The uniqueness of the LDS Church

[InCognitus]

4 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Early LDS theology was more orthodox and classical in nature. It all changed from around 1838 and forward.  So the BoM and early passages in the D&C sound more like traditional Christianity. 

Uh, no... it's the same theology as found in the Bible and Book of Mormon, but with a little more understanding of what's found there as time went on.  So called "orthodox" and "classical" Christianity used to believe the same kind of theology in early Christian writings (i.e. men becoming gods, the existence of other gods, Jesus as the second God), but they're the ones that changed it through time. 

The phrase "everlasting to everlasting" means the same in Bible times and in 1830 and in 1843, when section 132 was given. Note verse 20:

Quote

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.  (Doctrine and Covenants 132:20)

Or even as early as 1829 when D&C 19 was given:  

Quote

10 For, behold, the mystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am endless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless punishment, for Endless is my name. Wherefore— 11 Eternal punishment is God’s punishment.   12 Endless punishment is God’s punishment.  (Doctrine and Covenants 19:10–12)

And even the Book of Mormon (1827-1830) teaches of men becoming gods:

3 Nephi 28:10: "And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one;"

10 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Even the Lectures on Faith and especially Lecture 5. But as JS's theology changed the early theology became problematic and now had to be re explained to fit the later theology that was very different and NOT classical Christian Orthodoxy. 

Joseph Smith didn't write the Lectures on Faith.  Sydney Rigdon did.  See The Case for Sidney Rigdon as Author of the Lectures on Faith, and LDS Perspectives Podcast Episode 44: Mystery Solved: Who Wrote the Lectures on Faith? with Noel Reynolds (or audio here).  

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

And what of the child who at 8 is incapable to conceding to the terms of the contract?  Any such legal contract entered into by someone who is unable to understand and willfully consent would end up in a voided contract.

And so it is. You think God can't figure that out?????

You are the bishop. YOU want to judge if the child is ready, or let the Lord decide?  Where is the harm to the child?

You are essentially telling them they are not smart/good enough to get baptized!

Can't see the forest 'cause of all the tiny branches in the trees I guess.

And rep points?

Oh my!

Edited July 26, 2022 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

If you want brainwashed indoctrinated children then sure.  But if you really believe in agency you would wait till a child could knowingly consent and choose to make the covenant and commitment.  And they will do quite fine without being baptized at 8.  I know you need to make the world and awful scary place but its really not how you paint it.  

You speak more of where your personal errors come from than anything else.

No child should ever be afraid of their Heavenly Papa.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

And so it is. You think God can't figure that out?????

You are the bishop. YOU want to judge if the child is ready, or let the Lord decide?  Where is the harm to the child?

You are essentially telling them they are not smart/good enough to get baptized!

Can't see the forest 'cause of all the tiny branches in the trees I guess.

And rep points?

Oh my!

He is right about the legal contract. God is not the one who uses the term “contract” for baptism. 
 

I am not agreeing the child is too young for a covenant with God. 
 

A contract is something that is generally understood not to be changeable. I don’t believe that is how the baptismal covenant works. 
 

A contract is better suited for a world of pure justice, not the world of justice and mercy God has us lived in. 
 

wiki:

”A contract is a legally enforceable agreement that creates, defines, and governs mutual rights and obligations among its parties.[1] A contract typically involves the transfer of goods, services, money, or a promise to transfer any of those at a future date. In the event of a breach of contract, the injured party may seek judicial remedies such as damages or rescission.[2] Contract law, the field of the law of obligations concerned with contracts, is based on the principle that agreements must be honoured.[3]”

Edited July 26, 2022 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Calm said:

He is right about the legal contract. God is not the one who uses the term “contract” for baptism. 
 

I am not agreeing the child is too young for a covenant with God. 
 

A contract is something that is generally understood not to be changeable. I don’t believe that is how the baptismal covenant works. 
 

A contract is better suited for a world of pure justice, not the world of justice and mercy God has us lived in. 
 

wiki:

”A contract is a legally enforceable agreement that creates, defines, and governs mutual rights and obligations among its parties.[1] A contract typically involves the transfer of goods, services, money, or a promise to transfer any of those at a future date. In the event of a breach of contract, the injured party may seek judicial remedies such as damages or rescission.[2] Contract law, the field of the law of obligations concerned with contracts, is based on the principle that agreements must be honoured.[3]”

Well when I meet God, I will certainly tell Him that he needs to look this up on wikipedia because he cannot change or alter his "contracts".

