Salvation by Works or Faith

[rameumptom]

Woody, the only real "work" that is required for Salvation is Baptism, which is not a true "work" but an ordinance. Salvation to a Reformed Christian is an all or nothing thing (either you are saved, or you aren't). To a Mormon it is a Journey.

In this, we need to be careful and use proper definitions and terminology. In LDS terms "saved" can mean either exaltation or rescued from hell. For other Christian denominations, "saved" means saved from hell and a place in heaven.

Your definition applies for the celestial kingdom, however the ordinance of baptism is not required for the lower kingdoms, that we know of. For the lower kingdoms of salvation/glory, we are saved through faith. Whether we gain a telestial or terrestrial glory is dependent upon our level of faithfulness to God's commandments.

[alexm8]

In this, we need to be careful and use proper definitions and terminology. In LDS terms "saved" can mean either exaltation or rescued from hell. For other Christian denominations, "saved" means saved from hell and a place in heaven.

Your definition applies for the celestial kingdom, however the ordinance of baptism is not required for the lower kingdoms, that we know of. For the lower kingdoms of salvation/glory, we are saved through faith. Whether we gain a telestial or terrestrial glory is dependent upon our level of faithfulness to God's commandments.

I use the definition of "being saved" that most closely matches the common ground between Christians and Mormons. Even salvation to Mormons usually means inheritance of the Celestial Kingdom. To get there, the journey STARTS with Baptism and tGotHG, and ENDS with exaltation. Note that exaltation is a looooong way from the start (which is at the entrance into the Celestial World). There will be many, many, many people in the Celestial Kingdom that will not be exalted in the two lower "levels" of the CK.

[RescueMom]

I use the definition of "being saved" that most closely matches the common ground between Christians and Mormons. Even salvation to Mormons usually means inheritance of the Celestial Kingdom. To get there, the journey STARTS with Baptism and tGotHG, and ENDS with exaltation. Note that exaltation is a looooong way from the start (which is at the entrance into the Celestial World). There will be many, many, many people in the Celestial Kingdom that will not be exalted in the two lower "levels" of the CK.

Sort of. Everyone who has lived on this planet will recieve some form of salvation, even without believing in Christ. We well all be resurrected and that is part of salvation. And even with our works, being baptised...ect..take away the Grace of God and the Atonement, those works mean nothing, and we have to have Faith in the Atonement to reach any level of anything. Every breath we take is due to the Atonement and Grace of God through our brother Christ. The foundation all the works is the Atonement, and we have to believe in it with pure Faith. That doesn't excuse us from the works, but plenty of atheist do a ton of good works. It's our faith in our works that puts hope in us to enter the higher levels of heaven, but only God knows are hearts. I have to think if we are doing these works for our own glorification, we might not make it into the lower levels of heaven. Of course this is all IMHO.

[volgadon]

Salvation comes from abiding in the covenant entered into with Christ. Faith meant loyalty and obedience, works were the proper response to grace given.

[rameumptom]

I use the definition of "being saved" that most closely matches the common ground between Christians and Mormons. Even salvation to Mormons usually means inheritance of the Celestial Kingdom. To get there, the journey STARTS with Baptism and tGotHG, and ENDS with exaltation. Note that exaltation is a looooong way from the start (which is at the entrance into the Celestial World). There will be many, many, many people in the Celestial Kingdom that will not be exalted in the two lower "levels" of the CK.

You have been using the definition that meets the LDS definition of exaltation, not salvation. You are close, but still a bit off. The journey STARTS with Faith in Christ and Repentance. THEN comes the ordinance of baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Note that the Aaronic Priesthood holds the "key to the gospel of repentance" (D&C 13), which priesthood and key are terrestrial. So is baptism by water. Joseph Smith taught that baptism by water is only half a baptism.

The Gift of the Holy Ghost is a Melchizedek Priesthood ordinance because the keys to the MP are the Fullness of the Gospel and the Mysteries of Godliness (D&C 84:19). It provides the keys to the celestial kingdom. It gives us the power to be in the presence of the Godhead (beginning with the Holy Ghost), while the AP only has the key to the ministry of angels (terrestrial).

IOW, for salvation in a kingdom in heaven (telestial or terrestrial) the requirement is only to have faith in Christ and repent, then abide by the laws of that kingdom (D&C 88).

[w00dy931]

Sort of. Everyone who has lived on this planet will recieve some form of salvation, even without believing in Christ. We well all be resurrected and that is part of salvation.

