In a recent talk, the speaker had attended an interesting interview with an evangelical who had converted from Mormonism because of what he felt was a misunderstanding on our part of the atonement, that Jesus’ atonment was in fact personal and not just for mankind.  This idea that there might be other youth who misunderstand the theology prompted the speaker to open a discussion with the youth.  He shared the following quiz questions with the youth in the stake.  I thought I would post the 4 true/false questions here for our readers:

1. The church does NOT teach that we are saved by grace.
2. The church teaches that we are saved by works.
3. The final judgment will be like legal scales; if your good works outweigh your bad works, you will be rewarded.
4. We will get the reward we’ve earned.

Most of the youth surveyed correctly answered #1 and #2; however, #3 and #4 were a mixed bag, with a split down the middle in understanding the atonement as revealed by those questions.  Why is this?  Here are some theories:

• The “church” is just a group of people who don’t always understand the gospel.
• The doctrine of salvation (three degrees of glory) adds in a meritocracy component missing in a pass/fail (e.g. Heaven/Hell)construct.
• Other Christian sects essentially wage war on “works” (as if works undermine grace) to illustrate that Mormons aren’t Christians.  Mormons are on the defensive on this point theologically, which results in over-emphasis of works in our teaching.
• Mormonism as a community is highly focused on outward behaviors (works) which are measurable rather than the internal behaviors such as belief and acceptance of grace (in other sects, witnessing). 
• Even though both are emphasized, works are easier to grasp because they are “controllable.”  Kids especially want to know what they have to do (the rules) to meet minimum requirements because kids need structure.

The speaker also distinguished between mercy (not getting something bad that you deserve) and grace (getting something good that you haven’t earned).

So, are we failing to clearly teach the concept of atonement to our youth or do they understand it?  Does the community speak louder than the theology?  Discuss.

I just spent the last week in Hollywood, so I thought it would be fun to try different readings of that title to see how the emphasis changes the meaning.  (This reminds me of that Seinfeld episode where Kramer says, “These pretzels are making me thirsty!”).

Obedience:  When the Lord Commands, Do It – with the emphasis on “obedience,”  it kind of sounds like:  “Obedience!  When the Lord Commands, Do It:  The Musical!”  The score would probably be lame.

Obedience:  When the Lord Commands, Do It – “When” as in “when and if,” or as we’ve discussed elsewhere on MM, you have to obey when it’s commanded and not when it is not (e.g. cutting off Laban’s head is A-OK when commanded, but beheading people in general is frowned upon; polygamy is grand if you’ve been asked to do it, but you may be told no if you show up at JS’s door rubbing your hands together and asking for some spiritual wife action.)

Obedience:  When the Lord Commands, Do It.  But surely, when Allah commands (or your terror cell leader says he does), you might want to think twice before you do it.  So, this reading places the emphasis on who is doing the commanding:  the Lord, one of the Lord’s servants, or your Aunt Sally telling you what she thinks the Lord wants you to do.  So–important to verify the source?

Obedience:  When the Lord Commands, Do It.  So, if the Lord’s just suggesting it (earrings & tatoos?), you could drag your feet (e.g. Oliver Cowdery translating the BOM?).

Obedience:  When the Lord Commands, Do It.  Emphasis on action (vs. thought or questioning?).  This is probably the most orthodox reading.

Obedience:  When the Lord Commands, Do It.  Well, that just makes the meaning of “it” ambigious in this context.  Which actually brings up a good point – when He commands, do what exactly?  This title isn’t really proper grammar–the pronoun “it” is lacking a direct object to the verb “commands” to explain the pronoun.  Are all commandments clear about what exactly should be done?  (Remember, we shouldn’t need to be commanded in all things).  Or is that perceived ambiguity really just an excuse to vacillate?

Think about this:  What did obedience mean to JS and to the early church members?  How has that meaning evolved over time?  What does it mean to LDS today?  What does it mean to you personally at this stage of your spiritual journey?  Here are some of JS’s thoughts on obedience from the lesson:

Earning Salvation

“To get salvation we must not only do some things, but everything which God has commanded.” (1844)

This is a clear “earning salvation” quote.  The word used here was “salvation,” although current teaching would upgrade that to “exaltation” (salvation is free for everyone through the atonement; exaltation costs extra).  How has the church’s understanding of the role of faith and works evolved?  Has the dialogue spurred by evangelical churches added clarity or confusion to our actual doctrine?  In short, why are we so doggone defensive about this?

Church Unity Imperative

“When instructed, we must obey that voice, observe the laws of the kingdom of God, that the blessing of heaven may rest down upon us. All must act in concert, or nothing can be done, and should move according to the ancient Priesthood; hence the Saints should be a select people, separate from all the evils of the world—choice, virtuous, and holy.”  (1844)

How did JS’s obsession with building an earthly kingdom of God (a Zion or city of Enoch) influence his emphasis on obedience as a means to purifying the saints into a “holy people”?  Are we still attempting to build a kingdom of God on earth today or is the church’s global status (staying put vs. gathering to Zion) shifting us toward a broader moral spectrum for practical reasons (shirtless calendar guy would probably say there is still crackdown on infractions from HQ)?  Does obedience purify us?  If so, how?  Is it important to become a “holy people” or are we fooling ourselves to think so?  Are we collectively getting holier or less holy over time?  (Evidence for “holier” = fewer apostles are being ex’d than in JS’s day).

