What will post-resurrection life be like?

[LeSellers]

My hardcore evangelical friends (actually only two went this far) say, "All you have to do is accept Christ as your savior and you can go on a serial killing rampage and you'll still be saved."  The Telestial Kingdom actually makes that statement true.  you will inherit a degree of glory out of hell.  All you have to do is admit it (even begrudgingly) and this Jesus is the Christ.

I can't say I have a lot of "hard core Evangelical friends", but I have heard this far more than twice.

I posted one statement (representative of several similar ones) where the Evangelical where the speaker said that he could kill me (one said stabbed, one shoot, one slit my throat) and would still go to heaven because he was saved (or elect — this one is a Calvinist).

The OSAS group is extraordinarily puzzling to me. Especially those who are in the Calvinist tribe seem to ignore entirely the scriptures that say "If you love me, keep my commandments." I simply cannot wrap my head around the irresistibly saved concept. Nor can I grasp the idea that God would have created people solely so they could be sent to hell, to burn evermore, and never have any relief; irrespective of whether the person was truly evil or trying as hard as possible to follow every commandment. Even more astounding are those who claim that infants who cannot choose Christ, are still condemned because of that failure.

 

Other non-LDS friends don't go that far.  But they just deny a lot of "ordinances" etc. as requirements.  They still say that if you truly accept Christ, you would have motivation to do good and show love to others, etc.  Then you can go to heaven.  The Terrestrial Kingdom makes that statement true.

Indeed. The contrast between the Law of Moses and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, especially Paul's insistence that the works of the Law [of Moses] cannot save and are filthy rags make it seem that Paul is saying that nothing beyond faith is necessary. (They make a distinction, too, between "work" and "exercising faith" (which they do not count as a work), also confusing.

OSAS is too taxing to my imagination to accept. Even sola fede makes no sense at all. No one is saying that we must follow the Law of Moses, but because we have a few (very few) ordinances, they assert that we see ourselves as new Jews.

We could similarly see sola biblia (aka, but misleadingly, sola scriptura as working against the known modis operandi. God always had Priesthood. Most look to Aaron as the first Priest, but Melchizedek was the High Priest, and Noah offered sacrifices, acting as a Priest. Enoch acted as a Priest. Seth also, as did Adam who offered sacrifices.

People also forget that the Law of Moses was a replacement for something higher. The people had covenanted at the foot of Sinai to obey the Ten Commandments. These were a very, very simple set of rules and open to individual situations. When they completely broke all ten, Moses went back up to Sinai and got the intricate Law of Moses which allowed almost no interpretation, and was an algorithm for life: do this, then that, and then do the next thing.

Lehi

Edited November 18, 2015 by LeSellers

[prisonchaplain]

I posted one statement (representative of several similar ones) where the Evangelical where the speaker said that he could kill me (one said stabbed, one shoot, one slit my throat) and would still go to heaven because he was saved (or elect — this one is a Calvinist).

 

I'm not Calvinist, so I reject the idea of an Elect.  Nevertheless, my understanding of them is that, historically, they would have put out a murderer, saying that such an action was evidence that the person was not of the Elect.

Even sola fede makes no sense at all. No one is saying that we must follow the Law of Moses, but because we have a few (very few) ordinances, they assert that we see ourselves as new Jews.

 

Some argue we make a distinction that has no difference, but Paul often opposed the Judaizers.  Their main tact was to demand that Gentile Christians be circumcised.  They argued that there was no salvation apart from this sacrament.  We argue that any sacrament is done in response to salvation/conversion--not to achieve it.  If it's any consolation, we disagree with Catholics and some Lutherans about this issue too.  :-)

We could similarly see sola biblia (aka, but misleadingly, sola scriptura as working against the known modis operandi. God always had Priesthood. Most look to Aaron as the first Priest, but Melchizedek was the High Priest, and Noah offered sacrifices, acting as a Priest. Enoch acted as a Priest. Seth also, as did Adam who offered sacrifices.

 

We believe we are all priests of God--"go betweens," helping the lost find their way to salvation.

