Recent updates to General Handbook

[CV75]

On 6/13/2024 at 9:54 AM, telnetd said:

You might be referring to being saved by grace and exaltation by works as taught
in the April 1981 Ensign magazine.

"But, if we wish to overcome spiritual death and enter back into God's presence, 
we must be obedient to laws and principles. This is exaltation by works. Thus, 
according to this explanation, we are saved by grace and exalted by works".

Please read the entire article. Your above post tends to leave a false impression about our doctrine.

"...This is exaltation by works. Thus, according to this explanation, we are saved by grace and exalted by works.

"This is an appealing explanation because it seems to provide a logical argument that fits the statements of Paul neatly into it. However, there is a doctrinal error involved here..." I invite you to explore the error as explained in the article so that you can understand and represent our doctrine better.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, Rain said:

I'm curious why if you saw nothing in the handbook or the scriptures, saw no harm and saw some potential good why you asked the stake president. 

A few reasons.

First, I thought it might end up being a calling (or not).  Either way, I did not feel it within my stewardship to create a calling out of whole cloth.

Second, I figured that this innovation was sufficient to seek counsel from the stake president.  That was my idea initially in approaching him: I was looking more for input than for permission.

Third, when the stake president said no, I had a choice to make, which was to either defer to him or else seek an "appeal" (the Area Presidency).  Had I felt more strongly about it, I might have pursued the latter.  As it was, though, I chose the former, largely because I figured his decision would be upheld.  Also the YW caught wind of the idea and were not particularly enthused about it, so we dropped the idea and tried some others.

1 hour ago, Rain said:

What was it that triggered the idea that you should ask rather than do it?

Again, I was initially looking more for input than permission.  In hindsight I think I could have pressed the matter a bit more, but oh well.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited August 19, 2024 by smac97

[Calm]

Eternal life/exaltation (both mean the same thing in our doctrine***) is a gift as well according to your own source (the doctrinal error CV refers to explains why this is).

From your link….you need to not read to find sound bites for the purpose of pushing your preconceived view of our doctrine, but take in all the context of our doctrine if you wish to accurately represent us as well as appear sincere in your comments rather than looking for “gotchas”.  You have been posting here long enough and gotten endless responses you repeating this error is hard to understand. 

Quote

Nothing man could do for himself could bring him past that judgment bar successfully without such an Advocate. That is why eternal life is always a gift, and those who receive it do so by “inheritance.” It is interesting to note that the word inherit and its cognate words are used seventy-eight times in the Doctrine and Covenants, while the word earned and its related words are not used once.

 

***https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-47-exaltation?lang=eng#title5

Quote

Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.

 

Edited August 19, 2024 by Calm

[Calm]

11 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Either way, I did feel it within my stewardship to create a calling out of whole cloth.

Missing a “not”?

[InCognitus]

55 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Please read the entire article. Your above post tends to leave a false impression about our doctrine.

"...This is exaltation by works. Thus, according to this explanation, we are saved by grace and exalted by works.

"This is an appealing explanation because it seems to provide a logical argument that fits the statements of Paul neatly into it. However, there is a doctrinal error involved here..." I invite you to explore the error as explained in the article so that you can understand and represent our doctrine better.

I suspect that Ensign article was intentionally misrepresented, or at least it is on their website (See:  http://ldslearning.org/whatissalvation.htm), which is the website used by @telnetd and the other associated MDD member names that either created that site or derive sources from that site (see post here, here, and here where it is clearly demonstrated that sources from that site are being used to post on this board).  The exact same quote from the Ensign article appears in that web article, out of context. 

[smac97]

The Tribune: New LDS Church policies relegate trans members to ‘second-class’ status, scholars warn

Quote

A slate of new policy changes restricting the involvement of transgender Latter-day Saints in their congregations could further stigmatize those individuals within their worship communities while cementing their “second-class” status within the global faith, scholars and those impacted by the updates warned Monday.

“It’s egregious and onerous,” said Laurie Lee Hall, a former stake president and temple architect who was excommunicated from The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints for living as a transgender woman. “We’re in a far worse place than we were yesterday.”

 

The updates — released Monday along with additional guidance on temple garments, a new responsibility for teenage girls and other topics — reaffirm the church’s stance that gender, which it defines as biological sex at birth, is “an essential characteristic in Heavenly Father’s plan of happiness” and that leaders should discourage individuals from transitioning in any form.

