Sign in to follow this  
prisonchaplain

What will post-resurrection life be like?

Recommended Posts

Grace/faith vs. works.

 

The reality is that we are not too far apart on this issue either.  But Mormon and non-Mormon culture tends to get in the way of that agreement. 

 

The scripture in Ephesians is similar to a scripture in 2 Nephi (BoM).  The BoM scripture is similar to v. 8 with the additional phrase "after all we can do".

 

Mormons tend to misinterpret this to mean that we do as much as we can do to earn it and the atonement picks up the rest.  This is false.  In fact Pres. Dieter F. Uchdort (current counselor of the first presidency) recently gave an address where he emphasized "it is important to recognize that AFTER does not equal BECAUSE OF." 

 

I have given several lessons in local priesthood and Sunday School meetings and asked the question:

 

          Yes, or no.  Are we saved by grace? No additions or modifications.  Are we saved by grace?

 

The responses were interesting.

 

1st class: uhm.  after all we can do... (Nope sorry no modifications or additions. Thank you for playing.). Lots of humming and hawing.  Eventually the patriarch spoke up. YES.

 

2nd class: hmmm.  Yeeess??

 

3rd class.  YES. (wow, that was fast.  This class was very well versed in the scriptures and the gospel).

 

4th class.   uhm.... (no one answered in a reasonable time, so I answered for them.  Yes.).

 

It is important to use the right words to specifically state what is meant by this.

 

It is Christ's atonement alone that brings us salvation and exaltation.  Nothing we do EARNS our reward.  But we are "required" to do certain things such as make and keep covenants, obey commandments, have a mighty change of heart, etc.  Nevertheless, none of these things earns salvation or exaltation.

 

Here is a paraphrasing of a parable I made up to illustrate the point:

 

I've fallen and I can't get up.  :P I'm in a deep pit and I can't climb out.

I call for help.

The Lord drops a rope that is tied to Himself at the top.  He tells me to tie it around myself and start climbing.

I do as he says.

I get to the top and I see the Lord extending His hand to bring me up and out.

I'm saved.

 

At no time would any reasonable or sane person in this situation EVER claim that they got out on their own merits (looking at the fact that they climbed up the rope themselves).  No such person would ever credit the tying or the rope itself as the savior.  No one would ever give credit or praise to such things.

 

Were they required?  Yes.  We needed the rope.  Climbing was required.  But these are not the things that saved us.

 

The reasonable and sane person would only give credit for the save to one person -- the Lord.  And they'd feel a debt they could never repay.

 

The rope is the commandments and covenants we've made through the power of the atonement.  The tying is making such covenants and performing certain ordinances.  The climbing is the constant effort to learn, grow, improve, and enduring to the end.

 

All these "requirements" as important as they are, will not have the power to save us without the Lord first providing the rope and keeping the rope firm at the top through His matchless power.

 

 

That's where the difference is.  We believe if we yell for help in the pit the Lord lifts us up, instead of throwing a rope. Another analogy I have seen is we across a great chasm. We can't build a bridge long enough to cross the chasm. So, Christ is the bridge between the side we are on and eternal life. We simply believe the the bridge will hold and cross it (faith).

 

If I am understanding LDS doctrine as you have explained it, Christ would give you what you need to build the bridge across instead of being the bridge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

No, the bridge analogy is precisely what I was saying was false.  The difference is that the bridge is dependent on the supports which are nothing.  It says that the Lord is just there at the beginning only to supply us the tools, then it's up to us to do the rest.

 

The rope is anchored to the Lord throughout the entire process.  Every move we make forward is only possible because of the Lord.  If the Lord left at any time, we'd fall again.  It's the difference between Deism and an active God.

 

Your statement about the Lord lifting us out of the pit is what many do believe.  I have a hard time accepting it myself.  It just doesn't sit well with me on a number of levels.  But that little difference is a might smaller than the difference between all grace and all works as some claim.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have given several lessons in local priesthood and Sunday School meetings and asked the question:

 

          Yes, or no.  Are we saved by grace? No additions or modifications.  Are we saved by grace?

 

The responses were interesting.

 

1st class: uhm.  after all we can do... (Nope sorry no modifications or additions. Thank you for playing.). Lots of humming and hawing.  Eventually the patriarch spoke up. YES.

