We do not wholly and totally take upon us the name of Christ in the waters of baptism

[Mike Drop]

A few hours ago on a thread in the Social Hall I made a statement that we, mormons, don’t fully accept the name of Christ through baptism. Of course I was called a troll and thread banned. So my question is, do we fully accept the name of Christ through baptism or is it a life long process like Elder Bednar explains in the video provided? I’ve always thought this subject was a major difference between Mormons and Christians. 

 

Am I not understanding him correctly? Because what he explains starting at the 1:10 mark, is exactly what I was taught in church, that accepting Christ fully is a lifelong process. When we were young we would joke on Christians for thinking Christ’s grace was 100% free, that we didn’t have to put some skin in the game. 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2022 by Mike Drop

[James 1 5]

In some sense or to some degree we DO accept the full name of Christ when we are baptized and then take his name upon us as Christians, and yet in some other sense or to some other degrees we do not.  It is a simple concept yet complex issue.

[Robert F. Smith]

14 minutes ago, Mike Drop said:

A few hours ago on a thread in the Social Hall I made a statement that we, mormons, don’t fully accept the name of Christ through baptism. Of course I was called a troll and thread banned. So my question is, do we fully accept the name of Christ through baptism or is it a life long process like Elder Bednar explains in the video provided? I’ve always thought this subject was a major difference between Mormons and Christians.

...................Am I not understanding him correctly? Because what he explains starting at the 1:10 mark, is exactly what I was taught in church, that accepting Christ fully is a lifelong process. When we were young we would joke on Christians for thinking Christ’s grace was 100% free, that we didn’t have to put some skin in the game. 

None of us humans is capable of "fully accepting" anything in this life.  We don't have the capacity, and God doesn't expect us to.  We are all flawed and we all must work hard just to manage to get by.  And we might just manage to do that with a little help from others.  Without repentance and forgiveness we would get nowhere.

That said, "cheap grace" is the bane of too many evangelicals.  They think that all they have to do is "name it and claim it."  Yet, grace and works are inextricably bound together.  Cannot have one without the other.  Martin Luther and his Protestant followers have always misunderstood that principle.  It is very telling that Luther hated the Epistle of James.  However, grace is free.  The Atonement is infinite.  Without money and without price.

[smac97]

21 minutes ago, Mike Drop said:

A few hours ago on a thread in the Social Hall I made a statement that we, mormons, don’t fully accept the name of Christ through baptism.

Okay.

21 minutes ago, Mike Drop said:

Of course I was called a troll and thread banned. So my question is, do we fully accept the name of Christ through baptism or is it a life long process like Elder Bednar explains in the video provided? I’ve always thought this subject was a major difference between Mormons and Christians. 

I think it's both.

When I married my wife 25 years ago, I fully accepted her and all the duties and obligations attendant to the marital relationship, and she did likewise with me.  We both have since spent ensuing years maintaining those commitments.  I was fully married to her on the first day, and on every day thereafter.

21 minutes ago, Mike Drop said:

Am I not understanding him correctly? Because what he explains starting at the 1:10 mark, is exactly what I was taught in church, that accepting Christ fully is a lifelong process. When we were young we would joke on Christians for thinking Christ’s grace was 100% free, that we didn’t have to put some skin in the game. 

I wonder if "Once Saved, Always Saved" (a/k/a "Eternal Security" and/or "Perseverance of the Saints") is at issue here:

Thanks,

-Smac

 

[Stormin' Mormon]

I think we obtain a remission of our sins at baptism by fully taking upon ourselves the name of Christ.  After that, it's no longer a question of obtaining but of retaining.  It's the retaining that's a lifelong process.  Several Book of Mormon writers had a lot to say about that retention process.  I'm too lazy/busy at the moment to cite the actual scriptures. 

[JLHPROF]

54 minutes ago, Mike Drop said:

A few hours ago on a thread in the Social Hall I made a statement that we, mormons, don’t fully accept the name of Christ through baptism. Of course I was called a troll and thread banned. So my question is, do we fully accept the name of Christ through baptism or is it a life long process like Elder Bednar explains in the video provided? 

It's both.

