Serg Posted March 13, 2006 Report Share Posted March 13, 2006 While reading McConkie's book "A new witness for the articles of faith", i found something oddly common, a statement of his, while explainig the concept of being obedient to the gospel, and having Christ as a Saviour, he remarked that all of us had fallen and needed Christ. And then a chapter afterwards, he says "christ himself being a SAVED BEING" needed to obey the gospel... What on earth is that of saying Christ needed to be saved? Of course He did not. How can a sacrifice with flaws operate such an infinite atonement? And based on what did Christ get saved? On another Christ? For certainly NOT based on gospel works, for he says that "neither are men saved ultimately because of gospel works, but By His grace", so if Christ got saved(according to him) through "obedience"then even there he needed a "Christ"to relay on...confusing huh? I really admire McConkie, but he just loses it a lot of times. What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snow Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 . How can a sacrifice with flaws operate such an infinite atonement? Who says that Christ has / had flaws? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serg Posted March 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 It was a conclusion drawn by me(guessing) if Christ HAD to get SAVED then he had to have flaws. But as He DID NOT have any flaws, hence, he DID NOT have to get saved... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr T Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 Can anyone explain to me what is meant by, "Christ needing to be saved"? Saved from what? Saved by whom? Thanks, Dr. T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ray Posted March 14, 2006 Report Share Posted March 14, 2006 Please cite the full context, Serg. Or at least give the page number where he said what he said in that book. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 Serg, This sounds like a lot of speculation on McConkie's part. There are Mormons who privately believe that God the Father had a Father, and so on and so forth. Also that there is a "Christ" for every world in the universe. There are even some who speculate that you must suffer as a "Christ" on some world before you can be a "Father" in your own right. That latter statement I've only heard among Fundamentalists, but it's a theory none-the-less. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 Serg, This sounds like a lot of speculation on McConkie's part. There are Mormons who privately believe that God the Father had a Father, and so on and so forth. Also that there is a "Christ" for every world in the universe. There are even some who speculate that you must suffer as a "Christ" on some world before you can be a "Father" in your own right. That latter statement I've only heard among Fundamentalists, but it's a theory none-the-less.As long as we're speculating, could it be that "Christ's salvation" is the salvation that HE earns for US? In other words, the reason Christ "needed saving" is because He bore our sins--not because He sinned in any way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serg Posted March 15, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 Ok.Tomorrow I'll give you the whole context. But as to now. 1) Yes Jason, I know about such theories and I support there are Fathers of Fathers in a long eternal chain BUT, although JS taught that the Father was a Saviour(and died) in His first(mortal) planet, I believe that Christ (as a Seventy once told me) is the ONLY necessary Saviour for ALL the planets and universes that Elohim has created after becoming a God. I dont support the Idea that Elohim has many christs, but that He has ONLY one, and that the plural Christs do not coexist with each other BUT precedes or go after one generation and so on. Of course, this is mere speculation, who knows. 2) Prisonchaplain, yes it may sound that way, BUT Christ indeed in NO sense at all needed to get saved, even if He BORE our infirmities or Comitted them, He was SAINT. Of course, i know you are(and we all are) speculating, obviously based on McConkie's very mislead conception of Christ(only in this respect, for after all, McConkie was a great teacher and Authority). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 As long as we're speculating, could it be that "Christ's salvation" is the salvation that HE earns for US? In other words, the reason Christ "needed saving" is because He bore our sins--not because He sinned in any way. I agree that this seems sensible, though without hearing McConkie's elaboration on the subject it's hard to say.I note that McConkie's definition differs from the one serg seems to have. In Mormon Doctrine, under the heading of "Salvation", he says 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. He also notes under the heading of "Christ" that In this life he received not of the fulness at the first, but went from grace to grace until, in the final triumph of the resurrection, he gained the fulness of all things; and all power was given him both in heaven and on earth. He has all truth, all power, all knowledge; he comprehends all things, is infinite in all his attributes and powers; and he has given a law unto all things. Perhaps that sheds some light on it. B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serg Posted March 15, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 Yes Outshined: I know the woks of McConkie, and Mormon Doctrine as well. In relation to his position that Christ(because of the veil) had to learn little here, little there, until crossed it and obtained it, I agree. But, when He says that Christ in order to be SAVED needed to perform the ordenances...well. I know that there are RULES in that Sphere, but, this runs into two major issues: 1)Either Christ(as the Law Giver) followed His own rules to be an EXAMPLE or He suddenly HAD to because He was bound to do it(slave of His own Law). 2)If "saved" is reffering to obtainig eternal life(in respect of Christ) through the formalities(and ordenances) of the Law, then I may agree, BUT, if it reffers to the issue that such salvation was JUST as ours....I dont agree. 