Question about the Godhead

[SteveVH]

Yes, from sin. Not sure what is so shocking about the statement. There is no implication that Christ was sinful; on the contrary, the doctrines state quite the opposite. Christ, unlike any other person to dwell on earth, was justified by the law. For this reason, he is in the unique situation of being able to offer himself to atone for the sins of others and bring them again to the Father.

You think God is "Other", and that is the genesis of your confusion on the topic. God is not "Other". We are his children, made in his image, heirs to all he has if we choose so to be. Christ is our perfect exemplar. He overcame sin and death. This is pure Biblical doctrine, but is only understood correctly through the revelations God has given through the leaders of his kingdom. Those outside the kingdom of God do not know what to make of such Biblical doctrines, and so are reduced to invoking magic and mysticism to explain what is, for them, unexplainable.

Yes, Christ overcame sin and death, and worked out his salvation.

If Christ was free from sin, then from what did he need to be saved? The fact that Christ defeated sin and death by his dying and resurrection does not mean that he was in need of salvation himself. He gave his unblemished life for us, not for himself.

You have now resorted to the same tact as Traveler, i.e. I just don't get it because I am spritiually challenged due to being a non-Mormon. I could very well say the same thing to you; "You just don't get it because you belong to an apostate church and have been led astray by a false prophet." I would never take that position with you. It doesn't lend itself to productive conversation between people of different faiths. Instead I will take your statements at face value. When we agree I will tell you I agree. When we don't I will make my case based upon what you have said, not on an assumption that you are just not capable of understanding. I would appreciate the same consideration.

[Vort]

But it seems to me that the Mormon faith is something altogether different from either of these positions. You believe that all are saved (due to the atonement), regardless of their faith (if I'm wrong here, please correct me); that the path we are walking is not the path of salvation (we are already saved) but rather the path of exaltation in order to receive higher degrees of glory. Am I correct so far? If so, then do you believe that there are any circumstances in which we can loose our salvation so that exaltation becomes a moot point? [...] Since we agree that all have been redeemed (the price has been paid) do we all receive the beneifts of that redemption regardless of our faith?

There are two kinds of death: physical and spiritual. Physical death is defined as the separation of the spirit from the body. Spiritual death is defined as the separation of the spirit from the influence of God.

The atonement of Christ addresses both physical death and spiritual death. All who are born into this world and thus receive a physical body will gain salvation from physical death through the resurrection. This is a gift that we have already accepted by keeping our "first estate" premortally, in that we chose to follow our Father and not rebel against him.

The atonement also saves us from spiritual death, if we choose to be so saved. Sin results in spiritual death (separation from God). Jesus, the only sinless man, never died spiritually. He was justified through the law, the only man ever to be so justified, and was therefore in a position to offer to accept the consequences of our sins so that we can be spiritually alive. This is how he saves us from our sins: By making us pure even as he is pure, and thus making us sinless and so saved from sin even as he is saved from sin.

But we need not accept the atonement. It is given to us to choose. We are free to choose hedonism, the lusts of the flesh, and the enticements of the devil. But if we think that we can choose those things and then say, "Lord, Lord, I believe!" and suddenly be saved, that is nonsense. There is no such "cheap salvation". Salvation is not cheap; it is free, but only to those who accept it. To accept salvation means to embrace covenants with God and to abandon sin, a process that for most of us takes a lifetime and then some.

Hope this addresses the key elements of your questions.

[Vort]

If Christ was free from sin, then from what did he need to be saved?

Spiritual death is separation from God, which for Jesus meant separation from the Father. This occurred, I believe, in the garden of Gethsemane, when Christ cried out "Why hast thou [Father] forsaken me?" But this sacrifice was freely given by Jesus, and not meted out as an inexorable consequence of sin, as it is for the rest of us.

Christ was still tempted of the devil. He still had the choice to sin. He still had unredeemable spiritual death presented to him as a possibility. He needed to be saved from this death, as do we all. But he did not require another for his salvation from spiritual death; unlike the rest of us, he actually earned that salvation through eternal law. That same law which condemns the rest of us did not condemn Christ. He met the conditions of the law, and thus enjoyed the consequence: Salvation from everlasting death.

We do not meet the conditions of the law, and thus we suffer the consequence: Everlasting death. That is, we suffer that consequence unless we accept Christ's atonement, which saves us.

The fact that Christ defeated sin and death by his dying and resurrection does not mean that he was in need of salvation himself.

He was a living being, and he was subject to both types of death -- physical and spiritual. He overcame both deaths and thus was saved. You could say he "saved himself". I suppose that would be accurate. But he was still saved from eternal death, even if by his own hand.