At the same time, the latest edition of the online “General Handbook: Serving in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” reiterates that the faith “does not take a position on the causes of” individuals feeling as though their assigned sex at birth does not match their gender identity.

"Scholars."

"{A}ssigned at birth."

Quote

Policy changes: transgender individuals

What that means for the day-to-day involvement of transgender Latter-day Saints has depended in many instances on the leanings of bishops (lay leaders of congregations) and stake presidents (lay regional leaders). The handbook update clears up some — albeit not all — of this gray area through the following clarifications:

• Individuals are instructed to attend gender-specific meetings and activities that align with their assigned sex at birth. Any “rare” exceptions must be approved by the Area Presidency.

• Individuals who have transitioned in any way — whether surgically, medically or socially — cannot work with children, serve as teachers in their congregation or fill any gender-specific assignments, such as president of the women’s Relief Society. Instead, “they may receive other callings or assignments that provide opportunities to progress and serve others.” The church defines social transitioning as “intentionally identifying and presenting oneself as other than one’s biological sex at birth, and may include changing dress, grooming, names or pronouns.”

I think these are reasonable provisions.  The massive amount of equivocation that has been going on for so many years now is, sooner or later, going to run into real logistical and practical concerns.  We need to be kind and compassionate, while at the same time maintaining reasoned boundaries.

Quote

• When it comes to gender-specific overnight activities such as youth camps, individuals can attend only those that align with their assigned sex at birth.

• In the case of other overnight activities, such as For the Strength of Youth and other youth conferences, those who have transitioned in any way will be released at the end of the day to a guardian responsible for arranging accommodations.

These are difficult rules, but they make sense,  Plenty of parents would not feel comfortable with sending their daughter to an overnight FSY or other youth event and end up rooming with a biological male.

Quote

• These same church members should use a single-occupancy restroom when available. If unavailable, they can counsel with leaders to find an alternative solution. Examples suggested include people using the restroom that aligns with their assigned sex at birth or one that corresponds to the individual’s “feeling of their inner sense of gender, with a trusted person ensuring that others are not using the restroom at the same time.”

Also reasonable.

Quote

Additional language was further added to guidance around the use of preferred names and pronouns, explaining that “local leaders should not determine or prescribe how members address an individual.” That matter should instead be left to “individuals and their family, friends and church members.” As before, a preferred name may be noted in the person’s membership record.

Also reasonable.  

Quote

Also unchanged was the instruction that all soul-saving rituals, including baptism and temple rites, must be received according to a person’s assigned sex at birth.

Only those who have not transitioned in any way can be baptized and confirmed, although possible exceptions can be made by the governing First Presidency.

Individuals who transition in any way cannot receive the recommend needed to enter the church’s temples, where the faith’s highest ordinances are performed. They are also forbidden from receiving or exercising the all-male priesthood. The handbook leaves open the possibility of other restrictions not enumerated within the document.

The removal of restrictions requires the approval of the First Presidency.

Hmm.  These are difficult, but seemingly necessary.  

Quote

Taken together, the policies “contribute to fears that their presence is a danger to others” while giving into “right-wing fearmongering,” said Taylor Petrey, a Latter-day Saint historian of gender in the church. “None of these have anything to do with church teachings about priesthood, temple or long-standing customs of gender-specific classes.”

(Taylor Petrey) Latter-day Saint historian Taylor Petrey says the handbook changes on transgender individuals cave in to "right-wing fearmongering."

I think the policies have more to do with decorum, propriety, and following delineations based on biological reality rather than utterly subjective inner-held feelings.

Quote

Just as “devastating” as the policies themselves was the language used to frame them, argued Kate Mower, a nonbinary scholar of gender who attends church in Utah, California and Romania. The handbook repeatedly uses the phrase “biological sex assigned at birth,” Mower said, in a way that undermines the framing for many in the LGBTQ community of sex as a legal rather than a biological distinction.

The Church, in the end, must be able to define its own policies.

Quote

Moreover, the document “doesn’t even take nonbinary people into consideration,” contributing, Mower said, to a sense that “we don’t exist.”

(Kate Mower) Kate Mower is a nonbinary Latter-day Saint who earned a doctorate in history of science from the University of California Riverside. The new policies, Mower says, skip over nonbinary Latter-day Saints entirely — like "we don't exist."