People also forget that the Law of Moses was a replacement for something higher. The people had covenanted at the foot of Sinai to obey the Ten Commandments. These were a very, very simple set of rules and open to individual situations. When they completely broke all ten, Moses went back up to Sinai and got the intricate Law of Moses which allowed almost no interpretation, and was an algorithm for life: do this, then that, and then do the next thing.

 

My understanding is that the 10 Commandments are basically the chapter headings for the 613 basic commandments in the Law of Moses.  Interestingly, Jews believe that non-Jews can appease God by obeying most of the seven laws of Noah.  They would likely believe that observant LDS and traditional Christians succeed on six of the seven.  We're both guilty of worshipping false gods, in their minds (Jesus). 

 

1. Do Not Deny God (both the Trinity and LDS Godhead would be seen as failing this one)
2. Do Not Blaspheme God
3. Do Not Murder
4. Do Not Engage in Incestuous, Adulterous or Homosexual Relationships.
5. Do Not Steal
6. Do Not Eat of a Live Animal
7. Establish Courts/Legal System to Ensure Law Obedience

 

Edited November 17, 2015 by prisonchaplain

[Guest]

PC,

 

If I can go back to posts #44 & #45 for a bit...

 

If I understood your subtext in post 45, I believe you were saying that a person who "says" he accepts Christ and yet goes and murders is not being sincere.  Therefore, he cannot dupe God.  I certainly agree.  But the "friends" I mentioned were not talking about duping God.

 

They literally meant that they were absolutely sincere in their devotion to Christ.  And by virtue of their faith and His grace, they could now do whatever they wanted and still be saved.  They were so grateful that they were now freed from all cares.  They no longer have to worry about doing anything wrong since they have fully accepted Christ into their hearts.

 

One of them laughed about a laundry list of character flaws concluding, "well, that's just the way he made me."  And you'd be surprised at the list of flaws that he thought were perfectly acceptable.  The context of the statement indicated that he doesn't have to try to change since God accepts him as he is.  And he's got faith so...

 

I realize that on some level you're not really agreeing with him.  But I wanted to clarify the difference between those who want to dupe God, vs. those who honestly "accept Christ as their personal Lord and Savior", yet feel no compunction to do any good because they don't have to.  They're saved.  And these same people also rolled their eyes when I quoted James, accusing me of trying to make Mormons out of them.  

 

(oh, I remembered a third person in my life that was in this crowd).

Edited November 17, 2015 by Guest

[prisonchaplain]

I just finished a series of teachings on the Sermon on the Mount.  There is a laundry list of character traits Jesus commands us to embrace.  The error that your Evangelical friends correctly avoid is the take these godly characteristics and become burdened by them.  It is wrong to try to conjure up love for my enemies from within myself, for example.  Likewise, to think that I can simply willpower myself into not becoming angry and calling a Christian brother a fool.  So, I prefaced the teaching with Zecharia 4:6 and Galations 5:22-23, basically saying we do these things by the power of the Holy Spirit.  The love, the self-control, the restraint on anger and lust, etc. come from the Holy Spirit.  He empowers us to live holy and righteous.

 

So, while I do not become burdened by the commands of Christ, I do embrace them.  Right before Galatians 5:22-23 is 19-21--which lists the fruits of the flesh.  Paul says if we live like that we will not inherit the Kingdom of God.

 

But it's not that I work my way in.  Rather, it's because, by grace, through faith, I embrace the life of Christ, empowered by the Holy Spirit.  Salvation is not a "get out of hades free" card.

 

Bottom line:  I'm confused by those who claim they love Jesus with all their hearts, and then live for themselves or the devil.

[The Folk Prophet]

There is a laundry list of character traits Jesus commands us to embrace. The error that your Evangelical friends correctly avoid is the take these godly characteristics and become burdened by them. It is wrong to try to conjure up love for my enemies from within myself, for example. Likewise, to think that I can simply willpower myself into not becoming angry and calling a Christian brother a fool.

Interesting. Do you believe willpower is useless, or just wrong?

[prisonchaplain]

I can will to rely on God's love that is in me.  However, if I choose to rely on my own strength, that would be foolhardy--something like the soldier who tried to save the Ark from falling.

[Guest]

...