If I'm being chased by a lion and manage to scramble out of the lion pit before being torn to shreds, then I'm safe. I am saved. Perhaps I saved myself. Maybe someone else picked me up and saved me. But I am saved, in either case. Similarly, all of us are condemned to spiritual death, but in this case none of us can possibly save himself. We are lost -- unless we accept Christ's atonement and are saved by Christ. Jesus himself was subject to death, just as we are. But he was not condemned by his imperfections, as are we, because he had no imperfections. He fulfilled the law, and thus was saved.

If you're still quibbling over the wording, I don't know what to say. The scriptures teach what they teach. If you dislike the wording, I suppose the onus is on you to change your viewpoint, since the scriptures are not likely to be rewritten to account for your individual taste in the matter.

You have now resorted to the same tact as Traveler, i.e. I just don't get it because I am spritiually challenged due to being a non-Mormon.

I don't believe I ever suggested you were "spiritually challenged". But you clearly do not understand the doctrines and their implications. Do you disagree with this? I assume the reason you are on a forum named "LDS Gospel Discussion" is because you consider yourself unversed in LDS doctrine and wish to learn more about it. Am I mistaken?

If you are on "LDS Gospel Discussion" in order to lecture us as to how wrong our doctrine is, I suggest you are in the wrong forum, and frankly on the wrong site altogether. I am happy to discuss doctrinal differences, but quite uninterested in having yet another non-Latter-day-Saint lecture me as to how my beliefs are mistaken.

[JudoMinja]

But it seems to me that the Mormon faith is something altogether different from either of these positions. You believe that all are saved from physical death(due to the resurrection), regardless of their faith (if I'm wrong here, please correct me); that the path we are walking is not the path of salvation (we are already saved) but rather the path of exaltation in order to receive higher degrees of glory. Am I correct so far? Yes, with the bolded corrections. If so, then do you believe that there are any circumstances in which we can loose our salvation so that exaltation becomes a moot point?

My point is not whether or not salvation must be worked out over our lifetime or whether it occurs at a specific moment in time during our life on earth, but whether or not atonement equates with salvation. Since we agree that all have been redeemed (the price has been paid) do we all receive the beneifts of that redemption regardless of our faith?

The words bolded in your quote above are changes I made. There is a distinction that we make that you seem to be missing. Chirst "saved" us from two different things:

1. The resurrection saved us from physical death.

2. The atonement saved us from spiritual death.

We tend to refer to those who are resurrected as having received "salvation". This is something everyone will get, no matter their faith. So if we are talking about #1, my answer would be that yes, we all receive the benefits regardless of our faith and there is nothing we can do to not receive it. We had the opportunity to lose that in the pre-existence, but those who rejected God's plan followed Satan and never came to earth. If we are here on earth, that means we chose to keep our "first estate" and so will be resurrected. Jesus had to overcome death before this could happen though, so his resurrection was necessary in completeing that part of the plan.

The atonement is the second part of the redemption that is conditional upon our work and faith. Just like in the donut example, we have to accept it to receive it's benefits. Unlike the donut example, we will each receive a different reward depending on our earthly efforts- much like your example of the different sized glasses filled with "happiness". While being redeemed of our sins is another part of our salvation, this is conditional. Vort explained it quite nicely.

Also: No matter which degree of heaven we obtain, we will be enjoying the benefits of the redemption, but our faith puts us in higher degrees. Those who remain faithful and endure to the end get the highest degree- these are the only ones who are "exhalted". The only ones who do not benefit from the redemption at all are those who completely reject it, and as mentioned before "blapheme against the Holy Ghost".

For a fully detailed explanation of what we believe on who ends up where after the judgement, you can check out D&C Sections 76 and 88. This explains what qualifies you for each "kingdom of Heaven" or "degree of glory".

Edited September 19, 2011 by JudoMinja

[SteveVH]

First of all I really appreciate your answers.

There are two kinds of death: physical and spiritual. Physical death is defined as the separation of the spirit from the body. Spiritual death is defined as the separation of the spirit from the influence of God.

Agreed.

The atonement of Christ addresses both physical death and spiritual death. All who are born into this world and thus receive a physical body will gain salvation from physical death through the resurrection. This is a gift that we have already accepted by keeping our "first estate" premortally, in that we chose to follow our Father and not rebel against him.

This is where I would part company. Through simple observation we can very easily conclude that all of us die, therefore none of us are "saved" from physical death. The resurrection re-unites our physical body (now a glorified body) with our soul which was separated at death. In other words, if my car is invloved in an accident, the fact that I have it repaired so that it is as good as new does not mean that it was spared (saved) from the damage. Semantics may be getting in the way here, but I just want you to understand where I am coming from. Christ saves us from the second death, which I agree is separation from God. Part of that salvation from the second death is the reuniting of our body (which is necessary precisley because we were not spared from physical death) with our soul (spirit) so that we may be made whole again.

