Thanks for understanding. I think it is a great idea to continue this via e-mail. That would allow you to pursue this in whatever way you feel would be best.

I am really unaware of where I did anything like this. But I will be careful in the future to double scrub my words. I would not want to in any way group you with group X.

The only place I can see where you might have thought I did this was: “Now I don’t know if you believe like this or not personally, but for those Evangelicals (whom I assume you would consider brothers in the gospel), I think your statement above is inaccurate.” (in #29)

My point was simply to ask you to be consistent. That there are Christians that believe the way I was describing is not in doubt. And I was not saying you were one of them. I was simply pointing out that you can’t justly condemn Mormons for holding a belief you don’t condemn other fellow Christians for holding. (A tactic that I have personally seen done by various mainstream Christians on many occaisions.) But this is not a case of grouping you with anyone.

I also said this: “I happen to know that many of your Arminianist brethren disagree with you. (C.S. Lewis included here. Anyone that believes in the reality of a fall from grace will disagree with you. Mormons are not the odd man out here, Evangelicals are.)”

But again, this is a verifably true statement. I do not know if you are equally concerned (and express equal concern) over your Arminianist brethren for holding the same beliefs as Mormons on the topic of a fall from grace. But I am not accusing you of this one way or the other. I’m simply stating a fact: that “Christianity” as most people define this term, does not teach what you stated as a universal truth. (i.e. “Salvation is permanent and it is a one time thing.”) There is a lot of debate and room for opinion here.

If you were narrowing your concept of “Christianity” to exclude such people as C.S. Lewis or all Arminianists, then I suppose your statement would be true but misleading because you didn’t take care to explain how you define the concept of “Christian” in such a narrow way compared to most people.

Anyhow, I’m sorry we can’t discuss it further. I’d be curious what you thought I specifically said that grouped you with anyone. Specifics would help. Like I said, you can email me off line with the specifics if you want.

It would kind of be like me saying that because FLDS believe in a given doctrine, or taking what a few Mormons have argued to me in the past and saying it is what is unanimously what all Mormons believe.

I am not offended in the slightest, and hope I have not offended anyone here. I usually enjoy such discussions. Thank you again for allowing me to participate here and I hope my contribution helps rather than distracts.

Howard Hunter was a general authority that assisted in the ‘reconstruction’ of the mission. The Elder (as he was then) expressed his frustration that all these people had left and would miss out on the CK. Howard W. Hunter offered his opinion that 90% of those that lived on the earth will enjoy the highest degree of the CK. This was in the early 1960s.

I wasn’t clear if you said this to me Michael. In case it was…

I am trying to be very careful to not group all Christians together. I thought every time I mentioned a specific group or person so that I was avoiding generalizations. Examples:

“In conversation with an Evangelical friend…”

“I have been told by some Christians that…”

“I happen to know that many of your Arminianist brethren…”

“I mentioned how often I’ve seen the more fundamentalist Evangelicals, particularly the Calvinistic ones…”

“Now I don’t know if you believe like this or not personally, but for those Evangelicals (whom I assume you would consider brothers in the gospel)…”

“I happen to know that a good many Christians of many faiths also believe in the idea that our works affect our level of rewards in heaven…”

All of these are provably true statements that avoid any generalizations of Christians as a whole.

If I accidently missed an instance, I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to. I fully realize how much difference there can be doctrinally between various “mainstream Christians.”

I also went to a lot of lengths to avoid defining your personal beliefs:

i.e. “Now I don’t know if you believe like this or not personally…” etc.

Even in the case where I was interpreting the common Evangelical belief of “getting saved” as a work, I made a point of explaining what I understood but then added that I might misunderstand or be splitting hairs. I even went so far as to explain that it depended on how you interpeted the words so we could both be right depending on how the words were understood.

There was a lot of effort I was putting in to not put words into your mouth and to not generalize.