I don't think this is so.  I'm reasonably confident that the Church acknowledges the exceedingly rare instances of people with disorder of sexual development (DSD), and I suspect they work with local leaders and individuals on a case-by-case basis.  I think the Church also acknowledges people with Gender Dysphoria.

I also think the Church is not acquiescing to the unscientific notions surrounding self-declared "nonbinary" identity.  A biological woman may choose to identify as nonbinary, but she cannot foist that onto others and insist they go along with it, particularly private religious organizations.  None of this amounts to denying her existence.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Duncan]

My son is trans and the revelation I got was don't bother with religion in this life, just be a decent human being to them and they like 99.9% of people will be offered real religion in the next life when things are better for them. They were bullied out of the church.

[Okrahomer]

3 minutes ago, Duncan said:

They were bullied out of the church.

This makes me weary … and sad.  They are lucky to have a father like you.

[Duncan]

Just now, Okrahomer said:

This makes me weary … and sad.  They are lucky to have a father like you.

what's sad is that one of his leaders doing it was put in the stake presidency so they saw that as God justifying their bullying behavior and despite what I said it just wasn't enough and you learn what you live, bullying people gets to be the big whatever

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Taylor Petry:  Taken together, the policies “contribute to fears that their presence is a danger to others”

We do not let boys and girls have overnight activities together (they have to go to separate sleeping quarters, correct?). I do not see this as inherently increasing fears the presence of boys is a danger to others or the reverse, so why would it increase fear of transitioned individuals?

However, if the fear is already present, I can see separation of biological sexes and other restrictions as justifying these fears, but a lot of wise rules can be used to justify unnecessary fears and we don’t skip the rules just for that reason.  
 

Whether these rules are wise or not can be debated, of course.

Edited August 20, 2024 by Calm

[Kenngo1969]

On 6/2/2024 at 3:23 PM, MustardSeed said:

I can’t imagine what an unacceptable apron might look like.  

 

On 6/2/2024 at 5:35 PM, bluebell said:

Bedazzled?

"Bewitched, Bothered, and Bewildered"?  

[CV75]

15 hours ago, InCognitus said:

I suspect that Ensign article was intentionally misrepresented, or at least it is on their website (See:  http://ldslearning.org/whatissalvation.htm), which is the website used by @telnetd and the other associated MDD member names that either created that site or derive sources from that site (see post here, here, and here where it is clearly demonstrated that sources from that site are being used to post on this board).  The exact same quote from the Ensign article appears in that web article, out of context. 

Wow. @telnetd, why do you do this?

[CV75]

11 hours ago, Duncan said:

My son is trans and the revelation I got was don't bother with religion in this life, just be a decent human being to them and they like 99.9% of people will be offered real religion in the next life when things are better for them. They were bullied out of the church.

The straight and narrow covenant path only makes sense when the light of Christ enters our lives first. Bullying (especially by those who ostensibly profess it) deflects that light in another direction so the victims turn to whatever other recognition of God's light they "happly" find: nature, art, good will, sciences, relationships, etc. Our religion is all about being a decent human being and that is the common denominator with everyone else's appreciation and cultivation of the light of Christ. The less common denominator is the power, gift, companionship and ultimate promise of the Holy Ghost and these are often gotten later by Christ's grace. Every victim of bullying is not a disciple of the light of Christ, but many choose to follow it wherever they have been coerced to look for it. As for the bullies, they are not irredeemably hypocritical but they will have to begin to suffer the consequences at some point until they can be motivated to do so.

[MustardSeed]

I suppose if I were in charge of the youth, I would not allow any sleepovers whatsoever in the church. I don’t see any need for it anyway.

in my experience, we dealt far more with girls being sexual with each other then we ever did with any transgender issues.

For the record, it’s mostly the adults who are concerned about transgender stuff. Most kids have adjusted along ago.

[InCognitus]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

Wow. @telnetd, why do you do this?

@telnetd, I really would like to see an answer to this question. 

Edited August 20, 2024 by InCognitus

[Stargazer]

22 hours ago, CV75 said:

On 6/13/2024 at 2:54 PM, telnetd said:

You might be referring to being saved by grace and exaltation by works as taught
in the April 1981 Ensign magazine.

"But, if we wish to overcome spiritual death and enter back into God's presence, 
we must be obedient to laws and principles. This is exaltation by works. Thus, 
according to this explanation, we are saved by grace and exalted by works".

Please read the entire article. Your above post tends to leave a false impression about our doctrine.

