group norms. Armand Mauss, a lifelong faithful member of the church and sociologist, posits that from 1890 to 1950 or so, the Mormons sought to become mainstream. They then went too far mainstream and have been seeking to retrench as a peculiar, different, and unique people ever since. This isn't an exact quote, but as close as I can come without his books in front of me. I think the intersections of LDS history, doctrine, and sociology is what I find so very fascinating and interesting. It reminds me so very much of the first 150 years of the Mennonite faith. It is a given in the study of religion that doctrine (especially when it becomes dogma), history, and sociology are so very inter-connected in the life and development of any faith group. Most of the faithful will deny the last two as particularly relevant, but they are three fascinating correlates as far as I am concerned. 

So, perhaps I am happy to allow my LDS friends to have their own understanding of the gospel except when it demeans my own. Perhaps that is just natural and maybe therein is my inconsistency or blind spot. I do not see how that is being Christ-like, how that pleases the Father of all of us, or how that serves to draw others in to your faith. Again, maybe all of that is my own blind spot! We all have them you know!

I love the concept of climbing into the Mysteries of faith, history, sociology, and Christianity. That makes me spiritually stronger. Both my wife and I have said repeatedly that our time in the LDS ward has made us stronger spiritually. It is through the love and role-modeling of the folks; not through the doctrine, beliefs, or teachings. We love the former and miss the latter. 

I would like to revisit this one I have some more time but let me just say for now that anyone who suggests that is your faith is deficient in anyway are the ones who demean our faith, I think. There is no place for putting down others when we believe that in the long run every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ.

I think God customizes our life curriculum to teach us what we personally need, and that the Searchers will always find what path God customized for them personally.

I could not have been born into the church.  I am the kind of person who needs to find my own truth and follow the dictates of my own conscience.

There is no place for condemnation of others in the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Like those who are in the Army we simply want "to be the best we can be."

 

[Ahab]

9 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

I rhink "salvation" is understood only in the context of being saved from physical and spiritual death.  So, when the topic of "salvation" arises it should always be used in the context of being saved from both the physical and the spiritual death.

Yes, I understand it in that way, too. Spiritual death referring to any separation there may be between ourselves and our Father in heaven, which would mean not being like him in some way, spiritually.  We could elaborate on this a little more but I think we agree on the concept.  

So at this point I think we probably agree that the only people who will be totally saved, spiritually, will be those who receive the same degree of glory as our Father in heaven, which is a Celestial degree of glory.  All others will still be separated from him, spiritually, even after they have paid the price for all of their sins, whether they be saved to a Telestial degree of glory or a Terrestrial degree of glory or to no additional glory at all, other than they glory they/we already have.

We both do understand that sin is not only about what we do or have done but also about how we are, too, don't we?  If we do not accept all of the ordinances required for total salvation, then we will still separated from our Father, to some extent, because of what we did not receive when it was offered to us.

9 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

Overcoming spiritual death requires ordinances. It appears the new handbook is acknowledging this truth. I think this principle and truth is well founded in Scripture. Now, if this then means that other parts of our understanding of doctrine must also be modified then so be it.

I think I"m understanding you now and I can now agree with this.  So what do you suggest we call it when people receive either Telestial or Terrestrial glory?  Not totally saved, but saved to some extent?  Would you still refer to that as a type or degree of salvation?

[mfbukowski]

3 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend. I never said I wasn't slow! However I will say that I am 71 years old and still trying to learn and understand. I probably don't have much more time left; but I will continue to seek knowledge, wisdom, and more of God as long as He grants me life.  My life verse is PS 42:1. I have a great thirst for more of the waterbrooks of my Lord and Savior. Perhaps you don't understand because you are so young 😀 that I simply have examined, prayed about, and thought about many of the beliefs of the LDS church and have rejected some, put some on hold, and seek to learn more about others. I won't waste time telling you about the strengths of the Mennonite faith, the purifying impact of all the persecution of the Mennonites, nor the singular strengths of the peculiar and specific beliefs of the Mennonites that are different from others'. Again, I think you are fine as you are spiritually. You might be able to learn a bit more humility, but that is just from me to you, not from God to me to you.