Another difference, and this may be at the heart of the discussion, is the belief in a pre-existence. If I understand you correctly, we made our choice to either follow Christ or reject him in this pre-existent life. I believe I was created, at the moment of conception, and did not exist before I was conceived. God "knew" me before I was knitted in my mother's womb, but that is because he is omniscient and lives in eternity. I was always in his plan, before I was even created. What I wonder is this. If all of us on earth have already given our consent to follow Christ, then how do some of those same people reject Christ in this life?

The atonement also saves us from spiritual death, if we choose to be so saved. Sin results in spiritual death (separation from God). Jesus, the only sinless man, never died spiritually. He was justified through the law, the only man ever to be so justified, and was therefore in a position to offer to accept the consequences of our sins so that we can be spiritually alive. This is how he saves us from our sins: By making us pure even as he is pure, and thus making us sinless and so saved from sin even as he is saved from sin.

If we are saved from sin in the same way that Christ is saved from sin, then we would never sin. The fact is that we continue to sin which places us in the position of needing salvation. Christ did not need salvation because he had never sinned. Temptation is not a sin.

But we need not accept the atonement. It is given to us to choose. We are free to choose hedonism, the lusts of the flesh, and the enticements of the devil. But if we think that we can choose those things and then say, "Lord, Lord, I believe!" and suddenly be saved, that is nonsense. There is no such "cheap salvation". Salvation is not cheap; it is free, but only to those who accept it. To accept salvation means to embrace covenants with God and to abandon sin, a process that for most of us takes a lifetime and then some.

Bear with me here. On one had I am being told that everyone is saved through the atonement, the only question being the level of exaltation one attains. Now I am being told that one must accept it (what we would call salvation), which means that not all are saved. I agree with what you said above, but it seems to conflict with what others have told me.

Anyway, as I said before, I truly appreciate your comments.

[SteveVH]

I don't believe I ever suggested you were "spiritually challenged". But you clearly do not understand the doctrines and their implications. Do you disagree with this? I assume the reason you are on a forum named "LDS Gospel Discussion" is because you consider yourself unversed in LDS doctrine and wish to learn more about it. Am I mistaken?

If you are on "LDS Gospel Discussion" in order to lecture us as to how wrong our doctrine is, I suggest you are in the wrong forum, and frankly on the wrong site altogether. I am happy to discuss doctrinal differences, but quite uninterested in having yet another non-Latter-day-Saint lecture me as to how my beliefs are mistaken.

Personally, when I am challenged as to my beliefs I consider it an opportunity to explain them. I hope I have made it clear that I am not here to bash Mormons. In the Catholic Church we have a compenduim of our beliefs called the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Anyone in the world can pick this book up and find out exactly what we believe and wy we believe it. There is no such thing, of which I am aware, that exists within the LDS Church. If I have a question about what Joseph Smith said here, or what McConkie wrote there, it can be dismissed as not being doctrine, depending upon the person with whom one is speaking. So that is the dilema for a non-Mormon. What exactly do you believe and why do you believe it? That is all I am trying to determine here and I do that by presenting another view and comparing and contrasting your answers to my beliefs in order to draw a distinction. If this is not the place to do this then I will refrain. I am not real sure what the role of the Moderators are here (Catholic Moderators on Catholic forums do not participate in the discussions but rather make sure everyone is following the rules), but I am under the assumption that if I am violating any rules it will be pointed out to me.

[JudoMinja]

I'm seeing a slight problem with the statements your making. You state this about being saved from physical death:

Through simple observation we can very easily conclude that all of us die, therefore none of us are "saved" from physical death.

But then this about being saved from spiritual death:

If we are saved from sin in the same way that Christ is saved from sin, then we would never sin.

In the first quote, you are assuming that to be truly saved we would have to avoid dying altogether. But in the second, you acknowledge that being "saved" is necessary because we CANNOT avoid sin.

Being saved from physical death works the same way as being saved from spiritual death. Yes, we will die, but if it weren't for Chirst's resurrection we could not be resurrected either. We would forever remain separated, body and spirit, after we die. Without Christ overcoming death, we would not be able to either. So he was necessary for our salvation from physical death. Just because we die, does not mean we are not saved. We die, but can live again. THAT is being saved.

It is the same with the spiritual death: We cannot avoid sinning. Our fallen state and imperfections mean we will all sin. If we were to make the same assumptions here that you make about the physical death, we would have to say that being "saved" means we will not sin at all. We know this isn't true. We WILL sin, but we can overcome our sins through the atonement. We sin, but can be forgiven. THAT is being saved.

I'm sorry if my explanation seems confusing. It is simply because that first portion of salvation (from physical death) does NOT require our faith or acceptance, while the second portion (from spiritual death) DOES. Those passages from D&C really do clarify it all far better than I can.

Also, you state:

Temptation is not a sin.