Anyhow, I really tried not to put words into your mouth. So forgive me if you felt I did. (Feel free to write to me off line and explain your concerns further if you’d like.)

Thanks for taking time to have a discussion.

Ray, I hope you’ll let this post stay. I didn’t take the threadjack any further. I just wanted to make sure I was ending with Michael on a good note on our disagreement.

Michael, you are a even tempered person, by the way.

While I would like to go into more detail, given the nature of the request to stop, I will.

God bless.

This subject has been resonating with me lately, because I have stumbled, out of desperation, onto something that I should have known all along.
“Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden…” I find myself in need of his saving grace and atonement every day as I struggle with -and often fail- at being a good mother. I am learning -I have to keep remembering- that the only way to get through some moments is to fall on my knees in mighty prayer. And what blows my mind is that His hand is always extended in some form or other. Sometimes it just means that the prayer alone is the only thing that gets me through the moment. Other times it is an impression of what to say or NOT say, what to do or NOT do. And when I have to repent, I am awed that He gives me criticism of what specifically I need to change.

As I read your post, I thought again of this conversation I read of between Pres. Kimball and a young man who was stuggling with prayer but didn’t know why he was struggling. He asked the young man, “Why don’t you pray anymore?”
“I am not sure anymore.”
“Why aren’t you sure anymore? Because you have cut all the communication lines? You have lost his address? You do not have his telephone number even, and you do not have any address? The communication lines have been severed? How do you expect to know whether he is living or dead? If you went for two years withoutever hearing from your parents and they were in the opposite end of the world, how would you know if they were alive or dead? How do you know whether God is alive or dead if you have lost communication? Now, you get on your knees, my boy. If you want to be happy, get on your knees and crawl on your knees to the city of happiness. Only there is peace.” (The Teachings of Spenser W. Kimball, 127)

I did not grow up in a praying family. So when I heard this, it hit me like a bolt of lightening. And in the short time I have put this advice for fervent, frequent prayer to use, it has changed my life so dramatically that it’s quite embarrassing to admit. I have been saved from so many mistakes by praying first.

I believe these are examples of things from which I have been saved in this life – things from which I have been sheltered.

It’s ok, Bruce and Michael, but I would appreciate a cessation of this particular discussion. It has run its course and further solidified my conviction that people often read into things whatever they expect those things to say – not what those things actually say.

Michael, my last comment for you directly:

I believe you would be astounded – absolutely floored – if you were able to realize exactly how we (you and Mormons) disagree and exactly how we agree. We do disagree on some key things, but we agree in some ways that I believe would blow your mind. The “saved by grace, after all we can do” verse is a great example – but until you accept that not all Mormons interpret that verse how you seem to think we do, you will continue to be unable to understand Mormons and Mormonism anywhere close to fully. We really don’t believe what you have been told we believe – at least not even close to unanimously. There is a TON of room within Mormonism for individual understanding of many, many things – and that baffles many outside our religion who assume there is a black and white, easy answer to everything and that Mormons are all brainwashed, programmed robots who all believe the exact same thing. I don’t know what you believe in that regard, Michael, but it is obvious you think we believe what we actually do not believe. I’m fine with that, but, as you said, it’s time to agree to disagree – and, from my perspective, to stop trying to help you see that we don’t disagree in some ways you assume we do.

As the author of this post, I am going to exercise my right to stop this particular discussion at this point. If anyone wants to address the concept of “being saved” including sheltering us from things that we would experience otherwise, please feel free to do so.

I happen to know that many of your Arminianist brethren disagree with you. (C.S. Lewis included here. Anyone that believes in the reality of a fall from grace will disagree with you. Mormons are not the odd man out here, Evangelicals are.)

Michael says: “I am sure you are aware of the concept of that which is most simple is usually the correct path.”