We take upon ourselves the name of Christ at baptism.  We receive entrance to his kingdom and are claimed as his inheritance by being in the covenant.
But in order to become fully his son or daughter that is a lifelong process.  In order to become like Christ, to be fully adopted as his child and become his joint heir, there is much to do.

This reminds me of the atonement debate - Gethsemane or Calvary.  Again, both.

[smac97]

36 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I think we obtain a remission of our sins at baptism by fully taking upon ourselves the name of Christ.  After that, it's no longer a question of obtaining but of retaining. 

Oh, well put, sir! 

36 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

It's the retaining that's a lifelong process.  Several Book of Mormon writers had a lot to say about that retention process.  I'm too lazy/busy at the moment to cite the actual scriptures. 

 

[Tacenda]

1 hour ago, Mike Drop said:

A few hours ago on a thread in the Social Hall I made a statement that we, mormons, don’t fully accept the name of Christ through baptism. Of course I was called a troll and thread banned. So my question is, do we fully accept the name of Christ through baptism or is it a life long process like Elder Bednar explains in the video provided? I’ve always thought this subject was a major difference between Mormons and Christians. 

 

Am I not understanding him correctly? Because what he explains starting at the 1:10 mark, is exactly what I was taught in church, that accepting Christ fully is a lifelong process. When we were young we would joke on Christians for thinking Christ’s grace was 100% free, that we didn’t have to put some skin in the game. 

 

 

 

 

I'll tell you the difference because I had the same issue. The difference is that we are saved through Christ and not our works just as the non LDS Christians believe. It's only when we are exalted that the work or covenants begin. That is going one step further than them because then we're Gods and Goddesses.

Not too sure many non LDS Christians believe we're able to become upper "G" Gods, but there very well could be. It's all in how you read into the scripture. But all my opinion of course! 

[JLHPROF]

2 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I'll tell you the difference because I had the same issue. The difference is that we are saved through Christ and not our works just as the non LDS Christians believe.

We believe that too, we just don't always act like it.

Quote

It's only when we are exalted that the work or covenants begin. That is going one step further than them because then we're Gods and Goddesses.

It's a clear difference in the revelations we follow.  The description of a tiered Celestial salvation is well established in our scripture.

Quote

Not too sure many non LDS Christians believe we're able to become upper "G" Gods, but there very well could be. It's all in how you read into the scripture. But all my opinion of course! 

It's a little less obvious for Bible only believers.  But I don't know how else to understand "joint heirs" with Christ unless we inherit everything he does.

[ksfisher]

5 hours ago, Mike Drop said:

A few hours ago on a thread in the Social Hall I made a statement that we, mormons, don’t fully accept the name of Christ through baptism. Of course I was called a troll and thread banned. So my question is, do we fully accept the name of Christ through baptism or is it a life long process like Elder Bednar explains in the video provided? I’ve always thought this subject was a major difference between Mormons and Christians. 

 

Am I not understanding him correctly? Because what he explains starting at the 1:10 mark, is exactly what I was taught in church, that accepting Christ fully is a lifelong process. When we were young we would joke on Christians for thinking Christ’s grace was 100% free, that we didn’t have to put some skin in the game. 

 

 

 

 

Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained that in renewing our baptismal covenants by partaking of the emblems of the sacrament, “we do not witness that we take upon us the name of Jesus Christ. [Rather], we witness that we are willing to do so. (See D&C 20:77.) The fact that we only witness to our willingness suggests that something else must happen before we actually take that sacred name upon us in the [ultimate and] most important sense” (“Taking upon Us the Name of Jesus Christ,” Ensign, May 1985, 81). The baptismal covenant clearly contemplates a future event or events and looks forward to the temple. 

Honorably Hold a Name and Standing
Elder David A. Bednar
Of the Quorum of the Twelve ApostlesApril 2009 General Conference

Edited January 26, 2022 by ksfisher

[Freedom]

3 hours ago, ksfisher said:

Elder Dallin H. Oaks has explained that in renewing our baptismal covenants by partaking of the emblems of the sacrament, “we do not witness that we take upon us the name of Jesus Christ. [Rather], we witness that we are willing to do so. (See D&C 20:77.) The fact that we only witness to our willingness suggests that something else must happen before we actually take that sacred name upon us in the [ultimate and] most important sense” (“Taking upon Us the Name of Jesus Christ,” Ensign, May 1985, 81). The baptismal covenant clearly contemplates a future event or events and looks forward to the temple. 

