Saved from our sin instead of in our sin


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, romans8 said:

In Alma 11:37 and Helaman 5:10–11, what is the difference between being saved "in" our sin 
versus being saved "from" our sin if a person repents while he exists in a sinful condition?

It is my understanding that the sins we commit in this mortal existence have been mitigated and that Christ has suffered – even unto death.  Therefore, these sins are forgiven.  In English we use the term “repentance” that is a bit of a term of paradox because that term implies a payment.  Another possibility is a turning away from – which would imply that we have turned and no longer see or wish to sin.  Scripture also indicates that we are born again and become a new creature with a desire to be a divine Saint of G-d.  So, for me, when we repent (turn away from sin) we no longer identify with our sins and we are saved from sin through the Atonement of Christ and that we are no longer connected to sinning.

Obviously, if we have learned to love our sin and desire to keep them – we cannot be saved even though Christ suffered for them – we remain with a propensity to sin and repentance becomes lost in our passions and desires.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, romans8 said:

In Alma 11:37 and Helaman 5:10–11, what is the difference between being saved "in" our sin 
versus being saved "from" our sin if a person repents while he exists in a sinful condition?

There is no such thing as repenting but remaining in one’s sins.  The point of these scriptures is that salvation without repentance is impossible; because salvation by definition pulls us away from our prior, sinful state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Traveler said:

In English we use the term “repentance” that is a bit of a term of paradox because that term implies a payment. 

If one is going to use semantics in this way, it strikes me that it's easy enough to de-paradox the issue by looking at it thusly: Christ paid for our sins. But that doesn't mean there's no price for us to pay for repentance. The price given is a broken heart and a contrite spirit. We don't pay the full price of sin, but we must all pay the price Christ set for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, romans8 said:

In Alma 11:37 and Helaman 5:10–11, what is the difference between being saved "in" our sin 
versus being saved "from" our sin if a person repents while he exists in a sinful condition?

The light shines in darkness, and so someone in darkness can still see it, choose to turn to it and choose to follow it. They are first invited to be saved while in yet their sinful condition (when else could such an invitation be extended?), and then saved from their sinful condition as they repent and walk in the light.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some in the Christian community believe that Christ is offering us salvation, free for the taking, and all we have to do is "accept" it and we are saved. An event. Being saved notwithstanding our sins or in other words in our sins.

We believe that salvation, in it's fullest sense, means something more. Salvation or exaltation means becoming like our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ, taking on Their character and attributes. But this can only be done while also preserving our agency. This is where the role of works come in. Through our individual effort and the enabling power of the atonement of Jesus Christ we can become a new creature in Christ, ultimately thinking the way he does, feeling the things he feels and acquiring the Christlike attributes he so exemplified during his mortal ministry. In this way we truly become free from sin, not simply because we are forgiven of them, but because eventually we will no longer commit them.

Edited by laronius
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 2/18/2023 at 10:40 AM, Traveler said:

In English we use the term “repentance” that is a bit of a term of paradox because that term implies a payment.

The original meaning of repent in Middle English came from the French word meaning "To feel regret to the point of seeking forgiveness."  This meaning was so close that regret and repent were considered synonymous until Modern English.  That is why in the KJV still uses the older meaning when it says "It repented the Lord that he had made man."

The French, in turn, came from the Latin word which implies: redact, return, redeem, recover.

Quote

Another possibility is a turning away from – which would imply that we have turned and no longer see or wish to sin. 

Exactly.

There is an interesting "poke" at the Pharisees in Luke 5:32.  Speaking to the Pharisees, the Savior says that the "righteous" (i.e. the Pharisees) are not part of Christ's ministry because they believe themselves to be righteous due to their good deeds and observance of the Law.  But he's come to save the sinners.

He is telling them that because they already consider themselves righteous, they are not penitent.  Therefore, Christ's Atonement will not help them.  But because these "sinners" are repentant, the Atonement will have power over them, and they can be saved.

These sinners felt regret for their sins.  Their sin troubled them to the point of repentance.

Quote

And now, my son, I desire that ye should let these things trouble you no more, and only let your sins trouble you, with that trouble which shall bring you down unto repentance.

If our sins don't trouble us at all, we are not penitent.  We feel no need to call upon the power of the Atonement.  We're being too Prideful.

If our sins trouble us so badly that we don't feel worthy of the Atonement, that's the devil trying to dissuade us from repenting. 

The happy medium is that we will feel just enough regret that we're motivated to seek the power of the Atonement.  Then we need to stay on the path.  If we keep falling off the wagon, then we need to get right back on.  And we continue to endure to the end.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/18/2023 at 8:46 AM, romans8 said:

In Alma 11:37 and Helaman 5:10–11, what is the difference between being saved "in" our sin 
versus being saved "from" our sin if a person repents while he exists in a sinful condition?

What do you make of Matt 1:21?

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/18/2023 at 9:46 AM, romans8 said:

In Alma 11:37 and Helaman 5:10–11, what is the difference between being saved "in" our sin 
versus being saved "from" our sin if a person repents while he exists in a sinful condition?

Very simple. Those who come unto Christ are first commanded to exercise living faith in him, and then to sincerely repent of their sins before they can expect to receive God’s forgiveness for sin. After this first blessed experience with obtaining divine pardon, the believer is further commanded to continue to maintain the same broken hearted and contrite repentant attitude for the rest of his life, while also diligently striving to grow in the grace and knowledge of God. By enduring to the end in this fashion, the cleansed believer will ultimately be empowered to apprehend that for which he is also apprehended of Christ Jesus (I.e. obtaining the redemptive power to overcome the world). The Book of Mormon testifies that as long as believers continue to manifest a sincere attitude of daily repentance, and a willingness to be spiritually refined, by earnestly striving to comply with the will of God, he enters into a state in which he retains a remission of his sins on an ongoing basis.

Edited by Jersey Boy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2023 at 5:35 PM, Carborendum said:

But because these "sinners" are repentant, the Atonement will have power over them, and they can be saved.

These sinners felt regret for their sins.  Their sin troubled them to the point of repentance.

Where will I go after I die? has a definition for the Telestial kingdom. 

Those who continue in their sins and do not repent will receive a place in the telestial kingdom.