I suppose he might have to take it to the Supreme Court.   I mean once he makes a law, it is the law.   No mercy or bending the rules here!

Talk about scaring little children!  A God like that scares ME!

And in fact, it is a "covenant".   I mean God has to get out his dictionary and check the difference.   I once heard a great quote about this:

"I see Religion as creating a language to speak of the divine and sacred. Since I see creating this language as a creative act, ... creating a certain view of heaven and earth, a living 'image' of God and Man and their story, past, present and future." - Calmoriah

Pretty good concept.   Language especially about religion can be very flexible because religion is a distortion made by man.   It cannot "correspond" to reality. 

Edited July 26, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

42 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

when I meet God, I will certainly tell Him that he needs to look this up on wikipedia because he cannot change or alter his "contracts".

You are completely ignoring my point it is men who are choosing to use the term “contract” as a synonym for God’s covenants and not God.  And then attributing the opposite of what I said to God’s covenants.  I am not continuing this.

Edited July 26, 2022 by Calm

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

You are completely ignoring my point it is men who are choosing to use the term “contract” as a synonym for God’s covenants and not God.  And then attributing the opposite of what I said to God’s covenants.  I am not continuing this.

I apologize, my friend.  I don't see it that way and I am not sure what you mean.  I will have to go back and follow you step by step.

[Calm]

44 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

I apologize, my friend.  I don't see it that way and I am not sure what you mean.  I will have to go back and follow you step by step.

Thank you.  My issue is simply the use of the term “contract”.  It isn’t scriptural and it conveys too much baggage tied up with man made legal contracts which rarely include the level of mercy that God allows, repentance and renewal being built into godly covenants.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Calm said:

Thank you.  My issue is simply the use of the term “contract”.  It isn’t scriptural and it conveys too much baggage tied up with man made legal contracts which rarely include the level of mercy that God allows, repentance and renewal being built into godly covenants.

Well of course all that started with Elder Bednar's implication that we have no "free" agency, since we have become "agents" of the Lord.

Thinking of it that way, the difference, if any, between "contract" and "Covenant" becomes very nuanced.

For me personally after 40 years of being a real estate broker, running an office, and teaching Real Estate at a junior college etc., I am pretty well acquainted with the LAWS of agency and what kind of fiduciary responsibilities an agent has.  People think of real estate brokers and agents as salespeople yet that is far from the truth because we have the legal responsibility to disclose all material defects in what we are supposedly trying to "sell".   You can't be a "salesman" AND an agent at the same time- really you can but it is not easy.

In my business the difference between a "covenant" as used in modern English and a "contract" is often obscure but you do have a point because the contract itself - I sell your property and you pay me money - also includes a covenant that I will watch out for you and do nothing dishonest, and act in your interest as if though it were my own business and my own interests.

That is also true now especially in financial planning- the trend now is now away from not being just an "agent" but a full fiduciary who places the client's interest above their own.

You and your client become "partners" in financial progression- you are paid based on how much money you have made for the client, not on "commission".  THAT seems quite similar to being God's agent - your progression spiritually is tied to the Lord's!   It's like Elder McConkie's talk on how God now does not "progress" since he is already perfect, but his Kingdom progresses through the righteousness of his children.  His "work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life" of his children/agents as they themselves progress!

As a financial fiduciary ideally YOUR interests as a client become actually more important than mine, as an agent.  THAT is what being a true "Agent" is all about- and how Elder Bednar talk speaks of, as God's "agent", one does not have an option NOT to go on a mission etc.   Your agency is not "free"- it is tied to that to whom you are an agent- the Lord.

So thanks for helping me think that through- it's a good point and a way of seeing it I had not connected before.   

So yes there IS a "contract"- a legal agreement that we are on the Lord's "team"-  but there is more- a "covenant" that we will do our absolute best to put the Lord's interest ahead of our own, as it were, because it was HE who makes possible not only our progression but His as well!