 

Bottom line:  I'm confused by those who claim they love Jesus with all their hearts, and then live for themselves or the devil.

 

As am I.  I guess I'm having trouble figuring out why someone who believes as you do, condemning those I described, has a problem with the idea of works being required.

 

Remember, that it is incorrect LDS doctrine to believe that works gains us salvation.  It is Christ who brings us salvation.  But we do believe it is required/commanded.  And if we truly love Jesus with all our hearts, then we will obey his commandments with all our hearts.

 

If God told me to run around and cluck like a chicken, I'd first want to verify that it was God who was telling me.  But if I knew it was Him, I'd do it.  If he says "Repent and be baptized EVERY one of you", then I'll repent and be baptized.  Why is it so difficult to believe we "need"* to do some things He's obviously commanded?

 

I recognize, that you have about as big a problem as my three friends (actually only two were friends, the third, well...) as I do.  But you also seem to be emphasizing a difference between AoG and LDS.  And my point was that I see only a small difference.

 

*I put the quotes there to once again emphasize what I said about salvation through Christ alone.  So the use of the word "need" should be taken with that understanding.

[estradling75]

Let look from a different side.

 

 

What is faith?  Is it mere belief?  Or is it belief put into action?

 

Joseph Smith taught that Faith is active and action.  If there is no action, there is no faith(just belief).  Therefore if we have Faith there are active signs. (aka it shows in our actions)  While we flawed humans can have a hard time telling what a person believes, or their motivation.  However actions are much easier to tell.  Therefore looking toward a persons action is an easier way to gauge a persons faith then trying to tell what is in their heart.  With this understanding a focus on the external signs becomes easy understand.

 

Of course there are flaws in this method too...  Mainly that faith isn't the only thing that can motivate actions.  Actions that are not Faith motivated mean nothing.  Of course that is kinda flawed too because someone can try to build their faith by taking action, and that is a good thing too, even it it is not quite there yet.

[LeSellers]

This is mistaken right up front. It should be:

Grace vs. faith/works.

As I understand it*, even orthodox, Protestant Christians usually believe in three "onlies": sola fede, sola scriptura, sola gracia. They work together, each in its own area.

* I have learned that my understanding is not binding on them, any more than what they may imagine I believe restricts my knowledge.

• Sola fede, faith alone is how a person is acceptable to God. He need only confess Jesus as his Savior (some add act on that faith, but only "some") to be saved, through grace (see below).
• Sola scriptura (what seems to be, among many or most of them, sola biblia), scripture (or Bible) alone is the rejection of a separate Priesthood to interpret the Gospel, or, indeed, any significant priesthood at all. One need only have the Bible to learn and know the Gospel. I recall it to have been Tyndale who said, "If God lets me live long enough, I'll make the boy who drives the plow know the scriptures better than the [Catholic] priests."
• Sola gracia, grace alone, is how Christ saves us. We need do nothing on our own: any of our "works" is as filthy rags (some go to the point of defining "filthy rags" as "menstrual cloths". I don't read it quite that way, but my Greek is self-taught, so I'll bow to their superior knowledge).

Like many reformers, the Christian Reformers of the XV and later went overboard in each of these areas. We need faith, we need the scriptures, we need grace. But we need works (works are the way we make faith a part of our lives). We need scripture, but we need living prophets to help us interpret the word of God by the light of His church. We need grace. But we need to make ourselves worthy of that grace. Again, works make us the kind of person unto whom God can apply grace unto salvation.

 

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the restoration of His Church through the modern prophets (who all had/have last names, seeming a disqualification among other Christians) straddles these extremes. The Catholic Church holds that ordinances ("sacraments") save us. If one is baptized, confesses, does penance, etc., he will be saved. Protestants largely reject all ordinances in protest against the excess of Catholic dogma.

Lehi

Edited November 17, 2015 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

What is faith?  Is it mere belief?  Or is it belief put into action?

The English word "faith" is used to translate the Greek word πίστις (pistis) and the Hebrew word אֵמוּן ('êmûn). Both mean "trust".