Were they saved even though they did not repent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, romans8 said:

Were they saved even though they did not repent?

This is a fair question that many Saints have posed.  And there doesn't seem to be a consensus.

There are two common lines or reasoning on the topic.  I'll share one of them.  There seems to be a disagreement on whether the Telestial and/or Terrestrial Kingdoms are a form of salvation or a form of damnation. I tend to think it is both. 

  • You're saved from hell. 
  • But you don't get to live with God. 
  • So, if you don't live with God, but you don't stay in hell, is that salvation?  Or is that damnation? 
  • If you were LDS and believed these things, how would you see it?

************

6 hours ago, romans8 said:

I view being saved from our sin as synonymous with being saved in our sin (Romans 5:8-10).

I don't see the phrase "saved in our sins" anywhere in that passage.

We all sin all the time. We're all sinners.  And even when we try to change, we still have sins which stain our souls. If you want to use that as a definition of "in our sins" then we believe the same thing.  By that definition, we are saved "in" our sins.

But the gospel of Jesus Christ requires repentance.  The word is used in various form about 60 or 70 times in the New Testament alone.  In each case, it means to feel remorse and turn away from sin.  Repentance at least requires effort, even if you think you're not making progress, you keep trying.  You're on the wagon.  You may fall off, but you get back on.

The Book of Mormon meaning of "in our sins" means that we refuse to feel any remorse or make any effort to turn away from the sin.  If we are still looking toward sin, we cannot be looking toward the Savior.  They are in opposite directions.  One cannot say that they embrace sin and love the Lord.  That is a lie.

Quote

Salvation does not come from believing we don't need to change.  It comes from knowing that, through the Atonement of Christ, we CAN change.  And by His grace, we WILL change.

Which direction does your tent face?

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, romans8 said:

Where will I go after I die? has a definition for the Telestial kingdom. 

Those who continue in their sins and do not repent will receive a place in the telestial kingdom.

Were they saved even though they did not repent?

First of all, our definition of "saved" can, based on it's context, either imply a fullness of salvation, which we also call exaltation, or happen in part. This verse speaks of those who do not inherit a fullness of salvation but are nonetheless saved:

D&C 132:17 For these angels did not abide my law; therefore, they cannot be enlarged, but remain separately and singly, without exaltation, in their saved condition, to all eternity; and from henceforth are not gods, but are angels of God forever and ever.

Being saved, either in full or in part, depends upon our willingness to abide by God's law. The terrestrial kingdom, for example, will consist of those decent people who lived overall good lives, never commiting the most serious sins and yet not fully complying with God's law either. They will be saved but not to the fullest extent.

But to answer your specific question, salvation means to be freed from death and hell and the grasp of Satan. Even the wicked will be saved to this extent, eventually, but will still be judged on their ability, or willingness, to obey God's law. All, except a wretched few, will eventually be saved, to one degree or another, and inherit a kingdom of glory ranging in likeness of the dimmest star to the blaze of the noonday sun. So to the degree a person repents of their sins and is willing to obey God's law to that extent they are saved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/4/2023 at 7:57 AM, romans8 said:

Where will I go after I die? has a definition for the Telestial kingdom. 

Those who continue in their sins and do not repent will receive a place in the telestial kingdom.

Were they saved even though they did not repent?

@Carborendum’s answer here is magnificent, but I will just tack on the following: 

—Depending on the rhetorical/pedagogical needs of the moment, LDS speakers/texts may take either an “anything that isn’t perdition is a form of salvation” or “anything that isn’t exaltation is a form of damnation” approach.  Both are, in some sense, correct; but the first approach is common when the speaker wants to build appreciation for Christ’s mercy whereas the second is common when the speaker is focusing on the necessity of action/ orthopraxy.

—I may be an idiosyncrasy in the Church here, but I don’t think people get into the Telestial Kingdom without ever repenting.  We are told that, at the last day, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ; and one presumes that that submission and confession will be genuine (else, what’s the point of it?).  I am inclined to believe that the thousand years of “hell” for the telestial is not so much punishment for the sake of punishment, but a chance for the soul to experience existence without God’s light so that  the soul finally stops fighting Him and understands the need to be reconciled to Him (including, His holiness and His law).

Besides, the notion that people in the Telestial Kingdom are running around and continuing to do the things that got them there (lying, stealing, fornicating, exploiting, etc), throughout all eternity (or at least, trying to do so but stymied by a God who at the last has deprived them of their ability to act); seems . . . incongruous to me.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

—I may be an idiosyncrasy in the Church here, but I don’t think people get into the Telestial Kingdom without ever repenting.  We are told that, at the last day, every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is the Christ; and one presumes that that submission and confession will be genuine (else, what’s the point of it?).  I am inclined to believe that the thousand years of “hell” for the telestial is not so much punishment for the sake of punishment, but a chance for the soul to experience existence without God’s light so that  the soul finally stops fighting Him and understands the need to be reconciled to Him (including, His holiness and His law).

Besides, the notion that people in the Telestial Kingdom are running around and continuing to do the things that got them there (lying, stealing, fornicating, exploiting, etc), throughout all eternity (or at least, trying to do so but stymied by a God who at the last has deprived them of their ability to act); seems . . . incongruous to me.  

If you are an idiosyncrasy... you are not the only one.  I am also of the thought the accepting Christ is the only way out of Hell... He is the WAY after all.

We are given a promise that with repentance God will remember our sin no more.  However there is no promise or path given for God to remember the Good/Works that we never did.  And Judgement is in two parts... Did we accept Christ and then by our Works.

I think the problem many encounter if they (The Hell/Telestial group) are not evil then they must be good... and that is a false binary.  If this holds then the dividing points of the three degrees of glory that make up the Kingdom Heaven is our willingness to do Good.  The Telestial will not (They will not do evil either) Terrestrial will do good until it gets hard for them and the Celestial will do Good even when it is hard and carries a personal cost.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I may be an idiosyncrasy in the Church here, but I don’t think people get into the Telestial Kingdom without ever repenting.