 

2nd class: hmmm.  Yeeess??

 

3rd class.  YES. (wow, that was fast.  This class was very well versed in the scriptures and the gospel).

 

4th class.   uhm.... (no one answered in a reasonable time, so I answered for them.  Yes.).

These exchanges reminded me of an anecdote related by Robert Millet (quoted in this blog entry: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/benjaminthescribe/2015/08/necessary-background-on-grace-faith-works-law-justification-for-the-coming-lds-gospel-doctrine-discussions/ ). Apparently, Brother Millet asked his father (who had grown up in the LDS Church in Louisiana) about the meaning of grace. His father's response was that "we don't believe in that!" because the Batpist's believe in that. I guess he did not want to believe anything the Baptists believed.

 

On another, Evangelical blog, I recall a discussion of the importance and maybe necessity of repentance. One pastor living in Logan, Ut responded with something along the lines of "be careful with this kind of teaching, because this sounds a lot like what the Mormons I live among teach and believe." I sometimes think this can be a difficult topic because we don't want to be caught accidentally believing something the other side believes.

 

From what I can see, there seems to be "continuum" of beliefs on topic of "faith vs. works". I am not aware of any "Christian-like" group that believes in a "works alone". Almost all Christians believe in the necessity of Christ's atonement for salvation, and that it is important for us to have faith in Him to some level.

 

Some believe in forms of "anti-nomianism" -- that a Christian's behavior is completely irrelevant. I usually see this as the "pray your sinner's prayer and resume your hedonistic lifestyle.

 

At the other end of the continuum are those who believe that repentance, obedience, and ordinances are necessary for salvation. I tend to put LDS, Catholics, and similar at these end. We believe that, in addition to faith in Christ -- repentance, obedience, and certain ordinances/sacraments are necessary for salvation.

 

In between, I see Christians with varying levels of the necessity of repentance and obedience. Those who, like PC says above, believe that there is no salvation without repentance (I define repentance as a change of behavior -- turning from disobedience to obedience), are closer to LDS (and, I presume, other) theologies that deny "faith alone". Others put varying levels of importance to repentance and obedience.

 

Note that, in this continuum, I don't make a lot of distinction between "repentance is a gift of God through the ministrations of the Holy Spirit" as if the believer doesn't really choose to repent himself and the "repentance is a choice I make". In either case, it is the question about how important repentance is that I am looking at.

Edited by MrShorty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Grace/faith vs. works.

The reality is that we are not too far apart on this issue either. But Mormon and non-Mormon culture tends to get in the way of that agreement.

The scripture in Ephesians is similar to a scripture in 2 Nephi (BoM). The BoM scripture is similar to v. 8 with the additional phrase "after all we can do".

Mormons tend to misinterpret this to mean that we do as much as we can do to earn it and the atonement picks up the rest. This is false. In fact Pres. Dieter F. Uchdort (current counselor of the first presidency) recently gave an address where he emphasized "it is important to recognize that AFTER does not equal BECAUSE OF."

I think we can read Nephi, without doing an injustice to the text, as saying "For we know that it is by grace that we are saved even after all we can do."

It seems that, even though we want to, and should want to, do all we can, we know that we cannot do it by or for ourselves. Christ must make up the difference, irrespective of how large that difference is. The point, I believe, is that we ought to make that difference as small as possible. Paul reminds us that we should not sin that grace may abound -- in other words, we ought to try to minimize the difference, and certainly not maximize it.

Further, the concept of repentance sorta, kinda, requires that we forsake our sins, even our favorite sins.

We should live godly lives. "Godly" means "god-like". That means, even though we will fail, we should be trying to be as sin-free as we can, because God is sin-free. And, while we don't do this, either, our attempts at godly living should be approaching that goal better and better as we progress through life.

It is a wonder to me when I hear, as I have countless times, things like, "If I were to kill you now, I'd still be saved. Nothing I can do will change that: I have accepted Jesus." Poppycock!