"...This is exaltation by works. Thus, according to this explanation, we are saved by grace and exalted by works.

"This is an appealing explanation because it seems to provide a logical argument that fits the statements of Paul neatly into it. However, there is a doctrinal error involved here..." I invite you to explore the error as explained in the article so that you can understand and represent our doctrine better.

I am a little puzzled by the apparent objection, actually. Are you contending against a claim that telnetd has made, or the statement "we are saved by grace and exalted by works"? To me this sounds oversimplified regarding "works," but true to a degree. Is that a problem?

[InCognitus]

16 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

I am a little puzzled by the apparent objection, actually. Are you contending against a claim that telnetd has made, or the statement "we are saved by grace and exalted by works"? To me this sounds oversimplified regarding "works," but true to a degree. Is that a problem?

I know I'm not CV75 (and you asked him), but I'm familiar with the issue.

The problem comes when that quote is presented as being our doctrine, when the quote is actually taken out of context from the article (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1981/04/salvation-by-grace-or-by-works?lang=eng).

The article explores various reasoning regarding the relationship between grace and works, and it explains that while some reasoning might sound good, it may or may not be correct doctrine. In context, the article says that the quoted statement is a "doctrinal error" (the quote provided by telnetd is shown in blue, and the relevant context regarding that statement is shown in red below):

Quote

The second typical explanation goes something like this: The fall of Adam brought two kinds of death into the world—physical death, which is the separation of body and spirit, and spiritual death, which is separation of man from God. The atonement of Christ overcame physical death through the Resurrection. This is salvation by grace because it comes to all men automatically and does not depend on what kinds of lives they have lived. But, if we wish to overcome spiritual death and enter back into God’s presence, we must be obedient to laws and principles. This is exaltation by works. Thus, according to this explanation, we are saved by grace and exalted by works.

This is an appealing explanation because it seems to provide a logical argument that fits the statements of Paul neatly into it. However, there is a doctrinal error involved here. While the resurrection of the dead is certainly an integral part of the plan of salvation, and is unconditional and independent of men’s works, the term salvation as used in the scriptures does not mean physical resurrection alone. As Elder Bruce R. McConkie has pointed out, salvation is synonymous with exaltation:

“Salvation in its true and full meaning is synonymous with exaltation or eternal life and consists in gaining an inheritance in the highest of the three heavens within the celestial kingdom. With few exceptions this is the salvation of which the scriptures speak. It is the salvation which the saints seek.” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966, p. 670.)

Those who are uncomfortable with Paul’s statements about grace and salvation should bear in mind that the same teachings are found in other scripture as well. Nephi, for example, nearly echoes Paul’s words to the Ephesians when he says, “For we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do” (2 Ne. 25:23). And Lehi’s explanation of the Atonement to Jacob is remarkably similar to Paul’s explanation of justification by faith in Romans 3 [Rom. 3], even down to the phrase “by the law no flesh is justified” (see 2 Ne. 2:5). Likewise, the Doctrine and Covenants points out that both justification and sanctification come by grace (see D&C 20:30–31).

So when taken out of its context, the quote is a misrepresentation of our doctrine (it is "doctrinal error").  

[manol]

Thank you @InCognitus for posting this quote!  Evidently I have been MISTAKEN about LDS doctrine on this subject, despite having been active LDS for many years!  (I've been outside the Church for twenty-something years now.)

My understanding was indeed that LDS doctrine was along the lines of "saved by grace, exalted by works".  And I have been under the impression that the LDS concept of "salvation" placed it a distant second-best to "exaltation".   

Quoting here from your quote from the article:

3 hours ago, InCognitus said:

While the resurrection of the dead is certainly an integral part of the plan of salvation, and is unconditional and independent of men’s works, the term salvation as used in the scriptures does not mean physical resurrection alone. As Elder Bruce R. McConkie has pointed out, salvation is synonymous with exaltation:

“Salvation in its true and full meaning is synonymous with exaltation or eternal life and consists in gaining an inheritance in the highest of the three heavens within the celestial kingdom. With few exceptions this is the salvation of which the scriptures speak. It is the salvation which the saints seek.” (Mormon Doctrine, 2nd ed., Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966, p. 670.)  [bolding by manol]

I did not know that "salvation is synonymous with exaltation" in LDS doctrine!  Not sure how I missed that point for all these years, as imo it's a really, really big one. 

Has anybody else here been under the impression that "exaltation" is considered to be much better than "salvation", or was it just me? 