The scriptures are crystal clear on this point: No unclean thing can enter the kingdom of heaven. None. As in, zero. If the telestial kingdom is a kingdom of glory—which it is—then it is a part of the kingdom of heaven, into which no unclean thing can enter. And there exists exactly and only one Way to be clean, whose mercy is available only to the repentant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Vort said:

The scriptures are crystal clear on this point: No unclean thing can enter the kingdom of heaven. None. As in, zero. If the telestial kingdom is a kingdom of glory—which it is—then it is a part of the kingdom of heaven, into which no unclean thing can enter. And there exists exactly and only one Way to be clean, whose mercy is available only to the repentant.

Hmm. This thinking isn't connecting with me.

Some basic scriptural research I did thinking upon it follows a bit down. A few things strike me as true. When the scriptures speak of "the kingdom of heaven" they are speaking of God's presence. No unclean thing can be in God's presence (the kingdom of God). God's presence will not be part of the terrestrial and telestial experience.

Note: I'm not saying or arguing that repentance will not be required for the telestial kingdom. I think that's plain. I believe the when, why, and where of repentance matters to that end. It's just the idea that the telestial is "the kingdom of heaven" didn't register with me as accurate. (Though I accept it could be semantically argued to be that -- I just don't think that's what it's meaning in typical usage. I mean technically all known reality is God's kingdom.)

I dunno. I'm open to your case being made if you wanted to dig in deeper. But this was my thought in response to your post.

Here are some of the scriptures I read thinking on it. I did some bolding correlated to the above thoughts, but honestly a complete reading makes a stronger case. The wicked are cut off from God. They cannot enter His kingdom. These two ideas are equivalent. 

___________________________________________

1 Nephi 10:21 Wherefore, if ye have sought to do wickedly in the days of your probation, then ye are found unclean before the judgment-seat of God; and no unclean thing can dwell with God; wherefore, ye must be cast off forever.

2 Nephi 2:8 Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.

1 Nephi 15:34 But behold, I say unto you, the kingdom of God is not filthy, and there cannot any unclean thing enter into the kingdom of God; wherefore there must needs be a place of filthiness prepared for that which is filthy.

Alma 7:21 And he doth not dwell in unholy temples; neither can filthiness or anything which is unclean be received into the kingdom of God; therefore I say unto you the time shall come, yea, and it shall be at the last day, that he who is filthy shall remain in his filthiness.

Alma 11:37 And I say unto you again that he cannot save them in their sins; for I cannot deny his word, and he hath said that no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of heaven; therefore, how can ye be saved, except ye inherit the kingdom of heaven? Therefore, ye cannot be saved in your sins.

Alma 40:26 But behold, an awful death cometh upon the wicked; for they die as to things pertaining to things of righteousness; for they are unclean, and no unclean thing can inherit the kingdom of God; but they are cast out, and consigned to partake of the fruits of their labors or their works, which have been evil; and they drink the dregs of a bitter cup.

Helaman 8:25 But behold, ye have rejected the truth, and rebelled against your holy God; and even at this time, instead of laying up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where nothing doth corrupt, and where nothing can come which is unclean, ye are heaping up for yourselves wrath against the day of judgment.

3 Nephi 27:19 And no unclean thing can enter into his kingdom; therefore nothing entereth into his rest save it be those who have washed their garments in my blood, because of their faith, and the repentance of all their sins, and their faithfulness unto the end.

2 Nephi 2:8 Wherefore, how great the importance to make these things known unto the inhabitants of the earth, that they may know that there is no flesh that can dwell in the presence of God, save it be through the merits, and mercy, and grace of the Holy Messiah, who layeth down his life according to the flesh, and taketh it again by the power of the Spirit, that he may bring to pass the resurrection of the dead, being the first that should rise.

Mosiah 2:41 And moreover, I would desire that ye should consider on the blessed and happy state of those that keep the commandments of God. For behold, they are blessed in all things, both temporal and spiritual; and if they hold out faithful to the end they are received into heaven, that thereby they may dwell with God in a state of never-ending happiness. O remember, remember that these things are true; for the Lord God hath spoken it.

Mormon 9:4–5 Behold, I say unto you that ye would be more miserable to dwell with a holy and just God, under a consciousness of your filthiness before him, than ye would to dwell with the damned souls in hell. For behold, when ye shall be brought to see your nakedness before God, and also the glory of God, and the holiness of Jesus Christ, it will kindle a flame of unquenchable fire upon you.

And, of course, of the celestial:

D&C 76:52 That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;

D&C 76:62 These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.

And of the terrestrial:

D&C 76:77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.

__________________________________________________

I think there's more to find. This was a cursory study of the matter.

Moreover, it strikes me, logically, that warning people that they need to repent or they cannot enter the kingdom of God/Heaven loses all meaning if, in the end, everyone is going to repent to be in the kingdom of God anyhow. Was all the preaching in the scriptures above meant only for the rare Sons of Perdition qualified individuals?

I dunno. Like I said...I'm open to you expounding on your thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Hmm. This thinking isn't connecting with me.

Some basic scriptural research I did thinking upon it follows a bit down. A few things strike me as true. When the scriptures speak of "the kingdom of heaven" they are speaking of God's presence. No unclean thing can be in God's presence (the kingdom of God). God's presence will not be part of the terrestrial and telestial experience.

But it will. Note D&C 76:71-90; for your specific point, see especially #2 and #6 of my notes.

And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the Father, even as that of the moon differs from the sun in the firmament.

Behold, these are they who died without law; and also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh; who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it1. These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men. These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness. These are they who receive of the presence of the Son2, but not of the fulness of the Father. Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun. These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God. And now this is the end of the vision which we saw of the terrestrial, that the Lord commanded us to write while we were yet in the Spirit.

And again, we saw the glory of the telestial, which glory is that of the lesser, even as the glory of the stars differs from that of the glory of the moon in the firmament.

These are they who received not3 the gospel of Christ, neither the testimony of Jesus. These are they who deny not the Holy Spirit. These are they who are thrust down to hell. These are they who shall not be redeemed from the devil until the last resurrection4, until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have finished his work5. These are they who receive not of his fulness in the eternal world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestrial6; and the terrestrial through the ministration of the celestial. And also the telestial receive it of the administering of angels who are appointed to minister for them, or who are appointed to be ministering spirits for them; for they shall be heirs of salvation7. And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the telestial, which surpasses all understanding8; and no man knows it except him to whom God has revealed it.