It also seems odd that, among Calvinists and others of the OSAS (once saved, always saved) tribe, I never hear this message from anyone but the saved. The damned don't say, "Well, it's true. I'm damned, and nothing I can do will change that." If it's true for one group, the saved, it's equally true for the damned, isn't it? Even if the damned believe in Christ, under OSAS, they cannot be saved. Has there not been even one damned human being who does believe in Christ? The odds are that there must be that one. And, if he does, would he not then know he is damned? It is also strange that Christ would send out missionaries to convert every creature when He already knows that there are few who are chosen for salvation. Since they are saved, and irresistibly so, why seek them out: they are saved.

Salvation is by grace, but it is not by faith alone, as Luther (sola sciptura {better, sola biblia}, sola fede) would have us believe. For faith is not sufficient. The Bible attests to this throughout its pages, even in the Old Testament. Faith is a necessary, but insufficient element. Along with faith, we must have hope and charity. Both of these are works (albeit and readily agreed to, not works of the Law -- which is what invariably meant when he ranted against "works").

Then, too, there are the ordinances of baptism (abundantly attested from Matthew through the epistles) and the reception of the Holy Ghost, equally evidenced in the Bible.

Peter says that "baptism [by water] doth now also save us." There is no escaping it. Baptism, according to the New Testament (and extra-biblical sources from Judaism), washes away our sins, through the blood of Christ.

The Bible is a marvelous witness that the Restoration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ is true: it foretells it, and corroborates the doctrines Joseph Smith received from God. While we cannot completely understand many of these doctrines without the modern scriptures, they are there: everything from baptism for the dead and eternal marriage to the unique vision of the importance of Priesthood and baptism to the pre-mortal existence and exaltation.

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Colleen,

 

To put it another way:  First, my previous post regarding the bridge analogy was referring to "your understanding of LDS doctrine".

 

For the first bridge analogy, I'd say it could be perceived as similar to what I said.

 

1) Big Chasm.  (ok so far)

 

2) We can't build a bridge far enough.  (ok so far)

3) Christ lays himself down as a bridge. (ok so far)

4) We believe that the bridge will work. (ok so far)

5) We have to cross it. (ok so far)

 

So, what is different?  Well, climbing up a rope seems a lot harder than crossing a bridge.  Is that necessarily important to the analogy?  Let's see if LDS theology would line up with these central ideas.

 

1) Lehi's dream actually uses the metaphor of a "awful gulf" to be the sin of man or our separation from God.  This is not entirely unrelated to the "great gulf" spoken of in Luke 16:26.

2) That's pretty much the same as a pit that is too deep to climb out of.

3) A bridge vs a rope.  One is horizontal, one is vertical.  At the risk of sounding challenging, I'll say that I see it more like a vertical movement than a horizontal one when we are being brought from our lowly state to live with God.  But apart from that, it is the same.

4) We believe in Christ as the means of obtaining salvation.

5) We must use the Atonement to obtain it.

 

It looks like the same analogy except for the dimensional aspect.  The main problem I have with "grace only" people is that they tend to think it is "so easy".  That is another reason that it is vertical rather than horizontal.  And to prevent myself from getting argumentative, I'll just leave it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I think we can read Nephi, without doing an injustice to the text, as saying "For we know that it is by grace that we are saved even after all we can do."

...

Peter says that "baptism [by water] doth now also save us." There is no escaping it. Baptism, according to the New Testament (and extra-biblical sources from Judaism), washes away our sins, through the blood of Christ.

 

I believe you just made a self-refuting statement.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Now that I've had the first good night's sleep in over a week, I need to issue an apology.

 

1) I did not mean to be arguing too much about "we're right and you're wrong".

 

My intent throughout this thread was really to point out that our beliefs are not all that far apart.  But for some reason these (what I consider) small differences are enough to essentially mount a figurative holy war.

 

2) I need to apologize for Lehi.  He's still under the impression that we're supposed to be arguing "we're right and you're wrong."

 

That is not the point of this particular board, nor this thread.  However, I'd ask that you trust me when I say that he is actually not being belligerent.  He just feels strongly about all his positions.  For him all these things he says are as clear as if you want to make ice, you've got to freeze water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe you just made a self-refuting statement.

How so?

 

Baptism is the ordinance. Christ's blood is the means by which the ordinance is effectual.