Honorably Hold a Name and Standing
Elder David A. Bednar
Of the Quorum of the Twelve ApostlesApril 2009 General Conference

Elder Oaks points out that we take upon the name of Christ when we go to the temple. D&C 109:26

[InCognitus]

8 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That said, "cheap grace" is the bane of too many evangelicals.  They think that all they have to do is "name it and claim it." 

 

[Robert F. Smith]

51 minutes ago, InCognitus said:

..................

Jesus repeatedly insisted that we will be judged by our works.  Yet how can that be if we are saved by grace?  The pastor in the video refers to Paul's warning against boasting about works, but misses the point that James brings to the fore:  Faith without works is as dead as a body without a soul.  Why?  Because works are a sign of faith.  Can't have one without the other.

[Calm]

Quote

Christians have often disputed as to whether what leads the Christian home is good actions, or Faith in Christ. I have no right really to speak on such a difficult question, but it does seem to me like asking which blade in a pair of scissors is most necessary. A serious moral effort is the only thing that will bring you to the point where you throw up the sponge. Faith in Christ is the only thing to save you from despair at that point: and out of that Faith in Him good actions must inevitably come

The Bible really seems to clinch the matter when it puts the two things together into one amazing sentence. The first half is, “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling”—which looks as if everything depended on us and our good actions: but the second half goes on, “For it is God who worketh in you”—which looks as if God did everything and we nothing. I am afraid that is the sort of thing we come up against in Christianity. I am puzzled, but I am not surprised. You see, we are now trying to understand, and to separate into water-tight compartments, what exactly God does and what man does when God and man are working together. And, of course, we begin by thinking it is like two men working together, so that you could say, “He did this bit and I did that.” But this way of thinking breaks down. God is not like that. He is inside you as well as outside: even if we could understand who did what, I do not think human language could properly express it. In the attempt to express it different Churches say different things. But you will ?nd that even those who insist most strongly on the  importance of good actions tell you you need Faith; and even those who insist most strongly on Faith tell you to do good actions."

https://www.cslewisinstitute.org/Faith_or_Works
 

And as mentioned in the link…

Eph 2:8-10

Quote

For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them

 

[CV75]

17 hours ago, Mike Drop said:

A few hours ago on a thread in the Social Hall I made a statement that we, mormons, don’t fully accept the name of Christ through baptism. Of course I was called a troll and thread banned. So my question is, do we fully accept the name of Christ through baptism or is it a life long process like Elder Bednar explains in the video provided? I’ve always thought this subject was a major difference between Mormons and Christians. 

 

Am I not understanding him correctly? Because what he explains starting at the 1:10 mark, is exactly what I was taught in church, that accepting Christ fully is a lifelong process. When we were young we would joke on Christians for thinking Christ’s grace was 100% free, that we didn’t have to put some skin in the game. 

Let's go with Elder Bednar. 

The reason we take His name upon us is so that we know the name by which He calls us. When He calls, and He calls us constantly, we metaphorically move from point A to point B and so forth and so on until we reach where He is. That is one way He is Alpha and Omega: He is with us all the way until we are with Him.

It is interesting to me that Mosiah 5:12 clarifies that taking upon us the name of Christ (v. 8 ) means remembering to retain this name written in our hearts, not having a god complex.

[Tacenda]

I remember now, the explanation from some on this board awhile back. We are all saved by Christ when we accept Him and that is called salvation. But the covenants in the temple leads us to exaltation. That is the difference.

Exaltation is a different ballgame compared to other faith beliefs. Some on this board think how boring life would be if all there was is salvation. Exaltation and creating your worlds without end is much more interesting to some on this board. And with salvation only they'd just be playing a harp in heaven yada yada. 