[1] The terrestrial did or will receive the testimony of Jesus, eventually.

[2] God dwells with the terrestrial, namely, the Son.

[3] Note the past tense. The telestial "received not" the gospel of Christ in the flesh, as is the case with the terrestrial.

[4] They are redeemed (bought back by the blood of Christ) at the last resurrection.

[5] They are redeemed when the Lord has finished his work. Which work? The work of redemption. As the celestial are the firstfruits, the telestrial are the lastfruits.

[6] God dwells with the telestial, namely, the Holy Spirit.

[7] The telestial are explicitly named as heirs of salvation. They are saved. Saved from what? From their sins, of course. And as Alma clearly taught, people are saved from their sins, not in their sins.

[8] The telestial world is without doubt a kingdom of glory, a glory so vast that it surpasses understanding and is known only to him to whom God has revealed it.

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Note: I'm not saying or arguing that repentance will not be required for the telestial kingdom. I think that's plain. I believe the when, why, and where of repentance matters to that end. It's just the idea that the telestial is "the kingdom of heaven" didn't register with me as accurate. (Though I accept it could be semantically argued to be that -- I just don't think that's what it's meaning in typical usage. I mean technically all known reality is God's kingdom.)

I agree about it being semantic, but in my mind, it's a very important point, not merely a matter of word choice. God will save all who wish to be saved. Every one. He will not give eternal life to all, but only to those who want it and who have prepared themselves for the "far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory" that exaltation grants. But saving them from their sins? Absolutely. That will be granted to every last son and daughter of God, except for those who explicitly reject it.

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I dunno. I'm open to your case being made if you wanted to dig in deeper. But this was my thought in response to your post.

Here are some of the scriptures I read thinking on it. I did some bolding correlated to the above thoughts, but honestly a complete reading makes a stronger case. The wicked are cut off from God. They cannot enter His kingdom. These two ideas are equivalent.

Agreed. But once they repent, they are no longer wicked. And repentance will come, if not in this life then a thousand years hence.

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

And of the terrestrial:

D&C 76:77 These are they who receive of the presence of the Son, but not of the fulness of the Father.

__________________________________________________

I think there's more to find. This was a cursory study of the matter.

I used the same verse above, but I emphasized the first part. I agree they will lack the fulness of the Father, but they will have access to the Divine. They will worship God, the Son, face to face.

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Moreover, it strikes me, logically, that warning people that they need to repent or they cannot enter the kingdom of God/Heaven loses all meaning if, in the end, everyone is going to repent to be in the kingdom of God anyhow. Was all the preaching in the scriptures above meant only for the rare Sons of Perdition qualified individuals?

I perceive that the kingdom of God, aka the Restored Church of Christ, offers exaltation to all through Christ's atonement. I don't see that the kingdom of God preaches pretty much anything at all about what you need to do to become terrestrial or telestial. So when the scriptures speak of salvation, in general I take that to be synonymous with eternal life (exaltation), because that's what the kingdom of God teaches, and that's ALL the kingdom of God teaches. But when we discuss the final state of the souls of men, it is important to emphasize that all, even the dimmest star in the telestial constellation, is saved through the grace and power of the atonement of Jesus Christ. They are not exalted, but in the most basic meaning of the word, they are certainly saved from their sins through Christ's atonement.

(Which I personally believe requires baptism of water and of the Spirit. FWIW.)

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I dunno. Like I said...I'm open to you expounding on your thought.

For whatever it's worth to you, I have tried to lay out my case above. Hope it was at least an interesting read, if nothing else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

But it will. Note D&C 76:71-90; for your specific point, see especially #2 and #6 of my notes.

And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the Father, even as that of the moon differs from the sun in the firmament.

Behold, these are they who died without law; and also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh; who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it1. These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men. These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness. These are they who receive of the presence of the Son2, but not of the fulness of the Father. Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun. These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God. And now this is the end of the vision which we saw of the terrestrial, that the Lord commanded us to write while we were yet in the Spirit.

And again, we saw the glory of the telestial, which glory is that of the lesser, even as the glory of the stars differs from that of the glory of the moon in the firmament.

These are they who received not3 the gospel of Christ, neither the testimony of Jesus. These are they who deny not the Holy Spirit. These are they who are thrust down to hell. These are they who shall not be redeemed from the devil until the last resurrection4, until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have finished his work5. These are they who receive not of his fulness in the eternal world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestrial6; and the terrestrial through the ministration of the celestial. And also the telestial receive it of the administering of angels who are appointed to minister for them, or who are appointed to be ministering spirits for them; for they shall be heirs of salvation7. And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the telestial, which surpasses all understanding8; and no man knows it except him to whom God has revealed it.

[1] The terrestrial did or will receive the testimony of Jesus, eventually.

[2] God dwells with the terrestrial, namely, the Son.

[3] Note the past tense. The telestial "received not" the gospel of Christ in the flesh, as is the case with the terrestrial.

[4] They are redeemed (bought back by the blood of Christ) at the last resurrection.

[5] They are redeemed when the Lord has finished his work. Which work? The work of redemption. As the celestial are the firstfruits, the telestrial are the lastfruits.

[6] God dwells with the telestial, namely, the Holy Spirit.

[7] The telestial are explicitly named as heirs of salvation. They are saved. Saved from what? From their sins, of course. And as Alma clearly taught, people are saved from their sins, not in their sins.

[8] The telestial world is without doubt a kingdom of glory, a glory so vast that it surpasses understanding and is known only to him to whom God has revealed it.

I agree about it being semantic, but in my mind, it's a very important point, not merely a matter of word choice. God will save all who wish to be saved. Every one. He will not give eternal life to all, but only to those who want it and who have prepared themselves for the "far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory" that exaltation grants. But saving them from their sins? Absolutely. That will be granted to every last son and daughter of God, except for those who explicitly reject it.

Agreed. But once they repent, they are no longer wicked. And repentance will come, if not in this life then a thousand years hence.

I used the same verse above, but I emphasized the first part. I agree they will lack the fulness of the Father, but they will have access to the Divine. They will worship God, the Son, face to face.