This is a pretty difficult statement to make. being resurrected is not going to happen to those in hell. salvation is being saved from death. so to say that those who have no faith in jesus will still be saved is just not true. if we have no faith in jesus then our sins will not be forgiven. and we will "live" in eternal torment. which is basically living outside of the presence of God, but being able to see it. the absence of light is darkness, the absence of good is evil, and the absence of life is death.so those who do not accept christ can only find the latter of those three.

[rameumptom]

LDS teaching is that all will be resurrected, even those who end up in hell/Outer Darkness. "As in Adam all die, in Christ all are made alive" (1 Cor 15). Alma 11 tells us that all, both good and wicked, will be resurrected. This, however, is not considered being "saved".

Being saved means being rescued from eternal hellfire and damnation in Outer Darkness. We believe that the vast majority of mankind will receive a level of salvation from Christ. Only those who become his absolute enemy, such as Cain, who knew God but then chose to murder his righteous brother in cold blood. We believe that murderers, adulterers, idolaters, and all other wicked who do not become the absolute enemy of Christ will be saved. Yes, they will have to pay for their unrepented sins, but once they've suffered sufficiently for those sins that they fully repent, then they will be rescued by Christ's grace into salvation (Alma 36, D&C 19, D&C 76).

In fact, Mormons believe in a near universal salvation of mankind through the atonement of Christ. Indeed, we believe more will be saved than most other Christians think. Those who are of other religions: Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, and even most atheists, who do not become the absolute enemy of Christ, but listen to their conscience (Light/Spirit of Christ - Moroni 7, D&C 88, 93) will be saved in a kingdom of heaven. All thanks to the grace of Christ.

[alexm8]

You have been using the definition that meets the LDS definition of exaltation, not salvation. You are close, but still a bit off. The journey STARTS with Faith in Christ and Repentance. THEN comes the ordinance of baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost.

Note that the Aaronic Priesthood holds the "key to the gospel of repentance" (D&C 13), which priesthood and key are terrestrial. So is baptism by water. Joseph Smith taught that baptism by water is only half a baptism.

The Gift of the Holy Ghost is a Melchizedek Priesthood ordinance because the keys to the MP are the Fullness of the Gospel and the Mysteries of Godliness (D&C 84:19). It provides the keys to the celestial kingdom. It gives us the power to be in the presence of the Godhead (beginning with the Holy Ghost), while the AP only has the key to the ministry of angels (terrestrial).

IOW, for salvation in a kingdom in heaven (telestial or terrestrial) the requirement is only to have faith in Christ and repent, then abide by the laws of that kingdom (D&C 88).

I am using the definition of salvation, or "being saved", that specifically means saved from Spiritual Death. That is the most common usage inside and outside the LDS Church. Being saved from Spiritual Death is returning to live in heaven with God.

So, forgive me for sounding mean here, but if I'm reading you right, I'm surprised that someone with almost 7,000 posts defending the church doesn't have a better understanding of Exaltation. There are TWO other degrees, or levels INSIDE the Celestial Kingdom that men can obtain that they will NOT be exalted. And, in fact, they will be by far more numerous than those who do obtain the highest degree.

From the LDS Website - The Guide to the Scriptures:

EXALTATION

The highest state of happiness and glory in the celestial kingdom.

In thy presence is fulness of joy, Ps. 16:11

They are gods, even the sons of God—wherefore, all things are theirs, D&C 76:58–59

The Saints shall receive their inheritance and be made equal with him, D&C 88:107

These angels did not abide my law; therefore, they remain separately and singly, without exaltation, D&C 132:17

Men and women must marry according to God’s law in order to gain exaltation, D&C 132:19–20

From Gospel Principles manual Ch 47: Exaltation

From the scriptures we learn that there are three kingdoms of glory in heaven... We also learn that there are three heavens or degrees within the celestial kingdom (see D&C 131:1).

If we prove faithful to the Lord, we will live in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom of heaven. We will become exalted, to live with our Heavenly Father in eternal families. Exaltation is the greatest gift that Heavenly Father can give His children (see D&C 14:7).

Since I'm using the definition of Salvation as being saved from Spiritual Death, that specifically means reunion with God the Father. I am NOT equating Salvation in the Celestial Kingdom with Exaltation in the highest glory of heaven. One can have entered the Celestial Kingdom by Baptism and The Gift of the Holy Ghost (tGotHG) yet still be single, unmarried angels. They are still in the presence of the Father, thus they are "saved", but NOT "exalted". I do know the difference.

If I'm reading you wrong, my apologies.