Trust is not something one can claim without acting on it. We trust the lights will go on when we flip the switch, but unless we actually flip the switch, the lights will not go on. Trust is great, but action is how it accomplishes anything.

"Faith", as many have said, is an action verb. The grammar aside, they are absolutely right.

Lehi

[prisonchaplain]

As am I.  I guess I'm having trouble figuring out why someone who believes as you do, condemning those I described, has a problem with the idea of works being required.

 

Remember, that it is incorrect LDS doctrine to believe that works gains us salvation.  It is Christ who brings us salvation.  But we do believe it is required/commanded.  And if we truly love Jesus with all our hearts, then we will obey his commandments with all our hearts.

 

If God told me to run around and cluck like a chicken, I'd first want to verify that it was God who was telling me.  But if I knew it was Him, I'd do it.  If he says "Repent and be baptized EVERY one of you", then I'll repent and be baptized.  Why is it so difficult to believe we "need"* to do some things He's obviously commanded?

 

... But you also seem to be emphasizing a difference between AoG and LDS.  And my point was that I see only a small difference.

 

 

I admit to remaining confused about what works are required for, in LDS teaching.  Are they not required for entry into the Celestial Kingdom?  And, is not the CK true salvation?  If so, this is what Martin Luther broke from the Catholic church over, ultimately.  Only faith can bring salvation (entry into heaven), because we are unable, unworthy, and hopeless.  Only Christ's work can save us from God's judgment.

 

BUT...once that's worked out--once I am saved--then, well of course I work out my salvation daily.  I strive to be like Jesus, empowered by his Spirit.  Yes, I will be baptized--in water and the Spirit.  Yes, I will read my scriptures, attend to the house of God, donate generously to my church and the poor, share my faith with whoever will here, show my faith to those who will see, and give praise and honor to God all the way.

 

Perhaps the bottom line is that I believe that if a soul--even a murderer--sincerely repents, and asks Jesus to forgive him--and then he is shot dead a second later--he will go to the Celestial Kingdom (our understanding of heaven).  He wasn't baptized, never gave a dime to church, never attended a church, and never cracked open scripture.  Yet, his faith will save him--all the way to the top.

 

I wonder if part of the difference is that we traditionalists do not believe we chose our lives before mortality.  So, it is easier for us to imagine a life badly lived, and in an end moment of realization, one might cry out to God in true remorse and repentance.  If I believed that person chose the bad life in some way, prior to being born, the last minute gesture might seem much emptier.

Edited November 17, 2015 by prisonchaplain

[Guest]

I admit to remaining confused about what works are required for, in LDS teaching.  Are they not required for entry into the Celestial Kingdom?  And, is not the CK true salvation? 

 

And I'll also submit my admission that I don't know all the details of this "requirement".  My primary concern is that God has commanded something, so I do it.

 

As for the CK vis-a-vis salvation... I think that is being discussed on another thread.  And if we had a perfect understanding of that principle, then we may be able to answer this question better.

 

Vicarious ordinances also allow for your repentant murderer to receive salvation. 

 

If I can make a hypothesis, I would say that the reason these ordinances are so important that the Lord has us do them for the dead is to 1) emphasize how much He really wants us to do living ordinances, and 2) There is something linked to our physical nature as mortals that even our disembodies spirits need.

 

All of it goes into "what does it mean to truly accept Christ with all our hearts?"  To us, a physical action is somehow tied to it.  I'm going to inject a little Eastern Spirituality here.  I am much more in tune with my body than most people.  I recognize how my body, mind, and soul interact in such detail that my own wife doesn't understand.  It is from this awareness that I can fully testify that there is no such thing as a completely spiritual change.

 

God is dealing with mortal beings.  He knows that we are tied to the physical.  The spirit, mind, body, and heart all affect each other.  All must be involved in the conversion process or it is not complete.  What good does it do to have a clean spirit and a dirty body?  Hence, Love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, might, mind, strength.  (Emotion, spirit, mind, body).

[MrShorty]

Interesting. Do you believe willpower is useless, or just wrong?

 

 

I can will to rely on God's love that is in me.  However, if I choose to rely on my own strength, that would be foolhardy--something like the soldier who tried to save the Ark from falling.