 

By definition, ordinances are symbolic. But they are critical: without baptism, the blood of Christ will not work; that's the way He set up His kingdom. But without the blood of Christ, baptism is meaningless.

 

Grace only applies when we want it. God will force no man to heaven (Calvin notwithstanding). We indicate that we want His grace to apply to us when we obey Him, and one of His commandments is to be baptized.

 

If I made two inconsistent statements, then I am in good company, because God Himself, through His prophets, has said the same thing. Whether we look at Peter and Paul or Nephi and Joseph, the message is the same.

 

Lehi

Edited by LeSellers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I need to apologize for Lehi.  He's still under the impression that we're supposed to be arguing "we're right and you're wrong."

 

That is not the point of this particular board, nor this thread.  However, I'd ask that you trust me when I say that he is actually not being belligerent.  He just feels strongly about all his positions.  For him all these things he says are as clear as if you want to make ice, you've got to freeze water.

Well, not quite.

 

The point is why we are right. Or, at least, why we are "righter" than those who do not accept the Restoration.

 

I don't believe that there are too many people, especially people here, who are "wrong". Even Muslims have some part of the truth (and there are people, even the Church, who believe that they have all the truth {in other words, "rightness"} that God wanted to give them, but that it was He was the One who gave it to them). There are righteous atheists, whose major shortcoming is their rejection of God, including Christ. They love their neighbors and don't rape people. There are people who are not so right who have, at one point known the truth.

 

But, if I had my way (you may be sure I would not force it even had I the power to do so), everyone would be converted to the Fullness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. In order for that to happen, people need to know what it is we actually believe and know. There is a great deal of misinformation (some innocent, some nefarious) regarding The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and her doctrine. My goal is to change that and to do so, it seems useful to contrast our beliefs with those of others.

 

Lehi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

There is nothing wrong with your intent (as stated above).  It is  your method.  You're using a Bible bashing tactic to make your point.  We're aware of the Bible.  So are they.  You seem to think every statement and every word has only one meaning.  But as humans are wont to do, we will all interpret to suit our own needs.  And as long as we speak human tongues, it will be so.

 

All you're accomplishing with these past few posts is getting a couple of very nice and well meaning people to roll their eyes.

 

As far as your statement on baptism.  You've made a doctrinal error.  By the water we are justified; by the Spirit we are sanctified...

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It looks like the same analogy except for the dimensional aspect.  The main problem I have with "grace only" people is that they tend to think it is "so easy".  That is another reason that it is vertical rather than horizontal.  And to prevent myself from getting argumentative, I'll just leave it at that.

 

For me it wasn't easy at all. I am a control freak with trust issues. I get scared of failure when I am not the one making things happen. Group projects are hell for me because I don't like to depend on anyone. Learning to trust God is something I do on a daily basis.  Dying to self and trusting God was/is the hardest ting I have ever done/am doing.  I have trusted Him for my salvation and I am working on trusting His will for my life everyday.

 

BTW, I do like your analogy. It does work better than the bridge, even if we differ on the details of how we get up.

Edited by Irishcolleen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I like what Brad Wilcox says: "Jesus doesn't make up the difference, He makes all the difference." The price is paid. Our works show our devotion to Him and willingness to accept His atonement and follow Him. 

 

Bro. Wilcox compares it to piano lessons. (Maybe it resonates with me because I'm a piano teacher.) Your mom pays for your lessons. You can practice and improve and become a better piano player. You can work toward your potential, and the reward is being an accomplished pianist. Or you can not practice, and make little to no progress in your playing. Either way, Mom has paid for the piano lessons. What you get out of them is up to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a "suppose":  If you had never heard of our pre-earth beliefs or our deification beliefs, and (as I asked about previously) we focus on just the first two points of the OP, I believe, much of what we believe could be compatible with similar beliefs by other faiths.

 

Example:

"We will have glorified bodies."

 

This is pretty much what we believe.  We believe in a resurrection.  We will have our bodies and spirits re-united.  I will be in an exalted and perfect form.  Sounds like "glorified bodies" to me.  I had asked for more details on your side.  But it sounded like your side is "it has not been revealed to us".  So, my last question was:

 

If you don't know what the "glorified bodies" will be like, is it too far a stretch to believe that the LDS beliefs on that matter are in reality compatible with what you already believe?