Edited March 23, 2011 by alexm8

[rameumptom]

I do understand that there are levels within levels of each kingdom of heaven. But my point was that the OP was talking about general salvation. Most often when we speak of the celestial kingdom, most members mean exaltation, even though, yes, there are other levels there. At least that is the general reading of D&C 131. However, I do know several LDS scholars that think it is not quite as we read it. It does not state Celestial Kingdom, but Celestial Glory. Some think this does not refer specifically to the Celestial Kingdom, but the Heavens in general (Celestial, Terrestrial, Telestial). So, in fact, it could be read either way.

[alexm8]

However, I do know several LDS scholars that think it is not quite as we read it. It does not state Celestial Kingdom, but Celestial Glory. Some think this does not refer specifically to the Celestial Kingdom, but the Heavens in general (Celestial, Terrestrial, Telestial). So, in fact, it could be read either way.

Better get those scholars to straighten out the Prophet and GAs of the Church then so we can get some consensus on what we read in authorized and approved manuals and other materials.

[rameumptom]

They don't straighten out the prophets, because it is their personal reading/opinion. It is a teaching which may or may not end up being correct. Many of our standard teachings are not necessarily perfectly correct. That is why we have continuing revelation.

Examples? Brigham Young's stance that polygamy was necessary for a person to be exalted. Adam-God theory. BY's teaching that God progresses in knowledge is now replaced by Orson Pratt's belief that God only progresses in dominions (which BY caused OP to publicly renounce). More recently, is the idea of the curse of Cain, which has been completely abandoned by the Church in its teachings since the 1978 revelation, but was very prevalent before it.

These are all teachings, not core doctrines. The prophets do not mind us having personal opinions on many of these things, as long as we are not teaching them as doctrine. In fact, this is how continuing revelation teaches us. In the PH/RS manual for Joseph F. Smith, he taught that much of what we believe is like scaffolding. It is okay to have it as scaffolding, as it helps us build the actual doctrine. We just have to understand it is not yet doctrine, and can be changed at any time until it becomes actual doctrine.

Other changes? The Church used to claim that the Lehites were the principle ancestors of the American Indian. Now they've changed the statement to say that the Lehites are one of the ancestors of the Native Americans.

The BoM used to be thought as discussing all of the Americas (both continents). Now most scholars and GAs believe in the Limited Geography Theory.

So, just because something is taught, does not mean any of us understand it perfectly. D&C 19 explains the terms Endless and Eternal as regarding punishment, in a way completely different than the Prophet and others understood it previously. With the new revelation, the way it was taught completely changed, along with our understanding that punishment and hell do not last forever.

I'm not saying a person needs to accept the concept. Just keep an open mind, so that revelation can filter in on occasion.

[alexm8]

Sure, I keep an open mind when dealing with "far out" doctrines that may or may not be true. The examples you gave are good ones that LDS critics have a field day over. However, none of the examples you cited are direct interpretation of revealed scripture. I'm not saying that we can't learn different ideas about a certain concepts, but we have to keep it within the bounds of revealed interpretation. That's one of the true jobs of apostles, they give us correct meaning of scripture. "Knowing this first, that no prophecy (gr. propheteia=declaration of the purposes of God) of the scripture is of any private interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20)

[jayanna]

41And devils also came out of many, crying out, and saying, Thou art Christ the Son of God. And he rebuking them suffered them not to speak: for they knew that he was Christ.

Luke 4:41

Do those devils who came out of people, and confessed that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, get to have a place in heaven?

no

Why?

works.

What comes out of you shows what kind of tree you are. Good trees bear good fruit. If you have faith and are truly given over to Christ, you will exhibit good works, you can't help it. If you truly have given over your life to Christ, He will tell you to do good things and you will listen.

[w00dy931]

Sure, I keep an open mind when dealing with "far out" doctrines that may or may not be true. The examples you gave are good ones that LDS critics have a field day over. However, none of the examples you cited are direct interpretation of revealed scripture. I'm not saying that we can't learn different ideas about a certain concepts, but we have to keep it within the bounds of revealed interpretation. That's one of the true jobs of apostles, they give us correct meaning of scripture. "Knowing this first, that no prophecy (gr. propheteia=declaration of the purposes of God) of the scripture is of any private interpretation." (2 Peter 1:20)

He talked about polygamy which is adressed in D and C 132.

[alexm8]

He talked about polygamy which is adressed in D and C 132.

Not sure of your point? Do you have Brigham Young's direct interpretation of D&C 132 that says a man MUST have more than one wife to enter the Celestial Kingdom. It doesn't make much sense because only select men were called to have more than one wife. The majority of saints at the time were monogamous.