True. However, to be tempted is to be presented with the OPPORTUNITY to sin. Christ was presented with the same choices we have been presented. He overcame temptations by choosing righteousness and never sinned. Because He was the Only Begotten of the Father in both spirit AND flesh, He was capable of living a sinless life even when presented with the same temptations we face. He had to be subjected to mortality and temptations just like us, so that He could choose God's way and pay the price for us.

If all of us on earth have already given our consent to follow Christ, then how do some of those same people reject Christ in this life?

There's a series of books I love that I think does a wonderful job of explaining this. Mind you, they are not at all church related books and I read them purely for pleasure. However, the author is amazing and sneaks in a great number of moral lessons and little truths.

The main character of this series is always being faced with enormous challenges that seem impossible to overcome. As he faces these challenges, he is often presented with choices that could give him an easy way out, a quick ride to fame and power. These choices are always presented in a way that seems very appealing, convincing, and tempting, and always at times when he is most strained, most desperate for help. Always, he takes a moment to think about the consequences of such a decision, and he rejects them, choosing to face his challenges without bargaining away his soul.

In reading this series, I have come to see the trials of life in a greater light. These difficult choices we are faced with every day, these temptations, are character building. While we chose Christ in the pre-existence, this time on earth is a time to test and mold and build our character. We are being put in the refiners fire and subjected to adverse pressures, to the point of breaking.

We all know that it is easy to make a good decision when the pressure is off. You can easily say "I will never kill," or "I will never commit adultery" when all is going well. But get put under pressure and many of us choose quite the opposite. God wants to push us to our breaking points to see what we will choose under pressure. He wants us to become humble and submissive and to turn to Him in our times of hardship. We could not make a choice like that without adding the pressure and the environment.

Christ was put under the most severe pressure possible and still chose the will of the Father. None of us will do the same, becase we are not perfect like Christ. However, we can still choose repentance, and build in ourselves better and stronger character as we slowly learn to humble ourselves and face the pressures of the world with the Lord's help.

[JudoMinja]

What exactly do you believe and why do you believe it?

I think there is quite a bit of lee-way in what we, as a church, believe. We are given the very basics and then left to interpret the details for ourselves, which I think is why you're getting different view points on some of those details.

The very basic material that all members of the LDS church believe or would be considered "scripture" or "doctrine" is what is found in the standard works (The Bible, Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrine and Covenants), the Articles of Faith, and in the two proclamations from our prophets- "The Living Christ" and "The Family".

We are counseled to read and study these things frequently on our own. These materials are what we most quote from in our meetings. While we believe that the words of a living prophet are more important for our time than past scripture, we do not believe that everything out of a prophet's mouth is scripture or doctrine. If anything is to be added to the scripture we already have, it will be clear that such is the purpose and intent of what the prophet is saying.

As we study on our own, we are to seek personal revelation and make our own personal journies in seeking truths. Among members, we sometimes disagree over details or the interpretation of certain things- like how everyone has their own interpretation of what exactly we are and are not supposed to drink and eat according to the Word of Wisdom.

If this is not the place to do this then I will refrain. I am not real sure what the role of the Moderators are here (Catholic Moderators on Catholic forums do not participate in the discussions but rather make sure everyone is following the rules), but I am under the assumption that if I am violating any rules it will be pointed out to me.

Our moderators participate in discussions just as much as the other members. You have not done anything to violate any of the rules (that I know of), and yes if you were to do so it would be pointed out to you. If you are nervous about that, you can always double check the site rules here. The mods will sometimes make posts in a discussion to try and get it back on track if it appears to be bordering on breaking a rule or rules, will give personal warnings if needed through pms, close threads, delete or modify threads or posts, and suspend or ban members as needed.

While this particular thread has gone way off track from the original question, I think the mods have allowed it to continue because a lot of good information is being shared back and forth in a civil discussion. If you've never received a message of warning, you're doing just fine and have nothing to worry about. :)

[Traveler]

...

You have now resorted to the same tact as Traveler, i.e. I just don't get it because I am spritiually challenged due to being a non-Mormon. I could very well say the same thing to you; "You just don't get it because you belong to an apostate church and have been led astray by a false prophet."

...

From the original Hebrew; Isaiah in a statement to Ahaz. “im lo ta aminu ki lo tea menu”. Since you find my interpretation of scripture to be offensive - I suggest you find an expert in Hebrew to provide a direct translation. You may find this a rather interesting statement in regards to enduring institutions of which Ahaz was “king” appointed by G-d.

The Traveler

[SteveVH]

From the original Hebrew; Isaiah in a statement to Ahaz. “im lo ta aminu ki lo tea menu”. Since you find my interpretation of scripture to be offensive - I suggest you find an expert in Hebrew to provide a direct translation. You may find this a rather interesting statement in regards to enduring institutions of which Ahaz was “king” appointed by G-d.