 

This question of "willpower" might be another one that we talk past each other on. Can I assume, PC, that this response is to TFP's question?

 

I think what I find interesting in your response is how differently you and I framed his question. Your response indicates that you framed the question in terms of "relying on the arm of the flesh" and "steadying the ark". When I, as a LDS, read TPF's question, I thought of something like D&C 58:26-29, where Joseph Smith taught that men should use their free will to bring to pass much righteousness, and to be "agents unto [ourselves]."

 

I agree with your assessment, that we need to learn to trust God and not our own efforts. I also believe that God calls us to actively seek out and choose to do good. I sometimes think that some LDS, when a Protestant/Evangelical will talk about how faith is the sole motivator for good works, we sometimes hear "I am like a puppet, sitting around waiting for God to pull my strings to make me do things." which, at least on the surface, can seem to contradict this idea that can be important to us as LDS to be "anxiously engaged" in good works.

 

Of course, it is not always as black and white as that, because we also talk about "becoming an instrument in God's hands." and "surrendering our will to the Father's will", which sounds a lot like becoming someone whom God tells "go here" and we go, so I find that I cannot really find fault with either position.

 

Now, I know that Christianity has wrestled for a long time with different conclusions, but I think there might be more depth to TFP's question than just whether or not it is possible to trust too much in the arm of the flesh. Perhaps the truth, as with so many other seeming contradictions, lies somewhere in the nebulous middle ground where "free will" has meaning, but learning to trust God and surrender our will to His also has meaning.

Edited November 18, 2015 by MrShorty

[The Folk Prophet]

We need faith, we need the scriptures, we need grace. But we need works (works are the way we make faith a part of our lives).

 

I don't agree with this separation of faith and works. Faith without works is dead is less saying that we must add works to our faith, and more saying that faith sans-works is no faith at all. There's no need to add a "but we need works" clause to faith. Faith includes works already, or it is not faith.

 

The one who says they have faith, but has no works is deceived or lying.

Edited November 18, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[The Folk Prophet]

I agree with your assessment, that we need to learn to trust God and not our own efforts. 

 

I honestly don't understand why we would feel obligated to include the word "not" here. What is wrong with trusting in God and our own efforts?

[LeSellers]

I don't agree with this separation of faith and works. Faith without works is dead is less saying that we must add works to our faith, and more saying that faith sans-works is no faith at all. There's no need to add a "but we need works" clause to faith. Faith includes works already, or it is not faith.

 

The one who says they have faith, but has no works is deceived or lying.

You are preaching to the choir here. Faith without works is dead. And there is no artificial separation of faith and works in the revealed Gospel of Jesus Christ.

The Protestants, however, by and large, reject works. It is they who have separated them, not us, not I.

Further, most Protestants confuse "works" with "works of the Law [of Moses]". Paul rants endlessly, and rightfully about relying on the Law of Moses and its works for salvation. But these are not the same as righteous "works" like baptism and other covenants, and performing "true religion and undefiled". The Law of Moses had two parts: one defined what men must do ritually. The other defines what they must do in regards to others — the poor, the widow, etc.

The first was considered salvific, but only, as we learn in the Book of Mormon (and by Paul's words, too), if practiced in faith in Jesus Christ. The difference between the Law of Moses and the full Gospel of Jesus Christ is that the daily rituals, and sacrifices have been superseded or "fulfilled" and are no longer required, but the faith is still mandatory. We no longer have rituals of washing clothing and so on, but we do have prayer and scripture study, we don't worry about killing our lambs at the temple, but we have the sacrament and the concomitant sacrifice of a broken heart and a contrite spirit. (Of the two, I think ours is the harder hurdle to leap.)

Lehi

Edited November 18, 2015 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

What is wrong with trusting in God and our own efforts?

I agree to the extent that we need to recognize that God is not going to apply the Atonement to us if we don't serve Him and follow His commandments.

However, the gotta-be-perfect thing can arise when we think that we have any power to save ourselves. I don't see that you are saying we do, but there are people who work themselves into a frenzy about being "perfect" and, frankly neither they, nor I can do it.