When True Is Unpopular

“The object with me is to obey and teach others to obey God in just what He tells us to do. It mattereth not whether the principle is popular or unpopular, I will always maintain a true principle, even if I stand alone in it.” (1842)

Clearly, JS stood alone in some unpopular principles (e.g. plural marriage, King Follett discourse, etc.).  If all people have the light of Christ which tells them what is good, why are some true principles unpopular?  How can we tell if an unpopular principle is true or just outdated?  What types of peer pressure (from other churches) exist for the church?  How does the church cope with unpopular (yet true) principles? 

Principle-Based Obedience

 Joseph Smith taught the following in April 1843, later recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 130:20–21: “There is a law, irrevocably decreed in heaven before the foundations of this world, upon which all blessings are predicated—and when we obtain any blessing from God, it is by obedience to that law upon which it is predicated.”

“All blessings that were ordained for man by the Council of Heaven were on conditions of obedience to the law thereof.” (1843)

How does the emphasis on the underlying principle (the law upon which it is predicated) vs. the obedience itself add meaning to this idea?  Here are some possible examples to consider:  temple attendance vs. temple worship, accepting a calling vs. magnifying a calling, prayer vs. seeking to know God, being born again as an event vs. enduring to the end faithfully (finishing the race).  How does changing to principle-centered worship vs. activity-centered worship make us more spiritual?  Why is it so easy to forget the underlying principles and start checking our duties off a list?

Becoming Holy Like God

“Remember, brethren, that He has called you unto holiness; and need we say, to be like Him in purity? How wise, how holy; how chaste, and how perfect, then, you ought to conduct yourselves in His sight; and remember, too, that His eyes are continually upon you.” (1834)

This is theosis teaching (on par with NT brand theosis anyway) from a very early date (10 years before King Follett breathed his last).  Does this brand of “eternal progression” distinguish LDS from other Christian sects?  How has that distinction changed over time?  Is “eternal progression” a true but unpopular principle in our day?  Is obedience requisite to progression or does it hamper progression?

Discuss.

Obviously, it does not literally mean, ALL we can do. That would doom us all. How many of us have not done all we can do? I have already slacked off enough to be sent straight to the Telestial Kingdom on this logic. I have not done ALL I could do, and don’t plan on doing it all in the future.  It’s just not possible.  How many months have you missed Home/Visiting teaching? Well, I guess you didn’t do ALL you could do then. Sorry about that.

If “all we can do” does not really mean “all we can do,” what does it mean? Some have suggested that it means we do all we can to repent. But can we really do this either? I do not think it is possible. Not to steady the ark, but perhaps the scripture should say, “We can do “all we can do” WITH grace, and be saved.” I recently watched Schindler’s List, and a scene towards the end exemplifies what “all we can do” may mean. Schindler, who by no means was a perfect man (member of the Nazi party, had a few mistresses, etc.) realizes that he could have saved more Jews if he had of sold his car or his gold pin. He realizes, with some despair, that he HAD NOT done all he could do. This entire clip is about 10 minutes, but skip ahead to the 6:50 mark for the relevant scene (stop it around 8:50).

I believe a man like this is saved, not because of his works (which were amazing), but because he was converted. To me, that is all we can do: be converted, i.e. have a change of heart. Is that not the ultimate purpose of Christian religion, regardless of dogma? So why an emphasis on works in LDS theology? What are they for? I believe they are meant specifically to aid us in our conversion, in our change of heart:

“Now they did not suppose that salvation came by the law of Moses their works; but the law of Moses their works did serve to strengthen their faith in Christ; and thus they did retain a hope through faith, unto eternal salvation, relying upon the spirit of prophecy, which spake of those things to come.” ~Alma 25:16

In the movie, Oskar Schindler’s works brought him to a place in his life where a change of heart was possible. Salvation does not come by the law (works) but by faith in Christ. The purpose of the commandments is to strengthen our faith in Christ. All we can do is to have a change of heart.

Once there was a young teenaged boy that was inexperienced at driving and made the mistake of driving home at night without his headlights on. He had turned on his parking lights but had failed to pull the switch just a bit further for the headlights. The roads were well lit, so it was not obvious to such an inexperienced driver that something was wrong.

When a cop pulled him over, he was shocked to find that he had driven the whole way without his lights on. When he was required to go before a judge he immediately admitted his guilt and expressed gladness he had not hurt anyone.

The judge, sensing that this teen would not benefit from having to pay the ticket nor the additional insurance costs, threw the ticket out. The judge added “I’ve made the same mistake before myself. Just be careful in the future.”

Did the teen deserve the ticket? Of course, he was guilty. Would it be justice to have made the teen pay the ticket? Yes, of course.

Was this judge a “bad” judge? I think most of us would agree that he was not a bad judge, nor was he shirking his duties to society.

Did the repentant teen “deserve” the mercy the judge showed him? Of course not. Mercy is never deserved by very definition. This teen was pronounced “not guilty” by a judge due to no merit on his part.

Now pretend, just for a moment, that the same story had taken place, but instead the teen had shouted at the judge “I meant to drive with my headlights off and I’m going to do it again first chance I get!”

Suppose the judge was still in a merciful mood and still decided to throw the ticket out while still adding, “I’ve made the same mistake before myself. Just be careful in the future.”

Do you still believe this judge is a good judge?

What is the difference? In both cases we have the same judge performing the same act of mercy. Isn’t mercy a “good thing?”

It seems to me that we innately understand that for mercy to be “good,” it must only be extended to a person that has repented. The teen was not a threat to society so he could be shown mercy without harming either him or society. On the other hand, our non-repentant teen could be shown no mercy without harming both himself and society.

This example proves that what we do, specifically repentance, can indeed influence the outcome of a judgment. But that “influence” should not be mistaken for “merit.”