Bensalem

Bruce R. McConkie also detailed three types of salvation: 1) Unconditional or general salvation. 2) Conditional or individual salvation. 3) Salvation synonymous with exaltation or eternal life. The first comes by grace alone and by attaining the resurrection, which does not include the requirement of obedience. This leads to either the Telestial or Terrestrial Kingdoms. The second requires obedience to the gospel, acceptance of the ordinances (baptism, etc) and leads to the Celestial Kingdom. The third leads to godhood through the covenants of the priesthood. This is Exaltation to the highest glory, which can only be attained through celestial marriage. Quiet simply, I have never heard exaltation equated to salvation or referred to as salvation. Neither have I heard of the resurrection referred to as salvation. To me salvation is what we need to be redeemed of our sins; the resurrection is what comes after salvation and exaltation is a separate and higher glory. It remains uncontested that Christ needed salvation from sin as we do. The prophet and I agree. I have no problem with the concept of Christ needing to be obedient. To me His obedience lead to his exaltation, which I had separated out of salvation (redemption). So know that I understand McConkie's definition, usage and application of the word salvation, I have no conflict with his quote.

I have no problem with marriage or the promise of exalted marriage. I just do not except the unsubstantiated idea that Jesus married while on earth. I think it presents a very narrow and limiting perspective in the larger light of the symbolism of the Church as His Bride. You say, "I dont know if He had children. I dont care." This ignores the fact that we become His children through baptism in His Church. I am trying very hard to move us beyond the concept of marriage as we understand it to be between a man and a woman. The lesson of the bible is not so terrestrial, it is Celestial and glorious and is embodied in the concepts of God and Church, not just man and woman.

Back to the quote in question, which I miss read to only include the last part that I highlighted. Now I see that little quote mark at the beginning of your post. So sorry for reading to quickly and attributing the "uninspired" part to you. Let me reassess what it says and I will get back to you.

Explanation of non-affront excepted. Perhaps you could share more of the talk, because as it stands I don't see how his comment addresses Christ's sinless nature, which is the crux of my argument.

Yes, it was your "inspired men" comment that disturbed me. And I will now exclude it from applying to me. Thank you. The McConkie quote does not address the sinless nature of Christ as my reason for asserting that Christ needed no salvation. So he did not have to "work out his salvation". As I said, he had to work out his mission and choose to accept it.

Who are you trying to deceive? You are the poster who insulted me. The quote didn't insult me. Your application of it to me did.

Oh, how the trap's jaws snapped quickly. Nice try. It was your insult I was addressing, not Elder McConkie's truth. If I was so inclined, I would point out that his words could also be applied to you and your lack of understanding. But I prefer not to. God will be the judge between us and our views. For now we can both stand by our presentations and no one is right or wrong. We each understand the scriptures (and gossip about them) differently. So be it. No need to make it personal.

Elder McConkie didn't insult me by his revealed truth. The poster did by applying it to me.

Sorry, it took a while to get to it. Btw, it is not crazy, it is important. 1). Never debated that point; I agree with it. 2). We do ordinances for the dead because they are dead, both physically and spiritually; also, because these ordinances are sequential. Christ never was dead; his sinless state upon mortal death guaranteed his eternal life. His spirit was never spoiled, hence he was resurrected in just three days. And he had received the precursor requirements of water baptism from John and the gift of the Holy Ghost from his Father in heaven. His lineage was sealed after his death in scriptural recordings by the apostles, yet no record of his wife or wives. The fact is that we become his children through rebirth in the church, the church is his wife not yet glorified. We are Christ's spirit children through his and our union in the word he brought to his church. He still has to seal us to him after our resurrection the church's exaltation. 3). Certainly He has received His exaltation, and the Church in heaven is exalted, and His lineage is, and those in the Church who have past on are added to it, and the faithful in the earthly LDS Church will be also.

Thanks, I always enjoy it. Learning inside (or outside) the church is always a joy.