I also think I am fine as I am positionally with Christ. I certainly can, should, and will grow in the application of that spirituality to my life. That is how the Spirit moves in me; AND HE DOES! Ooops, sorry you don't believe I have the gift of the Spirit in my  life. You see, you young whippersnapper, in that you are very wrong. Simply wrong. You are an accountant. If I kept telling you that $1000 and $1000 equal $3000, no matter how many times I told you, you would not agree. Right? That is where we are with your teaching me that outside of a Mormon baptismal font there is no salvation. It is my personal life experience, belief and testimony that you are wrong on that one. Just plain wrong. And when you close your post with "I suggest you just keep trying to learn as much and as well as you can" I am more convinced than ever that you could use some humility. 🤠

Oh my gosh. We were probably born in the same year. So much for astrology.

And incidentally if Ahab said that there is no salvation outside of Mormon baptismal font he is wrong.

[Ahab]

6 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi my friend. I never said I wasn't slow! However I will say that I am 71 years old and still trying to learn and understand. I probably don't have much more time left; but I will continue to seek knowledge, wisdom, and more of God as long as He grants me life.  My life verse is PS 42:1. I have a great thirst for more of the waterbrooks of my Lord and Savior. Perhaps you don't understand because you are so young 😀 that I simply have examined, prayed about, and thought about many of the beliefs of the LDS church and have rejected some, put some on hold, and seek to learn more about others. I won't waste time telling you about the strengths of the Mennonite faith, the purifying impact of all the persecution of the Mennonites, nor the singular strengths of the peculiar and specific beliefs of the Mennonites that are different from others'. Again, I think you are fine as you are spiritually. You might be able to learn a bit more humility, but that is just from me to you, not from God to me to you.

I also think I am fine as I am positionally with Christ. I certainly can, should, and will grow in the application of that spirituality to my life. That is how the Spirit moves in me; AND HE DOES! Ooops, sorry you don't believe I have the gift of the Spirit in my  life. You see, you young whippersnapper, in that you are very wrong. Simply wrong. You are an accountant. If I kept telling you that $1000 and $1000 equal $3000, no matter how many times I told you, you would not agree. Right? That is where we are with your teaching me that outside of a Mormon baptismal font there is no salvation. It is my personal life experience, belief and testimony that you are wrong on that one. Just plain wrong. And when you close your post with "I suggest you just keep trying to learn as much and as well as you can" I am more convinced than ever that you could use some humility. 🤠

I never said that and no that is not what I believe.  I believe every person on this planet has the light of Christ to guide them and that our Father works with all of us through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, to whatever degree he does.  Not fully with everyone but at least to some degree, and maybe not all of the time with some but at least sometimes with everybody.  And I believe humility is something all of us can use and that we can all be humble to at least some degree.  We should all be humble with God and I believe most of us are, to some degree.

[Ahab]

8 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

And incidentally if Ahab said that there is no salvation outside of Mormon baptismal font he is wrong.

I didn't say that.  Just not total salvation.  Almost all of us will be saved, to some degree.  It's just that not all of us will be saved totally, or totally saved.

[Sunslight]

4 minutes ago, Ahab said:

Yes, I understand it in that way, too. Spiritual death referring to any separation there may be between ourselves and our Father in heaven, which would mean not being like him in some way, spiritually.  We could elaborate on this a little more but I think we agree on the concept.  

So at this point I think we probably agree that the only people who will be totally saved, spiritually, will be those who receive the same degree of glory as our Father in heaven, which is a Celestial degree of glory.  All others will still be separated from him, spiritually, even after they have paid the price for all of their sins, whether they be saved to a Telestial degree of glory or a Terrestrial degree of glory or to no additional glory at all, other than they glory they/we already have.

We both do understand that sin is not only about what we do or have done but also about how we are, too, don't we?  If we do not accept all of the ordinances required for total salvation, then we will still separated from our Father, to some extent, because of what we did not receive when it was offered to us.

I think I"m understanding you now and I can now agree with this.  So what do you suggest we call it when people receive either Telestial or Terrestrial glory?  Not totally saved, but saved to some extent?  Would you still refer to that as a type or degree of salvation?

The principle properly understood is that salvation requires at a minimum the ordinance and covenant of baptism. This is how one is both cleansed and born again into spiritual life. So, in properly understanding that truth, that principle, then in understanding the doctrine, we should acknowledge that perhaps some teachings or beliefs within our system may need adjusted or modified.

I dont believe it is right to speak in terms of "degree of salvation". That would be similar to saying such as a "degree of baptism". Salvation is a defining word to mean one is saved. We do not speak of being saved in "degrees" from hell. We are either saved from hell or not. We either receive salvation or we do not. There are not marks between the two.

