Jn 15:8 Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples. 9As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love.

I generally agree, though I think if the Book of Mormon, D&C and PoGP are taken on their own they give a much less clear picture of Grace that accords with the New Testament. Together with the Bible I think, at least on this subject, they collectively complicate the issue more than illuminate. I think it is hard to accept the biblical description of Grace as complete rescue from our total, willful separation from God in sin, when one believes that God intended or wanted humanity to sin in order to bring about His plan of redemption; such postures that man is basically in good standing with God (just not salvationally self-sufficient) vs. fundamentally separated from Him. Very differently nuanced world-views.

I thought Millet was having to strain a bit, having to creatively nuance some LDS scripture, to make his case for a more Protestant-like view of Grace, but I still think he made his case fairly persuasive. He obviously is advocating a change while trying to to be too harsh on the LDS past. Not easy. (Read the “desert parable” of his Delicate Balance chapter and I still don’t think it quite presents the doctrine accurately — it is still giving too great a nod to the historical LDS prejudice.)

Given the “hardened movement” as you describe it I do think yours is the most significant explanation for the resistance to Grace more so than actual LDS doctrine. For the latter the case is not unequivocally in favor of Grace to the extent Millet took it, however. I think the evolution of emphasis is a good one, since it is fundamental and pragmatic to fostering the hope we are promised in Christ. I don’t want to put that effort down. It is, to be sure, somewhat a matter of rediscovering LDS doctrine that was there all along. But it is also, to be honest, requiring some earlier authoritative statements to be deemphasized. It hearkens back at that usual Protestant frustration with the malleability of determining what LDS actually consider authoritatively establishes its doctrine.

Anyhow, this is a bit academic. It’s a good thing to see LDS minority voices, like yours, working to help your fellow believers find more hope, praise and joy in Christ’s Gospel — to see our glory is His glory, fully and apart from our own individualistic impulse to want to reserve some of the credit for ourselves.

JfQ, I also see this too much in the perspectives of too many members, but I don’t see it in the actual teachings of the Restored Gospel. The theology for what you are saying is there, I just think (as I said recently on another thread) we generally swung too far in opposition to the “easy grace” concept that prophets saw and tried to keep the members from embracing. I think that movement hardened during the 60′s and 70′s – for obvious cultural reasons.

Iow, I agree that the former emphasis created issues, but I believe it was much more an issue of emphasis rather than “worldview”. Our emphasis now is much more on grace and reliance than it was even two decades ago – or even one decade ago.

I know plenty of people who “praise and honor” their supervisor (or a higher manager) at work, but they don’t make any effort to become like that person. I think this is similar to why, “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.”

That really is my point about glorifying God. One stance says that “saying unto me, Lord, Lord” (praising and honoring the Lord) is what glorifies Him; another says that “doing the (commandments or following the law) of my Father” is what glorifies Him. Our unique contribution is the idea that neither of those alone glorifies God, but rather the active recognition that the Father’s “will” in this case literally IS to become like him – not necessarily by what we say or do in and of those things themselves, but literally by trying to become like Him. After all, if all it took to glorify God was lockstep obedience to a list of do’s and don’ts while telling someone how great they are, Satan’s plan would have been a much better option than God’s. That’s worth considering.

There certainly is a different nuance between the nature of Man between the trad. LDS and trad. Christian views. I was reading Millet’s “Grace Works” in preparation for an interfaith dialog I’m leading and was surprised at how difficult was his apparent purpose to portray a “delicate balance” between faith and works that is very much informed by the “Protestant” view, while also trying to speak out of the other side of his mouth to the traditional Mormon view. While I have my critiques I could give his material, I have admiration for what Millet was trying to do, which is to encourage LDS members to stop stereotyping and fearing the doctrine of Grace. And stop exalting their human nature so high as to think we can save ourselves or become abandoned to grief and gult when we can’t. Where Millet struggled most I think it was in his difficulty bridging the difference between a Christian view of depraved, sin-natured, fallen humankind with a “fallen forward” and only-so-fallen-as-God-needs-us-to-be perspective that often appears in LDS.

As a self-described Christian Humanist I’ve occasionally had thoughtful LDS persons ask me why I don’t think the LDS view of “joint-heirship”, theosis, “pseudo-fallen” nature of mankind, and “universal salvation” is more humanistically inspirational than the traditional Christian views. Since I don’t have time to post more at length right now on all the details — some of which resolve around some of the scripture you mentioned — I’ll say that for me it boils down to what I see from a transformational Christian perspective: Christ taught us our reliance and total dependence on God. In a here-and-now Kingdom of God sense I see that he invites us to be action-oriented in abandoning our individual self in favor of the collective Kingdom. For me the traditional Christian theology better addresses this separation, better informs the theology of Grace and what it means to become our perfected and glorified selves: joint-heirs in Christ. I see in the LDS worldview a humanity where free will is exalted perhaps too greatly and our complete dependence on God tempered a little too far with a distaste for addressing the Fall in the same sense of separation and deprivation. However, I appreciate that there are LDS folks like Millet who recognize the pragmatic results that have culturally divided our denominations and seem to be trying to make efforts to bridge differences.