I perceive that the kingdom of God, aka the Restored Church of Christ, offers exaltation to all through Christ's atonement. I don't see that the kingdom of God preaches pretty much anything at all about what you need to do to become terrestrial or telestial. So when the scriptures speak of salvation, in general I take that to be synonymous with eternal life (exaltation), because that's what the kingdom of God teaches, and that's ALL the kingdom of God teaches. But when we discuss the final state of the souls of men, it is important to emphasize that all, even the dimmest star in the telestial constellation, is saved through the grace and power of the atonement of Jesus Christ. They are not exalted, but in the most basic meaning of the word, they are certainly saved from their sins through Christ's atonement.

(Which I personally believe requires baptism of water and of the Spirit. FWIW.)

For whatever it's worth to you, I have tried to lay out my case above. Hope it was at least an interesting read, if nothing else.

You are correct. A correct understanding of the obvious meaning of Doctrine and Covenants Sections 76 and 138 can lead to no other conclusion.

Edited by Jersey Boy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Vort said:

For whatever it's worth to you, I have tried to lay out my case above. Hope it was at least an interesting read, if nothing else.

Just so it's clear, I think the ultimate answer to these sorts of questions is that we don't really understand the eternities or have much of a clue about it. The importance of these concepts seem to be only in how they feed our faith.

One of the reasons I tend to reject some of the ideas you're presenting (and to be clear...it's only a few, and it's primarily semantics) is because it feels to me that there is danger there. I've seen it when people have embraced the idea that they'll be saved no matter what to turn away from that with which they ought to be concerned. So my motivation in seeing it the way I do stems from that sort of thinking.

I appreciate the time you took laying out your "case" as it were. I'm responding in kind. I'm not in the mindset of "YOU'RE WRONG!" here. So if any of my poor phrasing comes across that way it's just because of my poor communication. That being said, here are some of my thoughts in response:

15 hours ago, Vort said:

But it will. Note D&C 76:71-90; for your specific point, see especially #2 and #6 of my notes.

And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the Father, even as that of the moon differs from the sun in the firmament.

Behold, these are they who died without law; and also they who are the spirits of men kept in prison, whom the Son visited, and preached the gospel unto them, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh; who received not the testimony of Jesus in the flesh, but afterwards received it1. These are they who are honorable men of the earth, who were blinded by the craftiness of men. These are they who receive of his glory, but not of his fulness. These are they who receive of the presence of the Son2, but not of the fulness of the Father. Wherefore, they are bodies terrestrial, and not bodies celestial, and differ in glory as the moon differs from the sun. These are they who are not valiant in the testimony of Jesus; wherefore, they obtain not the crown over the kingdom of our God. And now this is the end of the vision which we saw of the terrestrial, that the Lord commanded us to write while we were yet in the Spirit.

And again, we saw the glory of the telestial, which glory is that of the lesser, even as the glory of the stars differs from that of the glory of the moon in the firmament.

These are they who received not3 the gospel of Christ, neither the testimony of Jesus. These are they who deny not the Holy Spirit. These are they who are thrust down to hell. These are they who shall not be redeemed from the devil until the last resurrection4, until the Lord, even Christ the Lamb, shall have finished his work5. These are they who receive not of his fulness in the eternal world, but of the Holy Spirit through the ministration of the terrestrial6; and the terrestrial through the ministration of the celestial. And also the telestial receive it of the administering of angels who are appointed to minister for them, or who are appointed to be ministering spirits for them; for they shall be heirs of salvation7. And thus we saw, in the heavenly vision, the glory of the telestial, which surpasses all understanding8; and no man knows it except him to whom God has revealed it.

[1] The terrestrial did or will receive the testimony of Jesus, eventually.

[2] God dwells with the terrestrial, namely, the Son.

[3] Note the past tense. The telestial "received not" the gospel of Christ in the flesh, as is the case with the terrestrial.

[4] They are redeemed (bought back by the blood of Christ) at the last resurrection.

[5] They are redeemed when the Lord has finished his work. Which work? The work of redemption. As the celestial are the firstfruits, the telestrial are the lastfruits.

[6] God dwells with the telestial, namely, the Holy Spirit.

[7] The telestial are explicitly named as heirs of salvation. They are saved. Saved from what? From their sins, of course. And as Alma clearly taught, people are saved from their sins, not in their sins.

[8] The telestial world is without doubt a kingdom of glory, a glory so vast that it surpasses understanding and is known only to him to whom God has revealed it.

Surely we must admit that there has to be a meaningful difference between returning to God the Father's presence, and receiving the ministering of the Holy Ghost.

My point isn't complicated. It's that the first (returning to be again with our Father) is what all the scriptures that speak of entering the Kingdom of Heaven mean.

Frankly, I have a bit of problem with D&C 76. To be clear, I have a problem with the way people interpret it and use it to ignore myriads of other scriptures. I struggle with what seems to be important and meaningful warning after warning after warning taught again and again throughout the scriptures being waved away because of D&C 76. I'm not suggesting that's your intent or what you're doing. I'm suggesting that I've seen people do that, and your points here allow for that in a way that makes me a bit uncomfortable. I'm suggesting that is the result (in my mind) of taking D&C 76 as if the expressions therein are equivalent to the same expressions elsewhere in the scriptures (like the ones I posted in my prior response). There's this general approach that in D&C 76 we can clearly see that telestial beings are "saved", and therefore any time we read of "saved" or "salvation" elsewhere we must apply it to the telestial. I don't think that line of reasoning is as obvious as it's sometimes made out to be.

Here's my thinking on the matter for what it's worth: (And I noted that you addressed something similar later on in your post, in the mission of the Church).

When the scriptures deal with salvation, the kingdom of God, damnation, etc., they are dealing with a binary* intentionally. That binary is exalted vs not exalted. D&C then expands our understanding of the "not exalted" part of the binary. Which means it must, accordingly, expand some things definitionally. It's been brought up before, that terms like saved are relative terms. When someone says "saved" it really has no meaning by itself. We must add the "from" part for it to have meaning. D&C 76 is talking about being saved from a specific thing -- that is to say, outer darkness. But I believe when most of the scriptures speak of being saved it's speaking of the binary with which we are meant to concern ourselves...saved from being cut off from the Father. Saved from losing our exaltation. Saved from the wages of sin, which is spiritual death**, which is separation from our Father. And, once again, to accept that being ministered to by the Holy Ghost is the same wage as returning to the Father and therefore saved in the same manner would seem unreasonable.