We have, however, gotten wildly off topic. So, I'll help us get back on and sum up. Salvation is being saved from Physical and Spiritual Death. That can only mean the Celestial Kingdom. The requirements to get to the Celestial Kingdom are very basic. And actually baptism is NOT always required. (I know - gasp)

Joseph Smith revealed "that no unclean thing shall be permitted to come into thy house to pollute it" D&C 109:20 So, the requirement is simple, be clean. We know that babies are clean until they come to the age of accountability. They have no need for baptism. I can't find the source, but we know that certain mental disabilities render some individuals clean. They don't have the mental capacity to make moral decisions to sin. Generally, those who can make the decision are baptized anyway, though.

So, the requirement for most people is that once having gotten dirty (by sin), is to have yourself cleaned. That can only happen through Baptism and the Gift of the Holy Ghost. One washes the sins away, the other sterilizes and purifies.

After that, the idea is to stay clean until the end. The things you call "works" are nothing more than keeping the commandments that keep us clean. But, if we screw up, there is opportunity every Sunday to clean oneself again (renew Baptismal Covenant) by repenting and taking the sacrament.

LDS Critics make far too big a deal out of "works" than necessary...

[rameumptom]

Alex, you are nitpicking which things are/aren't interpreted by prophets. Brigham Young took the doctrine of plural marriage and expanded it in General Conferences, etc. He took the Adam God theory and taught it at the veil in the temple. He publicly taught in General Conference regarding God's learning, and had Orson Pratt publicly renounce the concept that God only progressed in dominions, not knowledge.

Each of these he developed through his interpretation of scripture. Each one was believed as "doctrine" of the Church for decades. In the case of the curse of Cain, it was LDS standard teaching for over a century, finding its way into Mormon Doctrine and a plurality of General Authority books.

So they do apply to the discussion we are having now. Some things currently taught are based upon the interpretation of living GAs. These teachings really have little bearing on salvation. Whether the Celestial Kingdom has one, three or one hundred levels does not matter if I am sealed in the temple and am valiant in my testimony of Christ. In reality, the Church has few core doctrines that will never change: God lives, Jesus is the Christ, Joseph Smith is the prophet of the Restoration, the scriptures are the word of God, we are saved through the atonement of Christ, etc. Yet there are many other doctrines and teachings that may change:

Examples:

Joseph Smith taught that high priests would not be demoted to Seventy to serve in that quorum. Pres Kimball moved 70s from the stakes to General Authority status and ensured all were ordained high priests (so they could preside).

The Church used to say we are saved by faith AND works. This was true through the 1970s. Since then, a major change has occurred as a new and more obvious interpretation of the scriptures has us now stating we are saved by grace, and works only apply as to what we Become or what level of salvation we receive.

The Book of Mormon used to make the claim that the Lehites were the major ancestors of the Indian. Now it states that the Lehites are one of their ancestors.

Our doctrine changes. Not the core doctrines, but many of the other teachings and concepts that have been well established for decades or even over a century. This is what continuing revelation is all about. And yes, sometimes God reveals things to the prophets through scholars and scientists, and the prophets then must just receive the spiritual confirmation of the greater knowledge.

I fear for the members of the Church, as did Brigham Young. Too many of them take every word stated by an apostle or dead prophet as completely and entirely and utterly true, without pondering, praying, and researching it for themselves. We have to gain our own spiritual witness of these things.

You'll note that the interviews for baptism and temple are very limited in the scope of questions. Most have to do with core beliefs and core commandments. We are asked if we believe in Jesus Christ and his atonement, not whether he has a body of flesh and bone. We are asked if we pay a full tithe, not whether we believe in evolution or creationism. And there is a reason for this distinction. The interview deals with core doctrines and commandments, not the other teachings that really have little to do with salvation, and may be changed as new revelation comes to our First Presidency and Twelve.

I would feel very comfortable sitting with Pres Monson or Eyring and discussing evolution, salvation by grace, etc. I think we could have interesting conversations regarding Adam-God, even. The issue is that we do not teach any of these as core doctrine. And when the prophets teach us something, we seek to obtain our own testimony of it. When we do receive that testimony, we abide by that witness, until a new witness from the prophet and Spirit come to us.

[alexm8]

rameumptom, I understand the point you are trying to make, but I really could care less about "fringe" doctrines that are not in revealed scripture. I will not be pulled into a debate about whether non-scriptural opinions of prophets affects our salvation. Fringe doctrines that are subject to change have no bearing on whether we are exalted or not.