[CV75]

11 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

True. I don't believe that condition can last though. If one is truly going to live according to God, in a greater duration such as in eternity, they must make covenants and receive and make ordinances.

Conversely, if they do not make all the covenants and ordinances and/or fully keep them, they are so judged and live forever befitting a kingdom other than the highest, no matter how close they might come to exaltation.

[CV75]

22 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

A resurrected person who doesn't gain salvation will be judged but then remain unpreserved from spiritual death.

To me this means he is saved from physical death but not spiritual death, meaning that salvation is expressed at two levels: physical life separated from God's personal presence (leaving him to receive ministrations from the Spirit, Christ, etc. in various degrees, but not the Father), and physical life in the presence of God.

[Ahab]

20 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

The principle properly understood is that salvation requires at a minimum the ordinance and covenant of baptism. This is how one is both cleansed and born again into spiritual life. So, in properly understanding that truth, that principle, then in understanding the doctrine, we should acknowledge that perhaps some teachings or beliefs within our system may need adjusted or modified.

More likely it isn't the teachings that need to be adjusted but our understanding of our Lord's teachings.  All of us will be saved from our mortal death, when our spirit is reunited with our resurrected body, and that can be referred to as a type of salvation.   At that point it will simply be a matter of which degree of glory we will receive, if we receive any additional glory at all.

Quote

I dont believe it is right to speak in terms of "degree of salvation". That would be similar to saying such as a "degree of baptism". Salvation is a defining word to mean one is saved. We do not speak of being saved in "degrees" from hell. We are either saved from hell or not. We either receive salvation or we do not. There are not marks between the two.

Do you understand that death is a separation, usually referring to the separation of a spirit from its mortal body?  What will you call it then when someone is saved from the death (separation) of their spirit from their mortal body but they do not receive the same glory as that of our Father in heaven?

Say, for example, someone who receives only some of the glory of Jesus Christ, but not of his fulness?

Or for another example, someone who receives only the glory of the Holy Spirit, but not of the full glory of Jesus or our Father in heaven?

Or someone who is resurrected but receives no additional glory at all?

While you may not refer to that as any degree or type of salvation, I can see how some other people could, and would.  Maybe you will just need to be there to see it.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Ahab

[Sunslight]

36 minutes ago, Ahab said:

More likely it isn't the teachings that need to be adjusted but our understanding of our Lord's teachings.  All of us will be saved from our mortal death, when our spirit is reunited with our resurrected body, and that can be referred to as a type of salvation.   At that point it will simply be a matter of which degree of glory we will receive, if we receive any additional glory at all.

Do you understand that death is a separation, usually referring to the separation of a spirit from its mortal body?  What will you call it then when someone is saved from the death (separation) of their spirit from their mortal body but they do not receive the same glory as that of our Father in heaven?

Say, for example, someone who receives only some of the glory of Jesus Christ, but not of his fulness?

Or for another example, someone who receives only the glory of the Holy Spirit, but not of the full glory of Jesus or our Father in heaven?

Or someone who is resurrected but receives no additional glory at all?

While you may not refer to that as any degree or type of salvation, I can see how some other people could, and would.  Maybe you will just need to be there to see it.

It's properly understood that all the saved receive the same salvation which means they are all saved 100% from physical and spiritual death,  but then some receive more glory than another. That is not to mean they receive a greater salvation. That would be a misuse of the word salvation. That would be analogous to saying some would receive a greater baptism than another. That would be wrong.

[Sunslight]

47 minutes ago, CV75 said:

To me this means he is saved from physical death but not spiritual death, meaning that salvation is expressed at two levels: physical life separated from God's personal presence (leaving him to receive ministrations from the Spirit, Christ, etc. in various degrees, but not the Father), and physical life in the presence of God.

Except that "salvation" as used in Scripture is not defined solely as resurrection.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Sunslight

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I think I see a central contradiction here. In one sentence you say you want to follow the simple Gospel of salvation. Belief in Jesus Christ is all you need to be saved.

On the other hand you want to take on all these academic theological issues, and bemoan the fact that we don't do that in Sunday School.

What am I missing?

How does heavy academic theology fit with a simple understanding of the Bible?