 

The sticking point is whether we can become capital-G Gods.  Whether the distinction between "glorified bodies" and "Gods" is nanometer-thin or an infinite chasm, it is a distinction which I doubt either LDS or traditional Christian would attempt to reconcile.

 

I'd ask a similar question of point #2.

 

And again, the distinction between "ruling and reigning with Christ" and becoming God-rulers, regardless of how large or small that is, is a distinction that neither side would attempt to reconcile...at least I wouldn't think so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A gap certainly exists in that area, PC, but I would suggest it is not nearly as vast as it might seem. The fact is that we Latter-day Saints really have not been given a full understanding of exaltation, beyond that it means that we are like our Father, inherit all that he has, and live in glory and joy beyond our reckoning -- all of which are explicitly Biblical doctrines. Whether we are guilty of somewhat overinterpreting these promises or the rest of larger Christianity is guilty of vastly underinterpreting them (which, unsurprisingly, is my belief), the fact is that we all believe, or should believe, in the clear Biblical doctrines.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole "grace vs. works or faith/works" discussion can be so muddy.  It may help we framed the discussion around the issue of gaining admission into the Celestial Kingdom.  Can that be done by faith in Christ alone, with works serving as proof of the salvation already won by Christ?  I ask this because, if I understand right, faith in Christ is not a prerequisite of entry into the lower kingdoms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It may help we framed the discussion around the issue of gaining admission into the Celestial Kingdom.  Can that be done by faith in Christ alone, with works serving as proof of the salvation already won by Christ?  I ask this because, if I understand right, faith in Christ is not a prerequisite of entry into the lower kingdoms.
I have noted this here before, but, in this regard, I find elements of the description from D&C 76 interesting. In brief, I see in verses 79 and 74 a suggestion that a testimony Christ is essential for entry into the terrestrial kingdom. Part of the difference between terrestrial and celestial is in terms of "valiance." I'm not exactly sure how to rigorously define "valiant", but I suspect that valiance is at least somewhat measuring our "works" (repentance and obedience).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe I caught my own error--in par thanks to Mr.Shorty.  The belief in Christ that is required for entry into the lower kingdoms is one that can be gained in the afterlife (spirit prison?).  Of course we traditionalists do not believe there will be opportunities for repentance after death, so I tend to keep tripping over this distinction.

 

Still, there are a fair number of LDS who would say that anything less than the Celestial Kingdom would be failure.  One recent post even called such a kind of damnation.  So, if we compare the traditional heaven to the Celestial Kingdom we might at least better understand each other, imho.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Still, there are a fair number of LDS who would say that anything less than the Celestial Kingdom would be failure.  One recent post even called such a kind of damnation.  So, if we compare the traditional heaven to the Celestial Kingdom we might at least better understand each other, imho.

 

Interesting thing is that this is part of what causes confusion when trying to "translate" Mormonese into non-LDS theology.  The Telestial and Terrestrial can be described as what others call heaven or hell.  Even the Telestial Kingdom is a state of glory that is salvation from hell.

 

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.

 

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.

 

So, the fact is that in LDS beliefs, you aren't wrong when you think of it in those terms.   The issue is that while even the Telestial may seem like a great place compared to our mortal existence, it is a quantum leap less than the Terrestrial.  And that is a quantum leap less than the Celestial.

 

From our current state, lower kingdoms may seem like a reward.  But since we will have a full recollection of our previous life being in the constant presence of the Father, it will seem like hell to us.

 

Consider coming from a desert wasteland, you'd welcome moving into a hovel in the middle of a forest.  But if you've come from a mansion in the rich end of Beverly Hills and you're reduced to a hovel in the forest (unless you're a tree hugger) you would miss what you had once had -- even if you're thankful to be out of the desert wasteland.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I believe that salvation is by the grace of Christ, through faith alone, and that we can attain the equivalent of the Celestial Kingdom (traditional heaven is permeated by the presence of the Father).  That kind of faith, though, will, must needs, has to, etc produce good fruit.  James was right to say faith without works is dead.  The works, though, must be Holy Spirit-directed and empowered.  Thus, they are the product of salvation.  This is why some (many?) who claim Jesus will be told to depart from Him, on the day of judgment.  Some of those who are rejected will have been clergy (church leaders).