 

Edited July 26, 2022 by mfbukowski

[Tacenda]

2 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Well of course all that started with Elder Bednar's implication that we have no "free" agency, since we have become "agents" of the Lord.

Thinking of it that way, the difference, if any, between "contract" and "Covenant" becomes very nuanced.

For me personally after 40 years of being a real estate broker, running an office, and teaching Real Estate at a junior college etc., I am pretty well acquainted with the LAWS of agency and what kind of fiduciary responsibilities an agent has.  People think of real estate brokers and agents as salespeople yet that is far from the truth because we have the legal responsibility to disclose all material defects in what we are supposedly trying to "sell".   You can't be a "salesman" AND an agent at the same time- really you can but it is not easy.

In my business the difference between a "covenant" as used in modern English and a "contract" is often obscure but you do have a point because the contract itself - I sell your property and you pay me money - also includes a covenant that I will watch out for you and do nothing dishonest, and act in your interest as if though it were my own business and my own interests.

That is also true now especially in financial planning- the trend now is now away from not being just an "agent" but a full fiduciary who places the client's interest above their own.

You and your client become "partners" in financial progression- you are paid based on how much money you have made for the client, not on "commission".  THAT seems quite similar to being God's agent - your progression spiritually is tied to the Lord's!   It's like Elder McConkie's talk on how God now does not "progress" since he is already perfect, but his Kingdom progresses through the righteousness of his children.  His "work and glory is to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life" of his children/agents as they themselves progress!

As a financial fiduciary ideally YOUR interests as a client become actually more important than mine, as an agent.  THAT is what being a true "Agent" is all about- and how Elder Bednar talk speaks of, as God's "agent", one does not have an option NOT to go on a mission etc.   Your agency is not "free"- it is tied to that to whom you are an agent- the Lord.

So thanks for helping me think that through- it's a good point and a way of seeing it I had not connected before.   

So yes there IS a "contract"- a legal agreement that we are on the Lord's "team"-  but there is more- a "covenant" that we will do our absolute best to put the Lord's interest ahead of our own, as it were, because it was HE who makes possible not only our progression but His as well!

 

It's the church not God that is laying out the contract/covenant, that's the difference. The church can say God leads it but in reality it's man that does and says it comes from God. So a person that doesn't feel a mission is what is best for his/her life of worship, should have the agency to live how they feel in their hearts God wants them to. When making covenants in the temple we are asked to sacrifice everything we have and even our lives if need be, to the church, doesn't say to God. 

I'm running out the door and didn't fully read this edit, so when I return I hope I can redeem myself if the article doesn't cut it. https://mit.irr.org/sacrificing-everything-mormon-religion

 

Edited July 26, 2022 by Tacenda

[Ranch2727]

Contracts

When we work hard for God in order to earn his favor, we are not operating with faith. Instead, we are saying that we must add to the finished work of Jesus on the cross. His work wasn’t enough, and therefore we must work to make him happy — we must take it into our own hands to be accepted by God.  

This is where the confusion comes in. Equating the pursuit of godliness to legalism can cause a world of problems. This mistake eventually leads to projecting judgment on others and even living licentiously. But pursuing godliness and legalism are not the same. Legalism is a matter of the heart, not obedience to God and radical love for others. Legalism is when we’re trying to earn God’s favor to be saved, not when we’re following Jesus because we’re saved by grace.
 

Eph 2: 8-9  

8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. 
 

[teddyaware]

9 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

It's the church not God that is laying out the contract/covenant, that's the difference. The church can say God leads it but in reality it's man that does and says it comes from God. So a person that doesn't feel a mission is what is best for his/her life of worship, should have the agency to live how they feel in their hearts God wants them to. When making covenants in the temple we are asked to sacrifice everything we have and even our lives if need be, to the church, doesn't say to God. 

I'm running out the door and didn't fully read this edit, so when I return I hope I can redeem myself if the article doesn't cut it. https://mit.irr.org/sacrificing-everything-mormon-religion

 

This is like saying when the President of the United States swears allegiance to the Constitution he’s not simultaneously swearing to uphold, defend and protect the citizens of the United Sates. Yours is a silly argument that attempts to separate the Church of God  —  of which Jesus Christ is the presiding authority and its ultimate leader — from God. The only way your argument holds any water is if there actually is a God but the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is not his Church, which works for you because you don’t believe the Church is true.