I guess I don't see what I have said as a contradiction although I understand what you are saying. I do not believe that the gospel of salvation is complicated, although much surrounding it is. You are incorrect that my position is "Belief in Jesus Christ is all you need to be saved." In fact that is directly contrary to what I believe. Scripture says the demons believe, doesn't it? That can't therefore be all that is necessary. Perhaps it will be easier if I say what I don't believe. I don't believe baptism is necessary for salvation. I believe baptism is a testimony or type of the crucified, buried, and risen Christ. I affirm my belief in that, my repentance, and my commitment to live my life as a testimony to Him when I am baptized. Repentance, complete with turning around comes first. I don't believe you need to believe in the trinity to be saved. Hence I have no problem with my LDS, Pentecostal, or other friends who don't believe in the trinity. Creeds mean nothing to me. So I understand I don't fit the typical LDS straw man of the trinitarian, creedal Protestant that you all love to rail about. 

I do bemoan the fact that there isn't more teaching in the LDS ward. I regret it too. I long to be taught. I don't deny that. That is why I come here. I know of nowhere else to go, except to my own library. The stake does no teaching. It seems an organizational and resource structure. There are no revivals, Bible or BOM for that matter conferences where for hours we are taught line by line. Does that happen anywhere in the LDS structure? I grew up with that. For ten weeks every summer as a child and early teen I attended Bible conferences (teaching conferences) at various Bible conference centers. So yes, I miss that now. Learning Spiritual truths is how I grow. Again, I miss that. I don't deny that. The absence of that certainly doesn't lead me to the same conclusion, as someone else stated that LDS Christians are more theologically sophisticated (my term) than non-LDS Christians. 

I don't know what you are missing. In some ways I think your preconceptions about non-LDS Christians get in your way. LDS folks (collectively) seem very hesitant to let them go. They are useful straw men. I understand that. They help you differentiate, especially since your culture is so homogeneic. The rest of the Christian family in the world is truly quite diverse. 

Understanding the Bible, the BOM, the D&C, and the POGP is not simple. The complexity of Christian beliefs (LDS and otherwise) evidences that. I agree with whoever said here this morning that revelation requires interpretation. My goodness, I am reading book after book right now about plural marriage in the church. There are so many interpretations of the 1890 Manifesto and the 1904 add-on by Joseph F. Smith. That is all heavy lifting. I have always enjoyed systematic theology since I was a freshman in college fifty-three years ago. It helps me so much to organize my study. It teaches me what to look for in understanding parables, prophecy, history, typologies, poetry, etc. All of the four scriptures cited have all of these in one way or another. I believe the disregard for theology in the LDS church has perpetrated the likes of differing claims of the LDS fundamentalists, of confusion and controversy over Taylor's 1886 revelation, Woodruff's 1880 wilderness revelation, of understanding the meaning of Smith's 1904 statement, supporting Kimball's The Miracle of Forgiveness, and even Roberts' Doctrine of the Church. I could name many more. Read five books by LDS folks on the Great Apostasy and you will get six different nuances related to it. It is all complex. Prophetic scriptures are a real challenge, aren't they? I am going on too long again. Sorry. I appreciate your kindness and interest in me. I am sorry I come across as a contradiction. Perhaps I am a contradiction, and then also perhaps I am a contradiction to your apriori assumptions about non-LDS Christians. 

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Sunslight said:

It's properly understood that all the saved receive the same salvation which means they are all saved 100% from physical and spiritual death,  but then some receive more glory than another. That is not to mean they receive a greater salvation. That would be a misuse of the word salvation. That would be analogous to saying some would receive a greater baptism than another. That would be wrong.

How do you define spiritual death?  I define it as separation from God. 

Which God person do you have in your mind when you think about being separated from God? 

Are you referring to being separated from our Father in heaven?  (that would mean no Celestial glory)

Or separated from Jesus Christ? (that would mean no Celestial or Terrestrial glory)

Or separated from the Holy  Spirit?  (that would mean no Celestial or Terrestrial or Telestial glory)

Or separated from all 3 of them? (that would be what we call outer darkness, no end to being separated from any or all of the 3 persons we normally associate with or refer to by the name of "God")

Edited March 2, 2020 by Ahab

[CV75]

53 minutes ago, Sunslight said:

Except that "salvation" as used in Scripture is not defined solely as resurrection.

That is because it means many things!

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I guess I don't see what I have said as a contradiction although I understand what you are saying. I do not believe that the gospel of salvation is complicated, although much surrounding it is. You are incorrect that my position is "Belief in Jesus Christ is all you need to be saved." In fact that is directly contrary to what I believe. Scripture says the demons believe, doesn't it? That can't therefore be all that is necessary. Perhaps it will be easier if I say what I don't believe. I don't believe baptism is necessary for salvation. I believe baptism is a testimony or type of the crucified, buried, and risen Christ. I affirm my belief in that, my repentance, and my commitment to live my life as a testimony to Him when I am baptized. Repentance, complete with turning around comes first. I don't believe you need to believe in the trinity to be saved. Hence I have no problem with my LDS, Pentecostal, or other friends who don't believe in the trinity. Creeds mean nothing to me. So I understand I don't fit the typical LDS straw man of the trinitarian, creedal Protestant that you all love to rail about. 