Still another who wishes to raise himself above his brother with insults. Christ worked out his mission; not his salvation. Understanding that he was born with a clean slate (no memory of the premortal state), he certainly learned of his calling and accepted it. But salvation is the rescue from having to pay the debt of your own sins. So Christ redeems us. Christ had no sin. So he required no redemption. Please address my words, not my inspiration; for we both know it comes from the Holy Ghost.

Fair enough. I would never presume that anything I might say (meaning, write) is binding. I looked up the Streisand Effect and began hoping for more 'choppers' (symbolically speaking, more witnesses to 'jaw' about this discussion). I'm glad you provided more support for my point of view in the internet quote, but the use of my own words to refute it does not minimize the fact that there is more scriptural support for a post-Millennial marriage in glory than an earthly marriage at the meridian of time. Come to think of it, there is a complete lack of scriptural support for a marriage at the time of Jesus' mission of the atonement in fulfillment of the Plan of Salvation.

Whatever. Anyway 'mordorbund' and I are on the same page; we understand each other's proper, yet varied usage. And I'm driving away from the scene of the 'crime'. Don't expect a check in the mail for the fine. I remain a witness to Christ (meaning, in the eyes of). Wow, still another possibility for (or is it of?) the use of the word "to".

Not arguing grammar any more? I think I made it clear that I use the three terms interchangeable, at least when if comes to the sentence in question, and that this is grammatically allowed. Comprende, amigo?

I didn't ignore the necessity for his marriage and I am familiar with how it came into the LDS church. I am not contesting either. The process is revelation comes, it is shared, it is validated, and then it becomes doctrine or canonized scripture. I have not deviated from that process; I remain patient in waiting for the latter two.

Don't get silly on me. Each of the three terms have several applications and they overlap with each other to the point that each can be used to essential mean the same thing. For example, "to" can be used to mean "for" as in "for the purpose of". You are applying it strictly to mean, "in the direction of" or as you say "directed at". I don't want to play these silly games.

First of all, I reject your assertion that Christ "(used) his powers to liquor up a wedding party"; the miracle was not an abuse of power, but his first sign just three days after the witness of his baptism. And yes, the wedding at Cana was essential to his ministry. Not only did it show the disciples his power, it validated to them his authority.More significant to me as a latter-day saint is that this marks for Christianity, which equated wine with his blood in sacramental services for centuries, a new beginning of using water to represent his blood in the sacrament as worshiped in the LDS church. Neither is it insignificant that a marriage setting is used since Christ betrothed the world with the promise of salvation. The miracle is a sign foretelling of his purity (the water) being turned into the wine that religions have got drunk on. It is the restored church, the LDS Church, which beings back the purity of his blood (now water) in our sacrament service.

1). Joseph Smith identified that his marriage is a requirement for his obtaining the highest glory. 2). The scriptures record Christ's unique relationship with His Church as a marriage (which hasn't happened yet). I 'stance' in good company.

Thanks for the English lesson. Here is my gospel lesson to the world: I am a witness to the truth; I am a witness of the truth; I am a witness for the truth. Christ is the truth. In a gospel context, I don't see a significant grammatical difference.

Yes. And that Christian religious doctrine over the last 2000 years has justified celibacy as the highest form of devotion to God. I am saying that Jesus' total self-sacrifice would be better witnessed as an unmarried servant of the Father.

Well that explains it, friend.

Same to you. Try this clearer question about you slitting hairs between the words "to", "for", and "of". What is the difference between being the witness "to", "for", and "of" (insert name)? He said I was "a witness to Rev. Moon". To me that means I support and have evidence (witness) of Rev. Moon's doctrine.

I'm shooting for a corrected stance; verification must come from the prophets of the LDS church.

I only denounced it as gossip. I haven't heard or read anyone present what I am presenting, which ties the marriage of Christ with the gospel's progressive revelations about eternal marriage. This 'coincidentally' corresponds to the historic development of Christianity and gives additional justification to restoration of the Church as a precursor to the glorification of Israel and Her families. Just trying to get everyone to the right marriage theology.

You left out, isn't yet married, which is what I am proposing as the most likely possibility, due to the fact that there isn't yet a glorified Israel.