*I've seen arguments made before that this is due to lesser knowledge and greater knowledge. Like a line upon line thing. Or like the Book of Mormon prophets didn't fully understand or know the complete truth. I reject this sort of argument. The binary view is not a lesser truth. In my mind, if anything, it's a greater truth, and the truth which which we ought to be concerned.

**I accept and understand there are semantics at play here too, and that spiritual death can have broader meaning.

15 hours ago, Vort said:

God will save all who wish to be saved.

Sure. But...once again... from what?

Just using the term "saved" or "salvation" without detailing the "from" is bound to get muddled in both communication and interpretation. And I mean in every instance. In Christendom at large because they only accept a binary eternity the term "saved" has an implicit "from". Because we have subdivided out that binary the "from" isn't implicit and must be made explicit when we speak of salvation. It is my contention that when that "from" isn't made explicit, we must default to the binary. And that binary is exaltation and everything else. If the binary isn't meant to be that, then it's important to clarify the matter. D&C 76 is still dealing with a binary, of course. But it's set the binary as outer darkness and everything else. I think it's important to see and understand that. The binary there is not the same binary the scriptures and other teachings typically utilize (that being exaltation, I believe). So at the least, it strikes me that clarifying which binary is being used when speaking of "salvation" is important.

And it is my contention that D&C 76 using outer darkness as the binary line is an anomaly, not a standard.

15 hours ago, Vort said:

But saving them from their sins?

This phrase feels meaningless to me. It's not "sin" that's of concern in my mind when we're speaking of being saved. It's the wages of sin.

We sin, and the result of that sin is A, B, C, D, etc... It's the A, B, C, etc. that we are concerned with. Which will be our reward (wage) because of the sin.

It's never made sense to me to separate the end result from this matter. I mean if we literally were talking wages (like money payment) then it's like saying that due to your choices, you'll get either $10 an hour, $50 an hour, or unlimited pay. And with repentance in this life you get that unlimited pay without having to pay for all the stuff you broke first, but with the $10, or $50 or whatever, you'll first have to do just that. In the end, you'll get the job. You'll be "saved" from $0 an hour. But you can't rightly be making $10 an hour and be considered "saved" from having restricted income. There's only one wage that's unlimited. And there's only one wage that $0. It really feels like that's the crux of what I'm pushing at here. If one individual is shouting "saved" and means unlimited income, and the other is shouting "saved" and means anything greater than $0 income then there's going to be a problem. And, it seems, the word is used to mean both, doctrinally. And so....confusion occurs.

And it's a hard matter to really debate, because the truth is that we don't really know. What did every prophet mean, specifically, when they used the terms saved or salvation. The $0 or the unlimited? Or something else? Shrug. I'm of the view they generally meant the unlimited because that's what seems important when calling people to repentance, which is the doctrine of Christ, and the Father's work and glory. But maybe I'm wrong.

15 hours ago, Vort said:

except for those who explicitly reject it.

This is probably another can of worms to open...but I'm not sure how "explicit" it needs to be. It gets more into semantics (what argument doesn't, it seems. :D). But did Satan "explicitly" reject salvation? Or did he claim salvation through himself and his plan, but was then, against his explicit will, cast out? It strikes me that those Sons of Perdition will more likely be more like, "We want salvation OUR way!" Rather than "We don't want salvation!" Yes (the semantics) they will reject God's salvation. But that doesn't translate, to my thinking, that they won't have wanted salvation. There can be no argument that Satan wanted glory. It was the primary motivation for his actions.

15 hours ago, Vort said:

But once they repent, they are no longer wicked. And repentance will come, if not in this life then a thousand years hence.

Yes. But, I'll return to the idea again: their eternal wages are still only $10 an hour or what-have-you. They still only get the ministering of the Holy Ghost. They still don't receive all things. They still aren't returned to the presence of the Father. They are still subject to the angels. Etc. etc.

15 hours ago, Vort said:

they will have access to the Divine. They will worship God, the Son, face to face.

Right. And I don't know what the difference is. If God and the Son are one then one could reason there is no meaningful difference. But I think it's obvious there is a meaningful difference. But I do not understand it.

One thing that strikes me, that may or may not have merit, is that both The Son and The Holy Ghost attend (or attended) to us in mortality where wickedness abounds. The Father's appearance has only been in the case of transfigured and thereby "redeemed" individuals (though, in most cases, these transfigurations have been necessary for the appearance of The Son). I'm not sure that thought has any meaning as related to what we're discussing. Just a thought.

15 hours ago, Vort said:

all, even the dimmest star in the telestial constellation, is saved through the grace and power of the atonement of Jesus Christ.

Repeating myself, but... saved "from"......?? I mean it's really the key thing here. And it's the "why" behind understanding any of this. In this comment you are clearly meaning saved from outer darkness in line with D&C 76. But as you point out, the church's concern is exaltation, as are the teachings in most scriptures.

15 hours ago, Vort said:

(Which I personally believe requires baptism of water and of the Spirit. FWIW.)

Which is another can of worms what we could get into if you'd like.

I think there's a definite case to be made that baptism will have been performed for all who ever lived through the work for the dead here and throughout the millennium. Whether that baptism will have been accepted being key to exaltation or telestial existence.... shrug. I'm not sure. Of course it's the same debate we've been having as to what is meant by "the kingdom of God".

 

Okay...I know I repeat myself a lot in my responses sometimes. Hopefully it didn't get annoying. And hopefully I'm getting my thoughts across clearly and meaningfully.

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll put in my two cents.

11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Sure. But...once again... from what?

From wherever they don't belong.

I won't take the time to specifically quote what has been said before.  The idea that a Telestial person simply will not be happy in the Celestial Kingdom because their sins* will prevent them from really enjoying what the Celestial has to offer them.

And no one will "like" being in outer darkness.  But sons of Perdition (if I can use some imagery) will be burned more by the Glory of the kingdoms than they will from the fires of hell.

11 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

This phrase feels meaningless to me. It's not "sin" that's of concern in my mind when we're speaking of being saved. It's the wages of sin.

I think I see what you're saying here.  But...