Lehi

Edited November 18, 2015 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

t is easier for us to imagine a life badly lived, and in an end moment of realization, one might cry out to God in true remorse and repentance.  If I believed that person chose the bad life in some way, prior to being born, the last minute gesture might seem much emptier.

We don't believe that, either.

It's far more complex than that, and we do not have all the information we would like on the matter. I believe this out of Father's love for us. If we knew, for instance, that your point of view was correct, then that would give some of us an excuse to feel superior to those who "chose poorly".

This is my own view on how we ended up here, where were are, and when. It is not in any way an official or semi-official position on this question.

Father knew us and loved us before we were born. He knew our needs, our strengths and desires. He knew that I needed to be born in the mid XX to an active LDS family. He knew that Koramiba needed to go to an African family in the ii. He knew that in each case, we would make the best progress we could compared to other alternatives. He knew, perhaps that Koramiba was so humble and hard-working that he didn't need the physical comforts I would enjoy, and that he could grow up in poverty and still be able to accept the Gospel in the Spirit World once he heard it. He knew, perhaps, that I was lazy and proud. That without the Gospel in my earthly life, I would have no chance of accepting it ever. I don't know what He considered when He sent me to my where-when, nor for Koramiba and his.

Why Al Capone or Idi Amin ended up where they were, I do not know. I have faith that He sent them to their where-when because it was the best option for them. Each of us, whether LDS, other Christian, Moslem, atheist, Hindu, is a cherished son or daughter of God. He wants us to return to Him. He would never hurt us without its being for our good. (Sometimes this "good" may be simply to stop us from doing more evil and harming ourselves spiritually further.)

(I know you are not a Calvinist.) It just seems odd to me than anyone could believe that God created people for the sole purpose of watching them suffer endlessly in a fire of sulfur with no end to their torture. This view of God makes Him a monster. It is said that the Hussein boys in Iraq loved to watch people die in horrific ways,. and those ways had to get more and more depraved to satisfy their appetite for cruelty. This is how a Calvinist's god looks to me.

Lehi

Edited November 18, 2015 by LeSellers

[MrShorty]

Further, most Protestants confuse "works" with "works of the Law [of Moses]". Paul rants endlessly, and rightfully about relying on the Law of Moses and its works for salvation. But these are not the same as righteous "works" like baptism and other covenants, and performing "true religion and undefiled".

This sounds  like a concept I was recently introduced to -- the "New Perspective on Paul" movement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Perspective_on_Paul From what I can gather, their main thrust is to argue that when Paul was referring to "works" in a negative light, he was referring to specific elements of the Law of Moses, and not good works in general.

 

As with anything like this, it is not without controversy. Since we LDS do not feel any particular loyalty to the early Reformers, it doesn't bother us that much when someone challenges the conclusions of the early Reformation, but it is not hard to see how someone who is loyal to these men might be reluctant.

[The Folk Prophet]

However, the gotta-be-perfect thing can arise when we think that we have any power to save ourselves. I don't see that you are saying we do, but there are people who work themselves into a frenzy about being "perfect" and, frankly neither they, nor I can do it.

 

But we can certainly darn well try. :)

 

I look at it like this: God gave us everything, our physical bodies, our minds, etc. He then gave us agency to choose how we would use those things He gave us. It is then incumbent upon us to choose to use our bodies and minds to do all that we can to improve.

 

Part of that is going to be the literal you-reap-what-you-sow aspect of things. If you work out, your muscles grow. If you study, you learn. If you practice patience, you become more patient. All of this remains true regardless of whether we even accept Christ to any degree at all. We are still fully capable of improving ourselves by our choices and actions.

 

Adding Christ to the mix doesn't change this. It adds to it, but takes away nothing. We are still responsible for self-improvement. God won't magically make our muscles strong if we don't work out. God won't magically make us educated if we never bother to study. God won't magically make us patient if we never practice being calm when we feel impatient.

 

We will never go and do unless we exert the effort, of ourselves, to get off our butts and go and do. This principle is standing, and will stand forever. It is given over to us to act.