The Traveler

I may agree or disagree with your interpretation of scripture. What I find offensive is dismissing my interpretation based on the supposition that I lack spiritual entlightenment. I'm not sure what your reference to Ahaz has to do with my point and I can assure you that I am not going to run out and find an expert in Hebrew to translate for me. I know several that would fit the bill but I have no intention of bothering them with this. All I ask is that you address my points as they stand without assuming that I am incapable of understanding because I am not a Mormon.

[Vort]

Through simple observation we can very easily conclude that all of us die, therefore none of us are "saved" from physical death.

Of course we are. We are resurrected, and thus death is overcome.

If you want to maintain otherwise, then you must logically also deny our salvation from spiritual death. After all, we all have sinned, and thus we all have become spiritually dead. Therefore, by your logic, we cannot be "saved" from spiritual death, since it has already occurred. I disagree with the premise upon which you base your conclusions.

In other words, if my car is invloved in an accident, the fact that I have it repaired so that it is as good as new does not mean that it was spared (saved) from the damage. Semantics may be getting in the way here

Yes, I agree. This is a semantic point, not a substantive point.

Another difference, and this may be at the heart of the discussion, is the belief in a pre-existence. If I understand you correctly, we made our choice to either follow Christ or reject him in this pre-existent life.

More correctly, we made a choice (or a series of choices) to follow Christ.

I believe I was created, at the moment of conception, and did not exist before I was conceived.

This is not Biblical doctrine. Where did you get this idea?

I was always in his plan, before I was even created. What I wonder is this. If all of us on earth have already given our consent to follow Christ, then how do some of those same people reject Christ in this life?

Because as I am sure you are well aware, following Christ is an ongoing process, not a one-time decision.

If we are saved from sin in the same way that Christ is saved from sin, then we would never sin.

Another semantic misunderstanding. Christ is "saved" from sin because he is sinless, without spot. We, too, can become sinless and without spot. In fact, if we wish to be saved from our sins, we must become sinless and without spot, and thus be saved as Christ is saved.

Christ did not need salvation because he had never sinned. Temptation is not a sin.

Serious question, Stephen: Do you care actually to understand LDS doctrine, or are you looking to score points in a debate? Because if the latter is the case, I will drop out of the discussion. I have no interest in such a back-and-forth. But if it is the former, then by all means let's keep going.

To reiterate: Christ, a living being, needed to be saved from death. He earned that salvation. If you wish to assert that such a situation does not qualify as "salvation" because it was not given to him the same way it's given to us, then you need to take that up with the scriptures. I have no authority to argue (or interest in arguing) the precise definition of salvation as it applies to Jesus Christ.

Bear with me here. On one had I am being told that everyone is saved through the atonement, the only question being the level of exaltation one attains. Now I am being told that one must accept it (what we would call salvation), which means that not all are saved. I agree with what you said above, but it seems to conflict with what others have told me.

We have already agreed that there are two elements to salvation: Physical and spiritual. The physical element of salvation, namely resurrection, is a free gift to all who have lived on this sphere. We qualified for this gift by following Christ premortally, known in scriptures as "keeping our first estate". We can (and the vast majority of us will) qualify for a salvation from spiritual death by eventually accepting Christ as our Redeemer.

Those who actively seek after Christ and who make and keep covenants with him will qualify for "a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory" (1 Corinthians 4:17), namely exaltation with the Father and becoming, as Paul states, "joint heirs with Christ". This is different from salvation, strictly speaking. It is returning (note the word) to the presence of the Father, to dwell forever with him.

[SteveVH]

Of course we are. We are resurrected, and thus death is overcome.

If you want to maintain otherwise, then you must logically also deny our salvation from spiritual death. After all, we all have sinned, and thus we all have become spiritually dead. Therefore, by your logic, we cannot be "saved" from spiritual death, since it has already occurred. I disagree with the premise upon which you base your conclusions.

Yes, I agree. This is a semantic point, not a substantive point.

I used the the analogy of a car accident to make the point that the fact that a car can be repaired does not negate the fact that it was not spared from the accident to beging with. Our natural bodies will undergo death and corruption. We are not saved from that event. When we are resurrected our bodies will rise above nature (they will be supernatural) and not be subject to death or corruption. I am not here to strain gnats and think we have probably beat this horse to death. I am happy to accept that you believe what you believe and that you have accurately described the Mormon position which is what I was after to beging with.

More correctly, we made a choice (or a series of choices) to follow Christ.

Okay.

This is not Biblical doctrine. Where did you get this idea?