You also fail to appreciate the fact that in the temple it’s the voice of God that commands of the initiates a willingness to sacrifice all things for upbuilding of HIS Church, so you can’t reasonably separate the commandment to sacrifice for the upbuilding of his Chuch from God because he’s the one who commands us to do so.

You see, if the Church is true your logic is faulty and without merit. This is an example of why I participate far less on this board than I used to do. It’s more and more becoming a place where believers and unbelievers routinely talk past each other and yet seem to unreasonably expect to persuade each other when they’re not even on the same page. 

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, Calm said:

I have no problem with baptism at 8 as long as it is realized it is a child’s commitment and not the same as the adult version of the child would make and hopefully will make through repentance and the Sacrament as the covenant grows in maturity and complexity as the child grows in capability, accountability, and understanding.  We do allow children to make commitments and expect them to follow through on them, but they are child size commitments and not adult commitments.  Baptism is not a burden, but a gift, a blessing.  We should treat it more like latter rather than the former in the Church, imo.
 

 In one sense the baptismal covenant is a one size fits all, but not because everyone can make the identical covenant, but because God has built in a growth process with repentance and the Sacrament.  It can start out as small as needed and will grow to fill eternity if we keep nurturing it.

I do have a problem with 8 year old baptism when it is used to tell adolescents that they have no choice over something like a mission or other things like that due to a covenant they made as an unknowing child.

[Teancum]

16 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Uh, no... it's the same theology as found in the Bible and Book of Mormon, but with a little more understanding of what's found there as time went on.  So called "orthodox" and "classical" Christianity used to believe the same kind of theology in early Christian writings (i.e. men becoming gods, the existence of other gods, Jesus as the second God), but they're the ones that changed it through time. 

The phrase "everlasting to everlasting" means the same in Bible times and in 1830 and in 1843, when section 132 was given. Note verse 20:

Or even as early as 1829 when D&C 19 was given:  

And even the Book of Mormon (1827-1830) teaches of men becoming gods:

3 Nephi 28:10: "And for this cause ye shall have fulness of joy; and ye shall sit down in the kingdom of my Father; yea, your joy shall be full, even as the Father hath given me fulness of joy; and ye shall be even as I am, and I am even as the Father; and the Father and I are one;"

Joseph Smith didn't write the Lectures on Faith.  Sydney Rigdon did.  See The Case for Sidney Rigdon as Author of the Lectures on Faith, and LDS Perspectives Podcast Episode 44: Mystery Solved: Who Wrote the Lectures on Faith? with Noel Reynolds (or audio here).  

Thank you for proving my point that Latter day Saints now read into early passages later theology. But before JS became more inovatie in his theology nobody read the passages like you do now.

I am not convinced Rigdon wrote the 5th lecture but who cares?  It was accepted as part of the 1835 D&C as the doctrine part of the new book of accepted scripture. It was later removed in 1921 because the Lecture conflicted with the newer LDS theology.

[mfbukowski]

3 hours ago, Tacenda said:

It's the church not God that is laying out the contract/covenant, that's the difference. The church can say God leads it but in reality it's man that does and says it comes from God. So a person that doesn't feel a mission is what is best for his/her life of worship, should have the agency to live how they feel in their hearts God wants them to. When making covenants in the temple we are asked to sacrifice everything we have and even our lives if need be, to the church, doesn't say to God. 

I'm running out the door and didn't fully read this edit, so when I return I hope I can redeem myself if the article doesn't cut it. https://mit.irr.org/sacrificing-everything-mormon-religion

 

But one can have a "mission in life" that has nothing to do with a church mission

[mfbukowski]

Just now, Teancum said:

Thank you for proving my point that Latter day Saints now read into early passages later theology. But before JS became more inovatie in his theology nobody read the passages like you do now.

I am not convinced Rigdon wrote the 5th lecture but who cares?  It was accepted as part of the 1835 D&C as the doctrine part of the new book of accepted scripture. It was later removed in 1921 because the Lecture conflicted with the newer LDS theology.

You will never learn that religion, like science uses paradigms that work for a while, and then are changed.