Edited January 26, 2022 by Tacenda

[Stormin' Mormon]

31 minutes ago, Tacenda said:

I remember now, the explanation from some on this board awhile back. We are all saved by Christ when we accept Him and that is called salvation. But the covenants in the temple leads us to exaltation. That is the difference.

Exaltation is a different ballgame compared to other faith beliefs. Some on this board think how boring life would be if all there was is salvation. Exaltation and creating your worlds without end is much more interesting to some on this board. And with salvation only they'd just be playing a harp in heaven yada yada. 

I think you are mixing issues here.  Salvation, as commonly used in LDS theology, usually refers to salvation from physical death.  It is a free gift to all mankind, and requires no ordinances to obtain it.  It is often contrasted with exaltation or Eternal life, which does require ordinances, and usually refers to salvation from spiritual death.

At issue here, though, is that "taking upon us the name of Christ" is referring to several different processes.  It includes the process of covenant-making that we accomplish at baptism, but it also encompass the process of sanctification, which is a lifelong process that requires receiving and retaining the remission of sins.  It also includes processes that only begin in the temple.  We really need different phrases for these different spiritual processes, but the phrase "take upon ourselves the name of Christ" is just so darn evocative that we use it for a bunch of different things.  It can cause a bit of confusion. 

 

 

[JLHPROF]

6 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I think you are mixing issues here.  Salvation, as commonly used in LDS theology, usually refers to salvation from physical death.  It is a free gift to all mankind, and requires no ordinances to obtain it.  It is often contrasted with exaltation or Eternal life, which does require ordinances, and usually refers to salvation from spiritual death.

This exactly.  I've made this differentiation many times.  The problem is we like to use the term Salvation for all of it.  Sometimes Exaltation is called a fulness of Salvation.

Anyone in Telestial, Terrestrial, or Celestial will be saved/redeemed.  That is to say they will be resurrected through our Savior and saved from the grave.  As Christ said none will be lost.
Then there are those who are saved in the Kingdom of God (Celestial) by accepting Christ and being willing to follow him.
And finally there are those who receive Exaltation, a fulness of Salvation.  This is for those who obeyed all Christ's laws and ordinances.

Quote

At issue here, though, is that "taking upon us the name of Christ" is referring to several different processes.  It includes the process of covenant-making that we accomplish at baptism, but it also encompass the process of sanctification, which is a lifelong process that requires receiving and retaining the remission of sins.  It also includes processes that only begin in the temple.  We really need different phrases for these different spiritual processes, but the phrase "take upon ourselves the name of Christ" is just so darn evocative that we use it for a bunch of different things.  It can cause a bit of confusion. 

Exactly.

[bluebell]

4 minutes ago, JLHPROF said:

This exactly.  I've made this differentiation many times.  The problem is we like to use the term Salvation for all of it.  Sometimes Exaltation is called a fulness of Salvation.

Anyone in Telestial, Terrestrial, or Celestial will be saved/redeemed.  That is to say they will be resurrected through our Savior and saved from the grave.  As Christ said none will be lost.
Then there are those who are saved in the Kingdom of God (Celestial) by accepting Christ and being willing to follow him.
And finally there are those who receive Exaltation, a fulness of Salvation.  This is for those who obeyed all Christ's laws and ordinances.

Exactly.

But sons of perdition will also be saved from the grave and be resurrected through our Savior. Yet we would not refer to them as saved or gaining salvation, would we?

[JLHPROF]

18 minutes ago, bluebell said:

But sons of perdition will also be saved from the grave and be resurrected through our Savior. Yet we would not refer to them as saved or gaining salvation, would we?

But will they retain a resurrected body?  Perdition by definition is a resurrection of no glory.
Perhaps their bodies will remain as they are now.

[Navidad]

20 hours ago, Robert F. Smith said:

That said, "cheap grace" is the bane of too many evangelicals.  They think that all they have to do is "name it and claim it."  Yet, grace and works are inextricably bound together.  Cannot have one without the other. 

Interesting - I have never met an evangelical who believes in "cheap grace." Grace is a gift. Every gift carries with it a price and a responsibility in its creation, giving,  and its receiving. Only a very few on the Charismatic side would ever say "name it and claim it." That is a claim rejected by the vast vast vast vast majority of Evangelicals.