What I am nitpicking about is the fundamental core doctrines of Salvation and Exaltation that IS recorded in scripture, have been interpreted by Prophets and Apostles, and confirmed by my own study and personal revelation. I don't believe that these doctrines are subject to change, only our personal understanding of them.

The definitions of Physical Death (separation of the body and spirit) and Spiritual Death (separation of God the Father and Man) are not going to change. Neither will the definition of overcoming these separations - Salvation. See LDS Salvation Same with Exaltation, the definition of WHAT it is will not change. Although, our understanding of these doctrines may.

As to HOW to receive that Salvation and Exaltation, that what this forum is about. But there is enough recorded scripture and authoritative interpretation of those scriptures that we can get a pretty good idea.

Although, I have to disagree that there has been a "major shift" from faith AND works to a "more obvious interpretation" of grace only. I believe that is probably more your own personal understanding of the doctrine that has changed rather than the Church's teaching on the issue. People pick out what they need/want to hear according to their understanding, and what God can teach them according to His Spirit. I think Joseph Smith understood and taught grace pretty darn well.

[rameumptom]

Since you do not remember the 70s and before regarding such teachings (since you were only born about 1970), you do not realize how the Church's stance has changed in a big way regarding faith and works. Stephen Robinson's book Believing Christ was and is considered a seminal book in making that change.

Elder McConkie insisted that the term "salvation" almost always meant exaltation. But in my studies it just does not fit with what the scriptures teach. It was a very common thing for apostles to speculate on all kinds of things back then. You would be surprised at how Mormon Doctrine caused a huge stir among the Brethren when it came out without first being reviewed. Spencer W. Kimball and Marion G. Romney were given the task of making it more correct prior to the second edition was allowed to be printed. They made thousands of edits, including removing the concept that the Catholic Church is the great and abominable Church. Even then, it still contained lots of speculation. Much of the MD is incorrect by today's beliefs and standards.

As for the examples I gave: at one point in LDS belief they WERE considered key doctrines of the Church. Even the curse of cain was a major issue being insisted upon up until 1978 by GAs from the pulpit.

As for core doctrines, they are few. And they are not always well defined, as some would think. The faith vs works issue is an example of this. In MD and other books from 50+ years ago, many GAs insisted that we could not be saved without works. At one point in my young life, I was convinced that Christ's atonement did not do much more than resurrect us, as I obviously had to live a perfect life in order to be saved. I almost felt that Christ was not really needed anymore in our salvation. Then I began studying the Book of Mormon and found in its text that what many GAs were teaching was incorrect. They were giving a knee jerk reaction to the radical Christian belief of saved by grace with only lip service. Yet, the BoM showed that works were not as important for salvation as many GAs insisted for salvation. Obviously there was a problem between the two. The problem fell in that they were using the term salvation differently than the rest of the world and even the scriptures. They insisted (such as Bruce R. McConkie) that salvation meant exaltation. Yet D&C 76 tells us that the telestial world is a place of salvation. Truly there was a disparity. And beginning in the 1980s, the Church has begun the change to a more correct understanding of faith and works. We are saved by grace through faith, no works required except repentance. Then we are given our eternal glory in a kingdom of salvation based upon what we have become through good works and faith.

The Challenge to Become

[alexm8]

Well, I'm sorry, but since you are less than 10 years older than me, don't expect me to take your word for it. I don't believe a teenager can have the proper experience and maturity to make a judgement call for the entire church. I will admit that I went through similar experiences as you, especially after reading Miracle of Forgiveness. (if anyone wants to go on a guilt trip, read that book). And I do have a much deeper understanding and appreciation for Christ's grace today.

However, and this is big, I see my own children and the youth of the church going through the same struggles that I did about "works"! Sure they don't have the same criticisms about blacks and other things we did, but they have much more criticism about gays than we ever could. They still have to defend their moral positions ("works") to their friends, much more than I do to my peers now. "Works" are much more on their minds, it's just a stage that we go through.

I agree that Mormon Doctrine did have a lot of Brigham Young like speculations and teachings, and David O McKay had to call him out on it when it was first published in 1959. However, go back to 1915 Talmage's Jesus the Christ. Where do you find anything BUT grace in that book. (I'm pretty sure they were reading that book in the 70's) I have read historical works and do not get the impression that there is an internal church struggle with Faith vs Works. And I do not get that impression when speaking with my parents or grandparents (who did live through the 70's).

As I stated before, I believe your perceptions, mine, and all those who go through the experience change as we gain wisdom and understanding. As we come to rely on Christ and understand His Grace more fully, we have the opportunity to use it and feel the effects of it more completely. So does our views on how we read church teachings of it... Just my humble opinion.