Your whole notion that there is ONE TRUE WORLD OUT THERE TO BE DISCOVERED is a myth from Descartes, Aristotle, and many others.  Reality as we know it is what is beneficial to believe, and what keeps humanity alive.

Period. And that changes

[Calm]

14 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I do have a problem with 8 year old baptism when it is used to tell adolescents that they have no choice over something like a mission or other things like that due to a covenant they made as an unknowing child.

I think using that language for youth that age is going to cause more issues than it helps.  Not enough people repeating it will explain the full context of what agency means. And if not explained that way when baptized so that it sticks, I can see some feeling blindsided when youths if that version is given them without development. 
 

I have known kids (and adults for that matter) who give up because they see themselves as unable to fulfill the “contract” as described, they don’t see a reason to even try if they can only do it partway as they believe they are damned for breaking the contract even if they try as hard as they can because they don’t believe they can do it all. 

Edited July 26, 2022 by Calm

[Teancum]

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

And so it is. You think God can't figure that out?????

I am not clear on your point nor how this makes a difference,

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You are the bishop. YOU want to judge if the child is ready, or let the Lord decide?  Where is the harm to the child?

THe harm is the child has no choice really and your are simply indoctrinating them.  And then you use this to pressure them into other decisions that they may make differently. 

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You are essentially telling them they are not smart/good enough to get baptized!

Ummm no.  I am telling them they don't need to be baptized until they are old enough to make such a major decision under informed consent.  Are you worried they may be eventually smart enough NOT to make such a commitment? 

15 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Can't see the forest 'cause of all the tiny branches in the trees I guess.

And rep points?

Oh my!

Back atchya.🙄

[Teancum]

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

You will never learn that religion, like science uses paradigms that work for a while, and then are changed.

Yes I am well aware of your position on this though still not convinced that your approach really works well.

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Your whole notion that there is ONE TRUE WORLD OUT THERE TO BE DISCOVERED is a myth from Descartes, Aristotle, and many others.  Reality as we know it is what is beneficial to believe, and what keeps humanity alive.

That is not my approach. I don't believe there is one true world or belief system. But it is the approach of the LDS Church and yours really because you believe God is telling you your spiritual path is the best one.

26 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Period. And that changes

 

[mfbukowski]

27 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am not clear on your point nor how this makes a difference,

THe harm is the child has no choice really and your are simply indoctrinating them.  And then you use this to pressure them into other decisions that they may make differently. 

Ummm no.  I am telling them they don't need to be baptized until they are old enough to make such a major decision under informed consent.  Are you worried they may be eventually smart enough NOT to make such a commitment? 

Back atchya.🙄

Total opposite of what I was saying.

[Ranch2727]

Galatians 3
26For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. 27For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus. 29And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.

[InCognitus]

9 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Thank you for proving my point that Latter day Saints now read into early passages later theology.

Your "point" was that Joseph Smith was making this stuff up as he goes along and changed his theology through time.  And you said the "BoM and early passages in the D&C sound more like traditional Christianity".  Now you seem to be changing your "point" by agreeing that they can also be understood to teach Joseph Smith's later theology, which makes no sense if Joseph was really just making it up.  

I agree that once Joseph Smith and other early members of the church had a greater understanding of what God was revealing to them, they were then able to see the same consistent teachings in the Bible, Book of Mormon, and early sections of the Doctrine and Covenants.  What's more amazing to me is that the latter way of understanding the scriptures was very much like the way the earliest Christians interpreted the same passages (which is far removed from the way the same 1830 Christian thought).

But if Joseph was really making up the theology as he went along, how do you account for the fact that he included some of his later theological concepts in the early revelations?  

27 minutes ago, Teancum said:

I am not convinced Rigdon wrote the 5th lecture but who cares?  It was accepted as part of the 1835 D&C as the doctrine part of the new book of accepted scripture. It was later removed in 1921 because the Lecture conflicted with the newer LDS theology.

I like that you distinguish between the "doctrine" part of the book and the portion accepted as "scripture" (revelations), because it was viewed as completely separate when the lectures were first published.  But your reasoning for why the Lectures were removed is incorrect, because the reasons were stated in the preface of the 1921 Doctrine and Covenants:

Quote

Certain lessons, entitled "Lectures on Faith," which were bound in with the Doctrine and Covenants in some of its former issues, are not included in this edition. Those lessons were prepared for use in the School of the Elders, conducted in Kirtland, Ohio, during the winter of 1834-1835; but they were never presented to nor accepted by the Church as being otherwise than theological lectures or lessons. 