This is “simply” a false statement. It’s a misunderstanding of Occam’s razor. Is the simple view of physics the most correct? C.S. Lewis uses this very point right here to explain why Christianity is complex:

There is no good complaining that these statements are difficult [i.e. hard to understand.] Christianity claims to be telling us about another world, about something behind the world we can touch and hear and see. You may think the claim false; but if it were true, what it tells us would be bound to be difficult — at least as difficult as modern Physics, and for the same reason.

On the other hand, I don’t think my explanation was all that complex as you are making it out. It was only “complex” in the sense that I had to give multiple ways in which Mormon use a word. Go look up any word in the dictionary. It’s prety common for words to have multiple meanings, multiple uses, etc.

And I’m not sure your explanation isn’t complex. I just pointed out that your view of salvation is exactly equivalent getting circumcised and being forever saved. (Or being born of Abraham and being forever saved.) Please explain the difference “simply” for me, because, as I said, I don’t see any. I believe you might be falling into the very error Paul and John were trying to get people to avoid. I doubt there is a “simple” explanation of the difference available to you. I suspect you would really have to break down words for me and help me understand where you are coming from. In other words, it’s complicated.

Michael says: “You also assume that I think if a person does not have a true change of heart that person may still be saved. This is not my intent or my belief”

Well, I think I just said that you were open to the possibility. But I will accept your correction if this is not true. I too believe we simply cannot tell and we have to leave judgment to God.

Michael says: “I see the logic you present, but the emphasis is on the works”

Let me quote the verse in question:

For we labor diligently to write, to persuade our children, and also our brethren, to believe in Christ, and to be reconciled to God; for we know that it is by grace that we are saved, after all we can do.

And now behold, my brethren, since it has been all that we could do, (as we were the most lost of all mankind) to repent of all our sins and the many murders which we have committed, and to get God to take them away from our hearts, for it was all we could do to repent sufficiently before God that he would take away our stain—

Michael, I honestly feel you are misquoting and misrepresenting these statements. Was the emphasis really on works? Or was it on God’s forgiveness or Grace? But how *you* interpret this verse really is besides the point as we are talking about *my* beliefs. You really don’t have a right to tell me how I, as a Mormon, *should* have interpreted this verse and believed different then I do.

Michael I have to agree we should discontinue this discussion. You’ve said several thing now that tell me that you are not seeking understanding at this time because you often seem bent on defining my beliefs for me.

Example: “you believe that nothing matters outside if you don’t believe, but it is the works that follow that get you exalted (saved).”

Example: “I am not sure I buy your explanation…” Excuse me? Did I miss something? You don’t buy my explanation of how I personally interpret a verse? Sure you can argue with me what you think the original intent of the verse is and how the original intent may differ from my interpretation. But since I’m explaining how I understand it, there was nothing for you to buy about my explanation but to accept it. And the rest of what you said was literally besides the point.

Another example: “In Mormonism, you cannot be exalted (the ultimate salvation) if you do not do these specific things…”

Right after I told you that we have more than one definition of salvation (and we believe the Bible does too) and that works you do as part of exaltation are for the joy of knowing God and not to earn salvation, you immediately ignore me and explain to me what I *really* believe.

Yes, to receive exaltation — one form of salvation: the highest — you will choose to go to the temple and be sealed there, etc. since that is part of the very definition of that form of salvation. And yes, I do not believe people that choose not to do this, in this life or the life to come, will receive it — because they literally chose not to. Everyone that wants it will have the opportunity, period. There is simply no such thing as not having a temple sealing for someone that really wanted a celestial marriage. Thus this is an inappropriate argument based on what I already explained my beliefs were.

What you said was also problematic because I happen to know that a good many Christians of many faiths also believe in the idea that our works affect our level of rewards in heaven — and surely this is what we are talking about when we speak of “exaltation” in a Mormon context.

Thus this belief of Mormons is only problematic to you if you condemn all of those other Christians who believe this on the same grounds. I do not wish to put words in your mouth, but I suspect that you don’t. I suspect you are just repeating something you heard. (i.e. a standard anti-Mormonism)

I would enjoy having further dialog in the future but only if you will avoid telling me what I believe and instead ask me what I believe. I don’t know of any other way for dialog to exist. If you do have further questions (and you’re not going to tell me what I believe) my bio has a way to reach me.