What if acts and consequences are not the separate things we think they are?  What if they are inseparable?  If someone hits me with a fist, do I get mad at the fist?  Or the person?  In the same way, humans tend to get this idea that "I want to sin, but not have the consequence."  That simply isn't possible.  Why not? The sin comes with the consequences.  Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but the bill always comes due (thank you, Mordo.).

The Lord does not cleanse us "from wages of sin."  He cleanses us "from sin."  After the explanation I just gave, this seems like a semantic argument. But it makes a world of difference in how we look at the idea of sin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Carborendum said:

The idea that a Telestial person simply will not be happy in the Celestial Kingdom because their sins* will prevent them from really enjoying what the Celestial has to offer them.

I don't believe this idea. Never have. It is contrary to everything I know of the gospel.

5 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

The Lord does not cleanse us "from wages of sin."  He cleanses us "from sin." 

This isn't correct. The Atonement was to overcome the consequence of sin.

"Sin is the cause of the estrangement [from God], and therefore the purpose of atonement is to correct or overcome the consequences of sin."

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/bd/atonement?lang=eng

"to atone is to suffer the penalty for an act of sin, thereby removing the effects of sin from the repentant sinner" 

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/gs/atone-atonement?lang=eng

I mean even the scripture where we get the phrase "wages of sin" makes this plain: "For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:
3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

...a Telestial person simply will not be happy in the Celestial Kingdom because their sins* will prevent them from really enjoying what the Celestial has to offer them.

I don't believe this idea. Never have. It is contrary to everything I know of the gospel.

I base this on three principles:

  • I don't believe we are assigned to a kingdom as a reward/punishment scenario.  I believe it is a natural consequence of who/what we are as eternal beings.  It is what we gravitate to.
  • The bodies which we possess in our kingdom are specific to that kingdom.  A fish cannot be happy on dry land.  He must constantly be in water.
  • The Telestial beings cannot abide the glory of the Celestial specifically because they cannot abide the Celestial Law.  That incongruity inevitably leads to pain/unhappiness.  We can objectively say that anyone who can abide the Celestial Law will indeed be happier than the Telestial being who abides the Telestial Law.  But that completely ignores the fact that Telestials simply cannot abide by the Celestial Law.   That's why they're Telestials.
2 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:
3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

What if acts and consequences are not the separate things we think they are?  What if they are inseparable?  If someone hits me with a fist, do I get mad at the fist?  Or the person?  In the same way, humans tend to get this idea that "I want to sin, but not have the consequence."  That simply isn't possible.  Why not? The sin comes with the consequences.  Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but the bill always comes due (thank you, Mordo.).

The Lord does not cleanse us "from wages of sin."  He cleanses us "from sin."  After the explanation I just gave, this seems like a semantic argument. But it makes a world of difference in how we look at the idea of sin.

This isn't correct. The Atonement was to overcome the consequence of sin.

As I said, your statements (and all the quotes you linked) about consequences are perfectly accurate.  But from where I sit, I don't see how we can separate the sin from the consequences of sin.  They are as inseparable as "the act" of hitting someone and "the pain the person felt" because I hit him.  You can't have one without the other.

Where on Earth would I get this notion from?

I spent a lot of time considering the following phrase:

Quote

Behold, he who has repented of his sins, the same is forgiven, and I, the Lord, remember them no more.

 -- D&C 58:42

It doesn't say he will not remember to punish for sins.  It doesn't say he will not remember the consequences of sin.  He says He will remember "the sins" (check the antecedent) no more.

The Lord knows all things.  He doesn't have a faulty memory.  And He cannot lie.  So, if He doesn't remember them anymore, what does that really mean?

I know most people will think this is ridiculous.  But I'll put it out there anyway.

I have a different understanding of memory than most people.  I'm cursed with a mind that doesn't forget very easily*.  I can forgive.  I can ignore.  I can move on.  I can rebuild, etc.   But the memories are still there -- not by choice.  So, to say there is a figurative meaning of the Lord not remembering simply doesn't speak to me. 

I cannot believe that it simply means "it will be as if".  And I don't believe it simply means he will not "call it up from memory".  It says He will remember them no more.  I take that much more literally than anyone else. 

Quote

“Don’t you understand, my son? I have forgotten that. Why should you remember?”

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/1986/10/come-back-to-the-lord?lang=eng

How can this be if He cannot forget, yet He is capable of comprehending all things at once?  We as resurrected beings will stand before God with a "bright recollection of all our guilt."  So, what can it really mean to remember no more?

Here's where I go off the rails. And I completely understand if everyone thinks I'm bat-guano crazy.  I'm going to say something that makes perfect sense to me. And I have no idea if anyone else will understand what I'm saying, much less agree with it.

When scriptures tell us our garments will be white as snow, I believe that the Atonement of Christ is far more powerful than we believe.  We know it isn't simply an accountant's ledger that is paid in full.  I believe the Atonement of Christ changed the fabric of reality for all eternity.

I see this as an Eternal Declaration (In eternity, not during the mortal frame of the earth) that the sins themselves are gone just as much as the consequences.  The sins and the consequences thereof are all one object.  We cannot separate them.  The only way the consequences of sin are gone, is to have made the sins such that they never happened.

We're not simply absolved.  I believe that in eternity, they simply will have never happened so long as we take upon us His name and have faith in Him.  I believe this is a miracle beyond our understanding of what we consider reality.  But it does ring true to me.

********

*Description/example of my memory: This is just a bit of background, so people will know where I'm coming from regarding memory.  I'm not writing this to brag.  I don't consider this something to brag about.  One does not brag about breathing.  It's just something that happens.

I'm not a savant.  And I don't have total recall.  In fact there are many things I've forgotten about from just yesterday -- especially if I am not paying attention, which is most of the time nowadays.  But I remember many things from years ago pretty clearly -- more than anyone else I've ever met IRL.  Details and accuracy are about the same as most people's memory of a few days ago (not perfect, but mostly correct).  And I tend to be able to memorize things much more quickly than anyone I've ever met.

My sister decided to go on a tour of Korea the summer before we both left for our missions (we overlapped at the MTC for two weeks).  Long story short, our birth family met her at the airport.  They took her to our birth home (they still lived there) and toured all around Seoul and surrounding areas.