 

D&C 93:30-31

"All truth is independent in that sphere in which God has placed it, to act for itself, as all intelligence also; otherwise there is no existence. Behold, here is the agency of man, and here is the condemnation of man; because that which was from the beginning is plainly manifest unto them, and they receive not the light."

 

The reality that we cannot save ourselves does not diminish this truth. We are responsible to act to our own salvation or to our own condemnation because it is given to us to do so.

 

These concepts are so plainly taught in the LDS scriptures that it amazes me to see so many that seem to fight against them. (I'm not saying, btw, that I think you don't understand them. I'm just sharing general thoughts that happen to be a response to the dialogue at hand*.)

 

It's become rather trendy for LDS folk to apologize for works -- even to go so far as to say that the leaders of yesteryear were too focused on it and our current leaders are correcting their mistaken views. I see this as nothing more than political correctness rearing it's ugly head. It's not that hard to understand the importance of works AND the importance of the atonement. And, after all, it's right there in our very most basic belief structure:

 

Third Article of Faith:

 

We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel. (emphasis mine)

 

*edit: which I fully understand is quite the thread-jack.

Edited November 18, 2015 by The Folk Prophet

[LeSellers]

But we can certainly darn well try.

Okeh. With all that I've said, and all that others have posted, I believe it comes down to this:

God gave us commandments because He loves us. Obeying the commandments makes us into the kind of beings who can truly accept the Atonement.

We become charitable by giving a generous Fast Offering. We become humble by serving others. We become turned to our fathers by doing Temple work and Family History. We become godly (= god-like) by doing the things God would do were He here.

When we become the kind of person Christ is, then the Atonement can work its miracle on us. And we will all (even Hitler) become like Him. The difference is that he (I suspect) will have to be forced into it, and he will do it kicking an screaming the whole way. Those of us who have become like Him by following the commandments will be grateful for the opportunity to serve and worship Him. It is these people whom He can not only save, but exalt, only these people whom He can make like Him in every way, only these kinds of people who will be heirs with Him.

Lehi

[The Folk Prophet]

And we will all (even Hitler) become like Him. The difference is that he (I suspect) will have to be forced into it, and he will do it kicking an screaming the whole way. 

 

What the?

 

No. No one will be forced into anything. God will never take away our agency.

 

As to the rest of your post, I agree...but there's more to becoming like Christ than just our efforts. We give all we can, but we'll still fail. But by giving all we can we are filled with the Spirit, which, by Grace, changes us as well.

[LeSellers]

No one will be forced into anything. God will never take away our agency.

"Every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ." It's not just fancy words.

Even the Telestial Kingdom will be a place of Christ-like people. They will simply not be like Christ.

Lehi

Edited November 21, 2015 by LeSellers

[prisonchaplain]

Lehi, thank you for the last post responding to mine.  It helps me to know that I over-estimated what I thought I had gleaned about premortal existence.  Ironically, my answer to your inquiry about hell is similar.  We do not have a great deal of information on the rationale for Hell.  Clearly, it is a place of punishment.  What we do know is that it exists.  We know it is aj ust, and even good place.  Some LDS here have actually answered your question (though they were referring to the outer darkness).  The big idea is that Hell is the one place in the universe where God is not.  Those who have chosen to oppose God and reject his love would find any place that includes the presence of God a worse hell.  So, for them, hell is the best they can have.

 

Personally, I'm with C.S. Lewis.  I don't like the doctrine.  But that's not the question.  Is it true?  If it is, I must teach it. 

Edited November 21, 2015 by prisonchaplain

[MrShorty]

I can will to rely on God's love that is in me.  However, if I choose to rely on my own strength, that would be foolhardy--something like the soldier who tried to save the Ark from falling.

 

PC, I was reviewing our Sunday School lesson for this week, which contained this statement from Pres. David O. McKay that reminded me of this discussion. Commenting on Phillipians 2:12:

‘Work out your own salvation’ is an exhortation to demonstrate by activity, by thoughtful, obedient effort the reality of faith. But this must be done with a consciousness that absolute dependence upon self may produce pride and weakness that will bring failure. With ‘fear and trembling’ we should seek the strength and grace of God for inspiration to obtain the final victory” (in Conference Report, Apr. 1957, 7).