Anyhow, I think we’re done here. Let’s let this thread return to its regularly scheduled topic. Sorry Ray.

Personally, I (like many other Mormons and many other evangelical and certainly mainline Protestant Christians) lean toward the Arminian view of grace and works and election. If salvation were 100% grace, this would leave no role for agency on the part of the saved. I do think Arminius is right that it is our decision whether to accept Jesus and His saving grace. God will not save us against our will. And I think the “all we can do” in the Book of Mormon is our acceptance of Jesus and His gospel and grace, as much as we are able, whether with the grain of a mustard seed or just a molecule of faith. Once we allow Jesus into our hearts, He will change us and our hearts, one strand at a time (as we allow Him to do so).

The words justification, sanctification, and glorification are a part of salvation but are not salvation. To be justified, we need Christ’s cover for our sins. To be set apart, we need to be separated from our sins, which Christ accomplishes at justification, and to be glorified is to be a part of Christ. All three happen when we allow Christ into our hearts– the one instance, not three. We are justified because we have Christ as our lawyer, so to speak, and we are sanctified because we have Christ to separate those who do not believe, and we are glorified because of these. Again, all this happens at salvation. Salvation is easy.

As to your explanation, I am not sure any of it makes any sense. I am sure you are aware of the concept of that which is most simple is usually the correct path. I think this is likely the case here.

Salvation in this life is also easy, and I understand what he means, but this is covered in our view of salvation as well, which I do not think you understand. Salvation occurs now, from our past sins and from our future sins. I am sure you will agree that no matter how much we try, we will still sin. I say this with the assumtion that the believer sincerely has turned away from sin, and strives to avoid it. Truth of the matter is, we will all fall short. But regardless, following Christ makes it easier to not sin.

You also assume that I think if a person does not have a true change of heart that person may still be saved. This is not my intent or my belief. Rather, I argue that we cannot truly know whether or not a person has changed their heart. For example, the person may secretly give all his mone or spend all his time at the homeless shelter. This person may write books that others can learn from, and they may not be known to me. I cannot know the persons heart. However, if that same person goes to bars every night, comes home drunk and with another girl (or man) each night, then I can assume that person has not had a change of heart and is not saved.

Saved by grace after all you can do. I am not sure I buy your explanation, because it is pretty clear in language: after I work, I am saved by grace. Don’t get me wrong, I understand your sentiment. I see the logic you present, but the emphasis is on the works. Why would it read “after all I do” if it were otherwise? And we cannot have this discussion without at least pointing out that there are very specific things you must do in order to be exalted. Exalted is not a matter of belief, but of obedience, right? And obedience is shown by accomplishing the various temple rites. So lets get back to that verse: after all you can do, you are saved by grace. It seems clear that an emphasis is on works.

And to finish out this post, as I have argued before, it is either 100% grace, or it is 100% works. In Mormonism, you cannot be exalted (the ultimate salvation) if you do not do these specific things.

And as a truly final note in this post, I am aware that this topic can go on, and on, and on. It is not my goal that we discuss this without end. At some point, we will need to agree to disagree.

In case this wasn’t clear in the last post… the answer to this question is ‘both.’

You misunderstand how I read this verse, which is 2 Ne. 25: 23. Alma 24:22 says “all I can do” is repent, which I interpret contextually to mean be penitent (or at least sincerely desire to change). The original statement that I am saved by grace after all I can do means simultaneously that it is not my works that save me (i.e. even after all I do, it’s actually grace that saves me, not my works) while admitting that if I’m not actually a penitent person I didn’t really have faith. The idea that I’m going to “do things” because I have accepted Jesus as my savior is an assumption implicit in this verse. It never says “you have to go do a bunch of works and then you can be saved.” But this verse does rule out the idea that one can actually have accepted Jesus if they have no change of heart, and this is a common use of this verse. You were open to that possibility that someone could be saved without a real change of heart (though it seemed unlikely to you.) I am not open to this possibility due to this verse.