Edited August 21, 2024 by manol

[Stargazer]

1 hour ago, InCognitus said:

I know I'm not CV75 (and you asked him), but I'm familiar with the issue.

The problem comes when that quote is presented as being our doctrine, when the quote is actually taken out of context from the article (https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/ensign/1981/04/salvation-by-grace-or-by-works?lang=eng).

The article explores various reasoning regarding the relationship between grace and works, and it explains that while some reasoning might sound good, it may or may not be correct doctrine. In context, the article says that the quoted statement is a "doctrinal error" (the quote provided by telnetd is shown in blue, and the relevant context regarding that statement is shown in red below):

So when taken out of its context, the quote is a misrepresentation of our doctrine (it is "doctrinal error").  

 

53 minutes ago, manol said:

Thank you @InCognitus for posting this quote!  I have been MISTAKEN about LDS doctrine on this subject, despite having been active LDS for many years!

My understand was indeed that LDS doctrine was along the lines of "saved by grace, exalted by works".  And I have been under the impression that the LDS concept of "salvation" seemingly placed it a distant second-best to "exaltation".   

Quoting here from your quote from the article:

I did not know that "salvation is synonymous with exaltation" in LDS doctrine!  Not sure how I missed that point for all these years, as imo it's a really, really big one. 

Has anybody else here been under the impression that "exaltation" is considered to be much better than "salvation", or was it just me? 

I've argued about this before in great detail, but I'm going to shorten it by saying that there are 3 heavens, or degrees of glory. The highest is exaltation, Eternal (or God's) Life. The lowest, Telestial, is for those who have rejected Christ's salvation and have suffered for their own sins. 

But what about the middle? Who goes there? D&C 76 addresses this as follows:

DC 76:76-79 -> These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness. These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father. Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun. These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God.

No exaltation, but they are heirs of salvation in the sense that they participate in the Atonement, and the suffering of Christ pays for their sins.

I see that the key difference between Celestial and Terrestrial kingdoms, when it comes to qualifications, seems to be valiance in the testimony of Jesus.  So, for one to benefit from the Atonement but not to have been valiant in the testimony of Jesus is to have been baptized by water and spirit, repented of one's sins, but one has somehow not demonstrated sufficient valiance.

One part of this insufficient valiance might be what is described in DC 121:34-39, wherein one is one of those who exercises unrighteous dominion, suggesting a tendency to abrogate the agency of man. Or maybe that and something else.

In short, I see salvation is a three level concept. Resurrection for all; Atonement for the repentant; Exaltation for the valiant in Jesus. It is all Salvation, of course. 

Otherwise, why are we bothering with Three Degrees of Glory? Why not just Two, like the rest of the non-restoration Christians? Where Hell is not really the Bad Place, but just a Great Place with a Bad Entrance Fee.

 

Edited August 20, 2024 by Stargazer

[CV75]

1 hour ago, Stargazer said:

I am a little puzzled by the apparent objection, actually. Are you contending against a claim that telnetd has made, or the statement "we are saved by grace and exalted by works"? To me this sounds oversimplified regarding "works," but true to a degree. Is that a problem?

I object to telnetd's misrepresentation of what the article taught.

[CV75]

55 minutes ago, manol said:

Thank you @InCognitus for posting this quote!  Evidently I have been MISTAKEN about LDS doctrine on this subject, despite having been active LDS for many years!  (I've been outside the Church for twenty-something years now.)

My understand was indeed that LDS doctrine was along the lines of "saved by grace, exalted by works".  And I have been under the impression that the LDS concept of "salvation" placed it a distant second-best to "exaltation".   

Quoting here from your quote from the article:

I did not know that "salvation is synonymous with exaltation" in LDS doctrine!  Not sure how I missed that point for all these years, as imo it's a really, really big one. 

Has anybody else here been under the impression that "exaltation" is considered to be much better than "salvation", or was it just me? 

We are all resurrected by grace, the degrees of glory come by grace, and exaltation comes by grace. The basic level of salvation is resurrection, he kingdoms of glory allow for a higher level of salvation, and exaltation is the highest level of salvation. But they all come by grace.

Our work associated with our resurrection was accomplished in the pre-mortal realm (anyone who comes here is resurrected). D&C 76 and 88 speak to our work associated with our resurrected glory. D&C 132 speaks to our work associated with exaltation. But Christ's grace is required in all these kinds of blessings.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, manol said:

did not know that "salvation is synonymous with exaltation" in LDS doctrine!  Not sure how I missed that point for all these years, as imo it's a really, really big one. 