Including the Lectures with the 1835 publication of the revelations was simply a way to get the lesson material published in 1835.  Additional lesson material was published separately later on.

[mfbukowski]

42 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Yes I am well aware of your position on this though still not convinced that your approach really works well.

That is not my approach. I don't believe there is one true world or belief system. But it is the approach of the LDS Church and yours really because you believe God is telling you your spiritual path is the best one.

 

Nope. 

What is best for one may not be best for others but there always IS a "BEST".

It's a relative best, but you THINK I espouse a universal "best"

There is no constant but change, but change itself IS THE absolute.

Personal perception and personal revelation, is the only thing that works, but it DOES work.

Constancy in change is what you are not seeing, and that is the absolute.

All any of us can know is our stream of experience which we pretend to share through language, but language is not experience 

Radical Empiricism is studying the stream of experience itself.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radical_empiricism

" "Radical empiricism is a postulate, a statement of fact, and a conclusion, says James in The Meaning of Truth. The postulate is that "the only things that shall be debatable among philosophers shall be things definable in terms drawn from experience." The fact is that our experience contains disconnected entities as well as various types of connections; it is full of meaning and values. The conclusion is that our worldview does not need "extraneous trans-empirical connective support, but possesses in its own right a concatenated or continuous structure.""

Edited July 26, 2022 by mfbukowski

[InCognitus]

4 hours ago, Ranch2727 said:

When we work hard for God in order to earn his favor, we are not operating with faith.

Doesn't that depend on why the person is working hard to earn God's favor?  If he or she is doing it out of love for God, it is operating completely with faith.   Isn't that why Jesus said, "If ye love me, keep my commandments"? (John 14:15)  And according to Jesus, striving to keep his commandments is showing love for Jesus and his Father:

"He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him." (John 14:21)

4 hours ago, Ranch2727 said:

Instead, we are saying that we must add to the finished work of Jesus on the cross. His work wasn’t enough, and therefore we must work to make him happy — we must take it into our own hands to be accepted by God.

Paul, the apostle, taught that we "labor" so that we "may be accepted of him":

"Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.  For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad".  (2 Corinthians 5:9–10)

What you are saying contradicts what Paul taught in the quote above, doesn't it?  By keeping his commandments we aren't adding to what Jesus did, instead we are utilizing the free gift he gave us for the reason he gave it to us to begin with, which is to be perfected in him.  We abide "in him" by keeping his commandments: "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love" (John 15:10), and "He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.  If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." (John 15:5-6)

It sounds to me like you are telling us that what Jesus and Paul said is meaningless.  Can you explain?

And obviously we can't "take it into our own hands" to work our way to salvation, because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.  Nobody can save themselves by their works alone, which is exactly why Paul says it is by grace, through faith, that we are saved, and not by works lest any man should boast.  But the fact that it is grace that saves us, and not our works, doesn't mean that works are unnecessary (for clearly Jesus and Paul says they are). 

[Ranch2727]

Maybe not you but I’ve lived most my life in Utah and if you ask a active LDS member what you HAVE to do to be saved it’s pretty much the same.      
Repent   
get baptized   
pay your tithe   
temple work, WAY too much to mention there       
keep the commandments good luck      
hold the priesthood      
except the living prophet 

sorry I don’t see any faith there or a gift from God when you have to earn it.  Hey son here is a gift from your mom and me, BTW you need to work eight hours a day the rest of your life to keep it. Not much of a free gift!!!      
I didn’t even list all of them.

now let’s look at what the body of Christ needs for Salvation. Be born again, easy.  Love Your God and no other ✅ love your neighbor, that’s the only hard one.         
I see a big difference in the two but that’s just me.  Because we love him we want to work but it’s not a must to live with God one day. Thank you Jesus, I have nothing for you, I’m a sinner and don’t deserve your gift.  That is what I will say when I see him and if he questions me I will humbly refer to his Book that was left for me to learn about Him. Then I can say I did the best I could. Thank you Jesus!!