3) WE are saved THROUGH HIM, even if we did all the ordenances and the Law, we NEDDED a SACRIFICE, the ordenances are sort of getting rid of VISA problems within Heaven(having already been able to go there through Him), but if he suggests that Christ was saved as we are, that means that He needed(more than ordenances to follow) a SACRIFICE for Himself in order to make such ordenances worth it. But we know that Christ had not a Christ on whom to relay, neither nedded it. So I dont understand his position towards salvation and Christ. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 In relation to his position that Christ(because of the veil) had to learn little here, little there, until crossed it and obtained it, I agree. As you should; it's in the Bible. But, when He says that Christ in order to be SAVED needed to perform the ordenances...well. You have yet to provide the quote where he said Christ had to perform ordinances in order to be saved. It's difficult for anyone to comment on the passage without a reference. I have the book in question, but am reluctant to re-read the whole thing to find the part to which you are referring. Did he specifically say that Christ had to perform ordinances to be saved, or did he simply refer to Christ as a "saved being", as you quoted before? There is a big difference in the two. Proper context would undoubtedly help us on this.I have never seen any implication by McConkie that Christ was imperfect or relied on "another Christ"; it could be that you've simply misunderstood what he was saying. He did get a bit deep at times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr T Posted March 15, 2006 Report Share Posted March 15, 2006 Can anyone explain to me what is meant by, "Christ needing to be saved"? Saved from what? Saved by whom? Thanks,Dr. TIs this ultimately what you are seeking to find an answer to in this thread, Serg? If it is, sorry for being redundant.I hate it when people are redundant.When they say the same thing over and over again.When they repeat themselves, again and again.Like a broken record. It's the same thing- time and time again. They just keep repeating themselves, being redundant, saying the same thing over and over again. I hate that... Dr. T Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serg Posted March 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 This is the context of the quote: A New Witness for the Articles of Faith; by McConkie, Chapter 21, pp.185 "To gain salvation, men must come unto the Father, attain the faith that He exercises, and be as He is. Christ has done so; He is both a SAVED being and the perfect and only illustration of what others MUST do to GAIN like inheritances and be joint-heirs with Him." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 17, 2006 Report Share Posted March 17, 2006 I see no problem with the quote. Christ did indeed show by example what we must do to be joint heirs with him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prisonchaplain Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 This is the context of the quote: A New Witness for the Articles of Faith; by McConkie, Chapter 21, pp.185 "To gain salvation, men must come unto the Father, attain the faith that He exercises, and be as He is. Christ has done so; He is both a SAVED being and the perfect and only illustration of what others MUST do to GAIN like inheritances and be joint-heirs with Him." In this context, maybe my reading was right after all. Jesus was "saved" in the same sense he was water baptized...as an example for us to follow. Neither his baptism, nor his 'salvation' mean that He was sinful, or lacking perfection in any way. Rather He was 'saved' on our behalf, he was baptized to show us the way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyando Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 While reading McConkie's book "A new witness for the articles of faith", i found something oddly common, a statement of his, while explainig the concept of being obedient to the gospel, and having Christ as a Saviour, he remarked that all of us had fallen and needed Christ. And then a chapter afterwards, he says "christ himself being a SAVED BEING" needed to obey the gospel... What on earth is that of saying Christ needed to be saved? Of course He did not. How can a sacrifice with flaws operate such an infinite atonement? And based on what did Christ get saved? On another Christ? For certainly NOT based on gospel works, for he says that "neither are men saved ultimately because of gospel works, but By His grace", so if Christ got saved(according to him) through "obedience"then even there he needed a "Christ"to relay on...confusing huh? I really admire McConkie, but he just loses it a lot of times.What do you think? I could be wrong (and I have been in the past) but I think that McConkie is trying to point out that Christ was not saved by being perfect, but by summiting to the will of the Father. The will of the Father was, for our Savoir, to lead a perfect life, so that Christ could take apon himself the sins of the world. Our roll is different. We are trying to be perfect. But if being saved is to return to live with our Father in heaven, and Christ did everything that he needed to do to reach that goal, then Christ would be saved. Just a thought Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Outshined Posted March 18, 2006 Report Share Posted March 18, 2006 In this context, maybe my reading was right after all. Jesus was "saved" in the same sense he was water baptized...as an example for us to follow. Neither his baptism, nor his 'salvation' mean that He was sinful, or lacking perfection in any way. Rather He was 'saved' on our behalf, he was baptized to show us the way. That's the way I read it as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matilda Posted March 27, 2006 Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 Doesn't it go like this: We don't get baptized to repent rather we repent of our sins and then are baptized washing all are sins away (if we had any) washing us clean bringing why it states immersion and from then on we strive to be like Christ doing goodworks and still at times needing to repent. Where with Christ he didn't need to repent but he was Baptized and received the Holy Ghost showing us the way in which we should walk returning home to our Heavenly Father thusly being saved? This is what it means to me and sounds like. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Serg Posted March 27, 2006 Author Report Share Posted March 27, 2006 ok. I'll leave it alone. Thanks everone for your comments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.