Your comment was in reaction to my claim that we did not exist prior to our human conception. My conclusion is based upon the biblical principle that "All things came to be through him, and without him nothing..." (repeat, nothing) ...came to be. (John 1:3)

From what I can determine, this is a fundamental difference in our views of who God is and whether or not he created everything (including us) from nothing, or whether he was dependent upon pre-existing intelligences and matter from which he organized (different from created) these things into the world in which we find ourselves. We believe that God is omnipotent, all powerful. For God to depend on co-existing things in order to organize the created world, objectivley denies God's omnipotence and makes him, instead, dependent. We believe that God is without beginning or end and that he is the first Cause of all that exists. Only God is without beginning. All else began at a moment in time and was created by him from nothing.

As long as these two opposing views are held, I see no possiblility of agreement. I am not, however, here for the purpose of having you agree with me and again, I am happy to accept your view as the Mormon view.

Because as I am sure you are well aware, following Christ is an ongoing process, not a one-time decision.

I will accept your statement, however I am still a little confused. Maybe you can clear this up for me. It is my understanding, from the Mormon view, that all who exist on earth exist due to a choice that was made in the pre-existent life to follow Christ. All who are on earth will reach heaven and there is no possibility of damnation. The only question is the level of heaven one may reach which is dependent upon the level of exaltation one has reached. Is this an accurate statement?

Another semantic misunderstanding. Christ is "saved" from sin because he is sinless, without spot. We, too, can become sinless and without spot. In fact, if we wish to be saved from our sins, we must become sinless and without spot, and thus be saved as Christ is saved.

I would only disagree from the standpoint that Christ had no need for salvation, but rather, is Salvation. We, on the other hand, are in need of salvation and this salvation is not accomplished by our becoming perfect from our own efforts, but rather, we are saved in spite of our imperfection by the perfect sacrifice of Jesus Christ. We will never reach a state of sinlessnes (like Christ) until we reach our eternal destiny in heaven. The scriptures tell us that "even the just man falls seven times a day" (Prov. 24:16),

Serious question, Stephen: Do you care actually to understand LDS doctrine, or are you looking to score points in a debate? Because if the latter is the case, I will drop out of the discussion. I have no interest in such a back-and-forth. But if it is the former, then by all means let's keep going.

You ask a legitimate question and I can certainly understand how my comments may be construed in that way. My intention is not only to understand what you believe, but also why you believe it, as I have stated before. I will give you an example from my own faith tradition. Catholics are accussed of believing many things that we actually don't believe. If one simply asks me "Do you pray to Mary?" I will answer "Yes I do." If I am not asked why I pray to Mary one will leave under the impression that I worship Mary, confirming their misconception. If they ask why I do this and challenge me with all the biblical quotes that they feel refute this practice, the more opportunity I have to make my position clear. I am very accustomed to people asking questions or making statements for no other purpose then to tell me I am wrong. I suppose there is a thin line here, and it is not my intention to cross it.

To reiterate: Christ, a living being, needed to be saved from death. He earned that salvation. If you wish to assert that such a situation does not qualify as "salvation" because it was not given to him the same way it's given to us, then you need to take that up with the scriptures. I have no authority to argue (or interest in arguing) the precise definition of salvation as it applies to Jesus Christ.

Again, I would disagree with the statement that Christ needed to be saved from death. His death, his sacrifice, was freely given. He, being God, could very well have chosen to preserve even his mortal life. This is the very thing that made his sacrifice the perfect sacrifice. His perfect life was freely given and he had the power in himself to take it up again. We do not have that power. With a sweep of his hand he could have done away with those who crucified him. At any time he could have returned to the Father, body and soul, completely intact. But this was not God's plan. He chose to lay his life down for us. If he had not, there is no one who could have taken it from him. He had nothing to earn. He already possessed everything. Again, I think it boils down to our fundemental differences concerning the nature of God and the person of Jesus Christ.

We have already agreed that there are two elements to salvation: Physical and spiritual. The physical element of salvation, namely resurrection, is a free gift to all who have lived on this sphere. We qualified for this gift by following Christ premortally, known in scriptures as "keeping our first estate". We can (and the vast majority of us will) qualify for a salvation from spiritual death by eventually accepting Christ as our Redeemer.

I have already commented on this subject above but I will ask again. If what you say here is true, then is there anyone who can loose their salvation? Do you believe that there is anyone in hell that made the pre-mortal choice to follow Christ?

[JudoMinja]

If what you say here is true, then is there anyone who can loose their salvation? Do you believe that there is anyone in hell that made the pre-mortal choice to follow Christ?

Since you've asked this same question several times now, I myself have been doing a more careful study of Doctrine and Covenants 76. It is something I haven't studied much as this topic has never really concerned me, but I know that a simple "yes" to your question would be incorrect and insufficient, just as would a simple "no".

So- here is what I've been putting together through my study:

First, when we speak of "hell" we are speaking of what you would call "purgatory". It is a temporary state of suffering that some will go through before the time of the resurrection. Those who suffer in hell will still be granted salvation, but will only go to the lowest kingdom- what we call the "telestial" kingdom of glory.