Has anybody else here been under the impression that "exaltation" is considered to be much better than "salvation", or was it just me

This has always been something that frustrates me as it depends on context. I have seen salvation used only as meaning exaltation many times, but also meaning simply the fact there is physical resurrection for everyone and various meanings in between many other times. 
 

Damnation suffers from the same sort of ambiguity meaning anything from only the sons of perdition to anyone not receiving exaltation. 
 

Most common understanding seems to me to tie baptism and salvation together and sealing and exaltation together for some reason. 
 

If temple sealing is a salvific ordinance, then exaltation can be said to be salvation…but LDS Speak is hardly a language of consistency . 

Edited August 20, 2024 by Calm

[CV75]

15 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

 

I've argued about this before, but I'm not going to do it again, except to say that there are 3 heavens, or degrees of glory. The highest is exaltation, Eternal (or God's) Life. The lowest, Telestial, is for those who have rejected Christ's salvation and have suffered for their own sins. 

What about the middle? 

DC 76:76-79 -> These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness. These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father. Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun. These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God.

No exaltation, but they are heirs of salvation in the sense that they participate in the Atonement, and the suffering of Christ pays for their sins.

I see that the key difference between Celestial and Terrestrial kingdoms, when it comes to qualifications, seems to be valiance in the testimony of Jesus. . And it does seem to me that for one to benefit from the Atonement but not to have been valiant in the testimony of Jesus is to have been baptized by water and spirit, repented of one's sins, but one has somehow not demonstrated sufficient valiance.

One part of this insufficient valiance might be what is described in DC 121:34-39, wherein one is one of those who exercises unrighteous dominion, suggesting a tendency to abrogate the agency of man. 

In short, I see salvation is a three level concept. Resurrection for all; Atonement for the repentant; Exaltation for the valiant in Jesus. It is all Salvation, of course. 

Otherwise, why are we bothering with Three Degrees of Glory? Why not just Two, like the rest of the non-restoration Christians? Where Hell is not really the Bad Place, but just a Great Place with a Bad Entrance Fee.

 

I would say that any level of valiance demonstrated represents work. It may not be work in the testimony of Jesus, but it may be work in the many "honorable" ways the light of Christ can be applied while still rejecting the fulness of the Gospel.

[Stargazer]

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

We are all resurrected by grace, the degrees of glory come by grace, and exaltation comes by grace. The basic level of salvation is resurrection, he kingdoms of glory allow for a higher level of salvation, and exaltation is the highest level of salvation. But they all come by grace.

That is, in essence, what I have been trying to say.

In terms of Jesus's Parable of the Talents, I add a level.

• The one who received five talents and doubled it to ten gets the Celestial Kingdom
• The one who received two and doubled it to four gets the Terrestrial Kingdom
• Two receive one talent each,
  • One of the two puts his talent out to the money lenders so it earns interest and he gets the Telestial Kingdom
  • The other one who buried his talent in the earth gets kicked into Outer Darkness

Or maybe that's all rubbish. OK, it's definitely rubbish, but I had fun coming up with it at least.

6 minutes ago, CV75 said:

Our work associated with our resurrection was accomplished in the pre-mortal realm (anyone who comes here is resurrected). D&C 76 and 88 speak to our work associated with our resurrected glory. D&C 132 speaks to our work associated with exaltation. But Christ's grace is required in all these kinds of blessings.

Yep

[CV75]

8 minutes ago, Calm said:

This has always been something that frustrates me as it depends on context. I have seen salvation used only as meaning exaltation many times, but also meaning simply the fact there is physical resurrection for everyone and various meanings in between many other times. 
 

Damnation suffers from the same sort of ambiguity meaning anything from only the sons of perdition to anyone not receiving exaltation. 
 

Most common understanding seems to me to tie baptism and salvation together and sealing and exaltation together for some reason. 
 

If temple sealing is a salvific ordinance, then exaltation can be said to be salvation…but LDS Speak is hardly a language of consistency . 

My assumption has been that everyone is saved (resurrected) by grace for just qualifying to come to earth, and then can be exalted as that grace extends to the covenants we are willing and trying to accept and keep. Our concept of what we want for salvation expands while also being grateful for just being alive/resurrected.