Michael asks: “I would like a simple and straight forward response to what is it to be saved in Mormonism?”

Well, of course it’s not simple, so I can’t give you a “simple” answer. But then neither can you give me a simple answer in exchange. I have been told by some Christians that there is only one salvation: forgiveness of sins. These Christians tell me that salvation is not sanctification. They tell me that salvation is not going to heaven. Those just come from being saved.

I’ve had other Christians tell me about the three kinds of salvation: justification, sanctification, glorification.

I hope you see what I mean here. The word “saved” can have many meanings, even in your religion. There is no “simple” answer to give.

In Mormonism, we tend to use the word ‘saved’ to mean you are ‘saved from something’ and we’re pretty open about how we use that term.

That is why Ray asked about how Jesus saves us in this life and you got confused. It was hard for you to imagine the word ‘saved’ being used in this way and you immediately assumed he meant it in an Evangelical sense of receiving remission of sins. But he actually meant “how does Jesus’ atonement save you from difficulties or sins in your life right now!” This is not the way Evangelical’s use the word “saved” but it is the way Mormons often do.

Likewise, it’s hard for me to answer your question. After all, from a Mormon point of view, we are all born saved because the atonement removed the stain of Adam from us. This is universal, guaranteed, and we do absolutely nothing to receive it. This means we will all die, but all be resurrected. But it also means that we all will become separated from God, but also all return to his presence (at least long enough to be judged.)

In addition, we believe that due to the atonement of Jesus Christ, people can change. By utilizing the atonement, we over come our sins (sanctification) and this is how Mormons primarily think of ‘salvation’ – as sanctification. The end result of overcoming sin via the atonement is that we come to know God so completely we become like He is. This is exaltation which is really just a natural extension of sanctification and the parenthood of God. Mormons feel that the Evangelical view of “salvation” is deficient because it places a permanent barrier between you and God and how completely you can know Him.

Is exaltation the “ultimate” form of salvation because of this? Yes, it is. But one does not “work to be exalted” as you said but instead they “work because it brings them joy to come to know God so completely” and this just happens to be the definition of exaltation. As I said, you have the cause and effect backwards.

Let me know if I need to clarify any of this. Due to the differences in how Mormons and Evangelical’s use the same words, I’ve found this communication difficult in the past. Also, many Christians have as part of their “orthodoxy” that Mormons believe X and Y and so they aren’t ready to accept that this part of their religion is wrong when it turns out we actually believe A and B. This also hinders communication severely.

As to the fruits of one who has said he believes in Christ? The work we do is outward evidence of belief, but as much as it is outward evidence, that person could be going through the motions. We cannot know, thus the works do not prove anything. Only God knows our hearts and minds. As to these being requirements, I cannot call them requirements in the sense that our damnation rests on whether we are physically baptized or not. For those that are able, they really ought to do it, but it is not required. Why ought they? Well, the Bible says that is the outward way to express our belief. Why is not a requirement? If one is not able (a deathbed conversion for instance), or if one is not near one who can baptize, or because they are going through the motions and their heart is not in it.

My personal opinion of that matter is that I would doubt one who says they believe but do nothing and do not turn away from their sins. But I also grant them the possibility they are truly struggling with whatever issue is before them and help to see them through it.

Remember, we cannot know anothers heart the way God can, and this is where we hold our judgment.

Also, the red herring of works. I don’t see it that way at all. The way I see it is that it is 100% one way or 100% the other. Either we achieve salvation (exaltation or whatever word you wish to use) through our faith, or through our works. Look at it this way: if we are saved by our faith (or grace) alone, then upon our faith, we are saved. Nothing we do can add to what is done. However, if it is based on our works, then no matter how much faith we have matters– its what we do. I know you put these together with the line saved by grace after all you can do. But think about this: when is it all you can do and when does faith come into it? Either you keep working harder and harder to make sure you can do all you can do or it is simply your faith that matters. The work, then, means nothing.