Those who completely lose out on salvation are the "sons of perdition" and will go to "outer darkness". These are completely different from those who suffer in hell.

To make it as clear as possible, I am outlining below what we believe is required to reach each kingdom of heaven or level of glory.

The celestial kingdom (the highest glory, compared to that of the sun)-

Have faith in Christ

Be baptised by immersion by someone with Priesthood authority

Receive the Holy Ghost by that same authority

Are sealed "by the Holy Spirit of promise" (D&C 76:53)

Bear the Melkezedick Priesthood

Be of the "church of the Firstborn" (D&C 76:54)

"Overcome all things" (D&C 76:60) or endure to the end - basically keep on doing good and following in Christ's footsteps

The terrestial kingdom (second degree of glory, compared to that of the moon)-

Those who "died without law" (D&C 76:72) or in other words those who did not make covenants and so could not be held to them

Those who were "honorable men of the earth" (D&C 76:75)

Those who accept Christ but not the fulness of the gospel

Those who were "not valient in the testimony of Jesus" (D&C 76:79)

The telestial kingdom (third degree of glory, compared to that of the stars)-

Those who do not accept the fulness of the gospel or the testimony of Christ BUT do NOT deny the Holy Ghost

Those who are "liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie." (D&C 76:103)

Outer darkness (no glory, to be cast out of God's presence entirely and live with Satan)-

Commit a sin for which there is no forgiveness (see D&C 4:18, 84:41, and 132:27)

Murder

Break covenants after they've been received and never return

Blaspheme the Holy Ghost and openly debase Christ

"Deny the Son after the Father has revealed him" (D&C 76:43)

D&C 76:44-48

Wherefore, he saves all except them—they shall go away into everlasting punishment, which is endless punishment, which is eternal punishment, to reign with the devil and his angels in eternity, where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched, which is their torment—

And the end thereof, neither the place thereof, nor their torment, no man knows;

Neither was it revealed, neither is, neither will be revealed unto man, except to them who are made partakers thereof;

Nevertheless, I, the Lord, show it by vision unto many, but straightway shut it up again;

Wherefore, the end, the width, the height, the depth, and the misery thereof, they understand not, neither any man except those who are ordained unto this ccondemnation.

[SteveVH]

Since you've asked this same question several times now, I myself have been doing a more careful study of Doctrine and Covenants 76. It is something I haven't studied much as this topic has never really concerned me, but I know that a simple "yes" to your question would be incorrect and insufficient, just as would a simple "no".

So- here is what I've been putting together through my study:

First, when we speak of "hell" we are speaking of what you would call "purgatory". It is a temporary state of suffering that some will go through before the time of the resurrection. Those who suffer in hell will still be granted salvation, but will only go to the lowest kingdom- what we call the "telestial" kingdom of glory.

Those who completely lose out on salvation are the "sons of perdition" and will go to "outer darkness". These are completely different from those who suffer in hell.

To make it as clear as possible, I am outlining below what we believe is required to reach each kingdom of heaven or level of glory.

The celestial kingdom (the highest glory, compared to that of the sun)-

Have faith in Christ

Be baptised by immersion by someone with Priesthood authority

Receive the Holy Ghost by that same authority

Are sealed "by the Holy Spirit of promise" (D&C 76:53)

Bear the Melkezedick Priesthood

Be of the "church of the Firstborn" (D&C 76:54)

"Overcome all things" (D&C 76:60) or endure to the end - basically keep on doing good and following in Christ's footsteps

The terrestial kingdom (second degree of glory, compared to that of the moon)-

Those who "died without law" (D&C 76:72) or in other words those who did not make covenants and so could not be held to them

Those who were "honorable men of the earth" (D&C 76:75)

Those who accept Christ but not the fulness of the gospel

Those who were "not valient in the testimony of Jesus" (D&C 76:79)

The telestial kingdom (third degree of glory, compared to that of the stars)-

Those who do not accept the fulness of the gospel or the testimony of Christ BUT do NOT deny the Holy Ghost

Those who are "liars, and sorcerers, and adulterers, and whoremongers, and whosoever loves and makes a lie." (D&C 76:103)

Outer darkness (no glory, to be cast out of God's presence entirely and live with Satan)-

Commit a sin for which there is no forgiveness (see D&C 4:18, 84:41, and 132:27)

Murder

Break covenants after they've been received and never return

Blaspheme the Holy Ghost and openly debase Christ

"Deny the Son after the Father has revealed him" (D&C 76:43)

JudoMinja,

Thank you for your well thought out response. I think it is unfortunate that a different definition has been given to the word "hell" than is commonly understood because it lends itself to miscommunication and therefore to misunderstanding. Most Christians define hell as the outer darkness of which you speak, so when one claims that hell is temporary it immediately raises eyebrows. But my question has been answered and I really appreciate it.