Of course grace and works are inextricably bound together. I agree one cannot have one without the other, because one is confirmation of the other. Did not Christ have to suffer and die to offer us His grace? Do we not have to respond to that gift with commitment, dedication, and ministry?

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, Tacenda said:

I remember now, the explanation from some on this board awhile back. We are all saved by Christ when we accept Him and that is called salvation. But the covenants in the temple leads us to exaltation. That is the difference.

Exaltation is a different ballgame compared to other faith beliefs. Some on this board think how boring life would be if all there was is salvation. Exaltation and creating your worlds without end is much more interesting to some on this board. And with salvation only they'd just be playing a harp in heaven yada yada. 

Lets not forget that salvation is the first step; we work out our salvation and complete it in the NT sense when we then focus on our sanctification (growth, maturity, becoming more Christ-like) in our Christian lives. Perhaps it is correct to say that salvation is the gift (comes as the result of a terrible price) and sanctification is the work (not works). Sanctification is the struggle with self. It is not the taking of cookies to a neighbor. Sanctification is as much the struggle to be, as it is the struggle to do. They are very different attributes and of course are interconnected.

I have never heard the word sanctification used in an LDS church service in the terms of Christians becoming more mature, holy, and committed. It is used only in terms of the sacrament elements which is a very different concept. I have a sense there are some correlations between "Sanctification" and "Exaltation" but I have never seen them codified or explained by anyone. I think sanctification is primarily an earthly task that continues in eternity. I think perhaps for the LDS exaltation is an earthly process that impacts our eternal destiny and then continues in eternity. I am willing to stand corrected.

[Calm]

9 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Only a very few on the Charismatic side would ever say "name it and claim it."

What about fundamentalists?  Maybe LDS sites used to attract this minority as it seemed we had quite a few that would drop by and a couple that stuck around for years.  The long timers described themselves as evangelicals, but my memory says they fall into your category of fundamentalist more.

[Calm]

10 minutes ago, Navidad said:

have never heard the word sanctification used in an LDS church service in the terms of Christians becoming more mature, holy, and committed

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/sanctification?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2001/06/justification-and-sanctification?lang=eng

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1981/10/sanctification-through-missionary-service?

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/liahona/2001/01/sanctify-yourselves?

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/doctrines-of-the-gospel-student-manual/18-conversion?

https://abn.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/2008/06/making-time-to-be-holy?

Edited January 26, 2022 by Calm

[Navidad]

18 hours ago, JLHPROF said:

We believe that too, we just don't always act like it.

It's a clear difference in the revelations we follow.  The description of a tiered Celestial salvation is well established in our scripture.

It's a little less obvious for Bible only believers.  But I don't know how else to understand "joint heirs" with Christ unless we inherit everything he does.

Let me tell you what we (the vast majority of non-LDS Christians) believe and then you can comment on it. I think there are probably actual differences, but also semantic differences. I value and appreciate your comments.

First, we believe that Christ, after the resurrection and made obvious at the transfiguration, underwent a change. His mortal body became glorified - a resurrected body. He maintains that glorified body today. We believe our eternal destiny is to also exist in heaven with Him in our own glorified bodies similar to his post resurrection self. We don't use the term exalted, but we use the term glorified. That doesn't mean for us we become as Gods; but it means we become glorified like was Christ post-resurrection. We in that sense take on His death, burial, and resurrection, including his post-resurrection change - being "joint heirs" with Him of that new glorified nature. I also believe our sanctification - learning, growing, maturing continues in heaven over eternity. We are not more increasingly glorified, but increasingly sanctified. We never take on deity, we take on the glorification that came when he defeated death, Satan, and all the powers that control us in our earthly existence. Christ's victory is shared by the Christian through Christ in eternity. I don't think I could preach a sermon using the term exaltation, but I sure could using the term glorification. I think they are similar but different and I can't right now put accurate words to the similarity and difference.

We don't have a theology of the family after death, at least not one that I have ever heard or been taught. That doesn't mean we are against it. We just don't have one. I hope this helps.