I do bemoan the fact that there isn't more teaching in the LDS ward. I regret it too. I long to be taught. I don't deny that. That is why I come here. I know of nowhere else to go, except to my own library. The stake does no teaching. It seems an organizational and resource structure. There are no revivals, Bible or BOM for that matter conferences where for hours we are taught line by line. Does that happen anywhere in the LDS structure? I grew up with that. For ten weeks every summer as a child and early teen I attended Bible conferences (teaching conferences) at various Bible conference centers. So yes, I miss that now. Learning Spiritual truths is how I grow. Again, I miss that. I don't deny that. The absence of that certainly doesn't lead me to the same conclusion, as someone else stated that LDS Christians are more theologically sophisticated (my term) than non-LDS Christians. 

I don't know what you are missing. In some ways I think your preconceptions about non-LDS Christians get in your way. LDS folks (collectively) seem very hesitant to let them go. They are useful straw men. I understand that. They help you differentiate, especially since your culture is so homogeneic. The rest of the Christian family in the world is truly quite diverse. 

Understanding the Bible, the BOM, the D&C, and the POGP is not simple. The complexity of Christian beliefs (LDS and otherwise) evidences that. I agree with whoever said here this morning that revelation requires interpretation. My goodness, I am reading book after book right now about plural marriage in the church. There are so many interpretations of the 1890 Manifesto and the 1904 add-on by Joseph F. Smith. That is all heavy lifting. I have always enjoyed systematic theology since I was a freshman in college fifty-three years ago. It helps me so much to organize my study. It teaches me what to look for in understanding parables, prophecy, history, typologies, poetry, etc. All of the four scriptures cited have all of these in one way or another. I believe the disregard for theology in the LDS church has perpetrated the likes of differing claims of the LDS fundamentalists, of confusion and controversy over Taylor's 1886 revelation, Woodruff's 1880 wilderness revelation, of understanding the meaning of Smith's 1904 statement, supporting Kimball's The Miracle of Forgiveness, and even Roberts' Doctrine of the Church. I could name many more. Read five books by LDS folks on the Great Apostasy and you will get six different nuances related to it. It is all complex. Prophetic scriptures are a real challenge, aren't they? I am going on too long again. Sorry. I appreciate your kindness and interest in me. I am sorry I come across as a contradiction. Perhaps I am a contradiction, and then also perhaps I am a contradiction to your apriori assumptions about non-LDS Christians. 

If what you want is to learn what is true, you should rely on nobody but God our Father to teach you... which he will do through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit since at this point we are fallen and he can't or won't communicate with us directly. 

You can also ponder what others say he has said through them, but even then you should rely on nobody but God our Father to teach you through his appointed mediators, otherwise you might just end up taking someone else's word for what is true.

And if you just want to have discussions with other people about what they believe is true, you can do that anywhere you can find other people who will share what they believe with you.  But still you should rely on nobody but God our Father and those who he speaks through.'

Learning what is true can be fun, I think.  I think we each get whatever we are willing to put into the process, whatever our Father sees we are ready and eager to learn.  And there is nobody better to learn from than God.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Ahab

[Sunslight]

1 hour ago, Ahab said:

How do you define spiritual death?  I define it as separation from God. 

Which God person do you have in your mind when you think about being separated from God? 

Are you referring to being separated from our Father in heaven?  (that would mean no Celestial glory)

Or separated from Jesus Christ? (that would mean no Celestial or Terrestrial glory)

Or separated from the Holy  Spirit?  (that would mean no Celestial or Terrestrial or Telestial glory)

Or separated from all 3 of them? (that would be what we call outer darkness, no end to being separated from any or all of the 3 persons we normally associate with or refer to by the name of "God")

Spiritual Death is defined as being dead unto the things of the spirit. We know that Christ saves all those who aren't sons of perdition from eternal spiritual death. It's not a matter of degree so much at that point of judgment because all of those Christ saves will be saved from spiritual death.

[Sunslight]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

That is because it means many things!

Salvation means being saved from physical and spiritual death. It's pretty exclusive in this.