[Just_A_Guy]

To supplement JudoMinja's excellent post: Regarding the Mormon notion of "outer darkness" (those who suffer this are also dubbed "sons of perdition" in our theology), Joseph Smith offered the following (in a sermon called the "King Follett Sermon", because it was given shortly after the funeral of a gentleman named King Follett), which guides our thinking quite a bit:

All sins shall be forgiven, except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it.

IMHO, outer darkness isn't for mere victims of sins of the flesh; it's for those who have made a conscious and fully informed decision to join in Satan's war against the Lamb.

[Just_A_Guy]

I think it is unfortunate that a different definition has been given to the word "hell" than is commonly understood because it lends itself to miscommunication and therefore to misunderstanding. Most Christians define hell as the outer darkness of which you speak, so when one claims that hell is temporary it immediately raises eyebrows.

Sure; but in our defense--many Jews would accuse Christianity of the same kind of sloppiness.

[SteveVH]

To supplement JudoMinja's excellent post: Regarding the Mormon notion of "outer darkness" (those who suffer this are also dubbed "sons of perdition" in our theology), Joseph Smith offered the following (in a sermon called the "King Follett Sermon", because it was given shortly after the funeral of a gentleman named King Follett), which guides our thinking quite a bit:

"All sins shall be forgiven, except the sin against the Holy Ghost; for Jesus will save all except the sons of perdition. What must a man do to commit the unpardonable sin? He must receive the Holy Ghost, have the heavens opened unto him, and know God, and then sin against him. After a man has sinned against the Holy Ghost, there is no repentance for him. He has got to say that the sun does not shine while he sees it; he has got to deny Jesus Christ when the heavens have been opened unto him, and to deny the plan of salvation with his eyes open to the truth of it."

IMHO, outer darkness isn't for mere victims of sins of the flesh; it's for those who have made a conscious and fully informed decision to join in Satan's war against the Lamb.

Well, I may disagree slightly as to what constitutes a mortal (deadly) sin, blasphemy of the Holy Spirit, however, is certainly the biggy (unpardonable), so I think we're pretty much on the same page there. In our understanding it is a knowing, consistent and continuing refusal to accept the freely given gift of grace from our loving God; the gift of forgiveness; the promise of everlasting life. It is unpardonable because, by its nature, one is unrepentent. One who previously felt this way could convert, have a repentent heart, and seek forgiveness which surely would be granted. Only those who persist will find themselves outside of God's Kingdom. We also believe, however, that there are other serious sins, which if one is unrepentent and does not seek forgiveness, are deadly.

Sins of the flesh would fall into that category, as well as murder, molestation and other serious matters. I don't think it is difficult for most people to know inherently what is a serious sin and what is not so serious, even when one tries to rationalize it to soothe their conscience. One can certainly be forgiven, but if one persists in their behavior it is very serious. As I think I have said before, I thank God that he is the judge. He reads our hearts and knows our deepest secrets, our intentions, our desires, the authenticity of our person, our struggles, the obstacles in our life, etc. We have rules to live by, given to us by God himself, but really, it is only he that knows the degree to which we have both kept and violated them. God's mercy is stronger than his perfect justice and that is where our hope lies.

Edited September 22, 2011 by StephenVH

[SteveVH]

Sure; but in our defense--many Jews would accuse Christianity of the same kind of sloppiness.

Absolutely no doubt about that.

[Traveler]

I may agree or disagree with your interpretation of scripture. What I find offensive is dismissing my interpretation based on the supposition that I lack spiritual entlightenment. I'm not sure what your reference to Ahaz has to do with my point and I can assure you that I am not going to run out and find an expert in Hebrew to translate for me. I know several that would fit the bill but I have no intention of bothering them with this. All I ask is that you address my points as they stand without assuming that I am incapable of understanding because I am not a Mormon.

I would be most interested in where I dismissed anything you have interpreted in scripture. To be honest I do not know - even now what you were offended about. What interpretation of scripture did I dismiss?

It appears to me that you completely dismissed my interpretations of scripture using this “spiritual superior” accusation as an excuse. When I first asked you to provide interpretations you asked me about what point I was making - I then made a point about scriptural text according to my understanding. I have yet to even know your opinion about those scriptures I thought were being discussed.

But since you claimed to be offended - I saw no reason to pursue any logic. Especially because I have no idea at all what you are even talking about. But you keep coming back to this argument of being offended. So for my benefit - since I am so stupid I must be shown directly what you are talking about - would you do a play back and go point by point (post by post) how it was that you offered an interpretation of what scriptures - and where I dismissed you points as being spiritually inferior?

Thanks.

The Traveler