 

I'm not sure where that puts me on the grace/works scale.  A serial killer can make heaven.  However, s/he'd have to repent, be filled with God's Spirit, and submitted to His will.  One important factor that we Evangelicals fail to communicate with LDS--we do realize that God cannot be played.  He won't be fooled by fake, or half-hearted confessions of faith.  A murderer who says, "Hey God, if you're real, put me in that book...alrighty..." and then who goes on living for himself (or the devil, if you will) may end up suffering more than if he hadn't bothered with the sarcastic plea. 

Edited by prisonchaplain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

That kind of faith, though, will, must needs, has to, etc produce good fruit.  James was right to say faith without works is dead.  The works, though, must be Holy Spirit-directed and empowered.  

 

This makes you sound dangerously LDS.  Are you sure you're AoG? :)

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'd be surprised at how often AoG (and other Evangelical) ministers are exhorting the congregations that we do not have to try so hard, years after our conversion, to prove that salvation is by grace.  It actually is okay--even Christ-pleasing--to engage in good works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The belief in Christ that is required for entry into the lower kingdoms is one that can be gained in the afterlife (spirit prison?).
True, though I am not sure exactly how God will judge every case. D&C 137:7-8 explains that those who would have accepted and embraced Christ's gospel in this life but did not because they did not have an opportunity will still inherit the Celestial Kingdom. My impression is that, when section 76 talks about those who did not receive a testimony of Christ in this life, but receive it in the next life will inherit Terrestrial glory, it assumes a genuine unwillingness on the part of the individual in this life to receive that faith. Of course, this is the kind of thing that I think only God Himself can judge fairly and accurately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That kind of faith, though, will, must needs, has to, etc produce good fruit.  James was right to say faith without works is dead.  The works, though, must be Holy Spirit-directed and empowered.  Thus, they are the product of salvation.

As one who is not invested in the principle of "by faith alone", I often think this part of the discussion is similar to the "correlation vs. causation" discussion that shows up in so many other areas. I can see where, to a "faith alone" Christian, it might be doctrinally important to view "faith" as the "cause" of "good works". For me, it is enough to see that they are necessarily correlated, but I don't need to designate one as the "cause" and the other as the "effect". In fact, I tend to think of them working together in a "feedback loop" where having faith causes an increase in good works and good works cause an increase in faith, and it is not important to decide which one was the "first cause" of the loop.

 

That said though, it also seems like straining at gnats, too. Some have said that Mormonism is more concerned with "orthopraxy" (correct practice) than "orthodoxy" (correct belief). I would suspect that, in the day to day practices of a believer, it is likely not really important which is the "cause" and which is the "effect". The day to day practices are the same whether faith causes good works or good works are correlated with faith.

 

 

 

One important factor that we Evangelicals fail to communicate with LDS--we do realize that God cannot be played.  He won't be fooled by fake, or half-hearted confessions of faith.

From what I have seen from within Mormonism looking out, I think this kind of "half-hearted confession of faith" is the side of this that Mormonism is most uncomfortable with -- the anti-nomian side of the faith alone doctrine. When this is not clear, then misunderstandings can happen.

 

Along the same lines, I would draw the "opposite" parallel (if that even makes sense) that I don't believe that God will be gamed or fooled by "fake works" (or what Paul called "dead works"). In the same way that "faith without works is dead", works without faith is also dead. Those who are trying to game the system by "checking off all of the checkboxes on the list(s)" and not truly developing and growing a relationship with God and Christ, is not living up to his/her full potential, either. Perhaps that is just another way of saying that the two need to go together.

Edited by MrShorty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For what it's worth: I'm not sure it's correct to state that one would "have to" gain "faith" in Christ to gain the Telestial kingdom. What is correct, however, is that every knee shall bow, and every tongue confess. But that, as near as I can figure, remains true of even those case into outer darkness. And it will not be by force (depending on how one is defining force, I suppose -- as in if I say, "I was forced to admit"...it's doesn't really mean "forced"...but I digress...), but it will simply be, ultimately, undeniable.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this