Over time, my definition and understanding of “endure to the end” has changed. I used to think it meant “Go, and sin no more.” So everytime I would sin, I would view myself as having failed to endure to the end. Then it changed to “keep going and try your best,” meaning you don’t have to be perfect.

Lately, I’ve come to view “endure to the end” as meaning “don’t get discouraged.” The cycle of coming unto Christ through faith and repentance is continual. Ideally, I should get better at it as I go. But that’s not necessarily my job, that’s the Savior’s job. My job is to stay involved in the process and not stop it altogether.

Okay, I have a question about this. I have been told by many many Evangelicals that there is no such thing as a person that is “saved” if they don’t bring forth good works. Now they are always careful to clarify the cause and effect. The works do not ‘earn’ salvation or cause it in any way. But they are very clear that if you don’t have works you weren’t really born again and thus weren’t really saved.

Now I don’t know if you believe like this or not personally, but for those Evangelicals (whom I assume you would consider brothers in the gospel), I think your statement above is inaccurate.

This is actually what I said, I thought. Or at least I was open to this possiblity. I was hoping you would realize you were doing the same.

For example: “but it is the works that follow that get you exalted (saved). Without them, you cannot achieve exaltation, no matter how much you believe.” This to is a red heiring and is getting too picky in my opinion.

You had to redefine “saved” to be “exalation only” to get any mileage out of your analogy at all and this seems rather unfair to me.

But even if I assumd salvation was equivalent to exalation in Mormon theology, you’d still be misrepresenting Mormon beliefs because one does not do works to merrit Exalation in the Mormon religion. Exalation *is* the type of character that does those works. So you have the cause and effect backwards.

That’s why saying something like “it is the works that follow that get you exalted” is not representative of what Mormons teach and believe.

There are plenty of scriptures that could lead one to believe that salvation should not be seen through a universalist lens. (Matt 7: Gate is small and the way narrow and few will find it; not all who think they serve God will find themselves within the Kingdom, etc.) On the other hand, we have scriptural testament that Christ came for all sinners (1 Tim 1), and Acts abounds with examples of those who come to know Him through diverse means: as a testament through nature; by conviction through preaching or missionary work; by living pure religion and serving others; by studying the scriptures steadfastly, etc. We can look throughout the world and find abundant reasons to hope in the glory, strength and vitality of His work. We can also find reasons to despair in the wickedness of humankind.

One thing is clear: God has the power, the Will, and the plan to save and redeem His own. It is universally, 100% effective for all who accept his redemption in faith. We can argue about the percentage of those for whom it is “0% effective,” and by what means they reject Him, but there is a percentage of those who are not His. I try to temper my certainty in predicting what the ratio is to sheep and goats, to wheat and chaff. We can debate about how much of a “work” the profession of faith is for those who are saved, and whether once saved, if someone choose to fall from grace. The point is that it is God’s mighty work to save all who are His. It is our vainglory to take pride in metering His saving work by our standards of justice, fairness, and measurement — be those sacraments, membership records, ordinance records, or altar calls. The opportunity is for us to be transformed in gratitude for our salvation, to hold fast to our faith, seek for the rewards of His Kingdom, and do all we can to be part of His work in reaching His own. His work will not fail.

Personally, I see in the New Testament a preponderance of hope that leads me to confidence that He will save all who will have Him. I think the ratio of those who are saved is probably much higher than many traditional Evangelicals often think, but would likely seem unfair and restrictive by traditional LDS “universalist” interpretations. For that reason I am an optimist and “univeralist”: God’s redemption is 100% effective for all who will accept Him.

I’ve really enjoyed this discussion, but I would have liked to hear others thoughts on how they have been protected in this life.