When I saw photos from her trip, I named and described many of the things I saw.  This included recognizing one sister, by a jacket she was wearing.  Her face and body had changed.  But the jacket was still there, a bit more worn than I recalled (probably a hand-me-down from our older sister).  I told her stories of what occurred at various places in the neighborhood from when I was around 3-5 years old.  She said that a lot of that behavior was still happening in the neighborhood.

She asked what else I remembered.  I then proceeded to sketch the layout of the entire neighborhood with about a dozen points of interest.  I pointed to which direction the mountains to the north were from our house.  She was able to verify everything I said was correct, although not to scale.

One photo showed a crack in the closet door.  I was amazed that they hadn't replaced the door yet.  She said that she wondered where the crack came from.  I then told her the story of how the crack came to be.  I told her in sufficient detail that it jogged her memory.  She expressed some awe that she remembered seeing it happen.  The strange thing was that it happened before my conscious memory kicked in (probably when I was 2).  But when we were still in Korea, she told me the story.  And I still remembered it 13 to 15 yrs later.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Carb, I hope my reply comes across in the spirit I intend. You seem interested in the discussion. I'm replying in that way as best I can, but I know I can sound argumentative and dismissive and the like sometimes. So hopefully you'll find this interesting, thought provoking, and of value, rather than just stubborn argumentative-ness. (And I'm working to view others replies to me in the same way. It's so easy to just take a defensive position at times, right?) ;)

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:
  • I don't believe we are assigned to a kingdom as a reward/punishment scenario.  I believe it is a natural consequence of who/what we are as eternal beings.  It is what we gravitate to.

Like I said. I don't believe the first point. I know many do. I know it's actually quite common to. But I do not. (I don't hold my views in such a way that if I'm wrong in the end that I'll be upset by it in any way. I just don't see it this way.)

FWIW, I suggest anyone might consider doing some study on reward/punishment as it relates to these things in the scriptures.  Though I believe this is another semantic issue. When one says "I don't see life eternal as a reward" but the scripture clearly speak of it in those terms -- well, I'll give the benefit of the doubt here and not just claim that they're wrong. But they're clearly viewing the meaning of what is and is not a "reward" in different terms than are often expressed in the scriptures. ("punishment" gets a bit more muddy because we don't always know how long any given torment is, and what's really meant by "eternal", other than that some things expressed as "eternal" will have an end. But "reward"....there's no such confusion. And I tend to see reward and punishment in strictly mutually exclusive terms.)

Anyhow, not seeing it as a "reward" doesn't mean it isn't one. One could apply that to any thing received for any reason. Alternatively not receiving something for not doing something can be seen as a "punishment" -- or not. I don't find that a particularly useful argument. I don't care whether the telestial kingdom is termed a "punishment" or not. It amounts to the same. A loss of glory that could have been. A debate about whether the amount of glory one receives is legitimately termed reward/punishment or not is, frankly, a deflection from the question. The question is that of joy. 

So the question is simple. Do the Telestial inhabitants have more or less glory and joy than the Celestial? Whether they can abide it or not isn't the point.

We can term more glory and joy a "reward" and we can term less glory and joy "punishment"....... or......we can not term it that way. Who cares? It's still more/less glory and more/less joy.

I guess I have to ask...do you understand the semantics here? Because very often when I engage in this sort of discussion...people cannot seem to see past their negative view of the word "punishment" to understand the broader idea. They don't seem to understand that debating whether something is a punishment or not is subjective and not worth much more than seeing as subjective. But is it your understanding that there's a strict correlation between glory/joy levels and where we end up in the eternities? Or is your understanding different than that?

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

A fish cannot be happy on dry land. 

By saying this you're implying that telestial beings are, eternally...just fish who need the water. By implication...their choices, and accordingly their agency, don't much matter, beyond exposing their "true" selves. I don't accept that. We are, all of us, Celestial beings in embryo. If we choose otherwise, it's not because we didn't have the potential for greater. I don't know how that all works. But the idea that we are all just what we are, and this life is just to reveal that rather than to actually choose it doesn't sit with me.

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The Telestial beings cannot abide the glory of the Celestial specifically because they cannot abide the Celestial Law.  That incongruity inevitably leads to pain/unhappiness.  We can objectively say that anyone who can abide the Celestial Law will indeed be happier than the Telestial being who abides the Telestial Law.  But that completely ignores the fact that Telestials simply cannot abide by the Celestial Law.   That's why they're Telestials.

The question is a matter of why they cannot abide it. It's just who they are? Or it's what they chose? As I've said...I don't believe they just were telestial beings from the dawn of their existence and this is all about revealing that. I know that's also a common view point. But I don't believe it.

I believe every child of God has the same potential for Celestial glory as the next, and that it is by their choices that they BECOME. They alter their character by choice. They aren't just, secretly, a certain character and the so-called "choices" they make (that aren't really choices after all) simply show what they really were all along. I do not believe that.

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I don't see how we can separate the sin from the consequences of sin. 

I think the atonement shows how sin can be separated from the consequence of sin. But that's not, probably, what you mean.

So I'll change my feedback. You said The Lord does not cleanse us "from wages of sin."  He cleanses us "from sin."  So in feedback, if the two are inseparable, then the first part of your statement is false. He does, indeed, cleanse us "from the wages of sin" and cleanses us "from sin".

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

It doesn't say he will not remember to punish for sins.

Actually He did remember to do just exactly that. He gave his only Begotten Son to pay the price for our sin. Jesus was punished for our sins. The reason our sins can be remembered no more is because they were paid for.

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

We know it isn't simply an accountant's ledger that is paid in full. 

I agree with this because of the word "simply". But it is, regardless of what else it is, an accountant's ledger that is paid in full.

2 hours ago, Carborendum said:

The only way the consequences of sin are gone, is to have made the sins such that they never happened.

Yeah. By paying for them.

I mean I understand you're speaking in other terms, which I'm working to understand. But... if I break a window in someone's house and then I want to make it as if that never happened, I pay for a new window, install it, clean up the mess, etc. I pay for the mistake, in full.

That being said, I fully agree that there's more to the Atonement than we can understand. It's more than just fixing broken windows.

 

 

Edited by The Folk Prophet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/7/2023 at 2:29 PM, The Folk Prophet said:

Hi Carb, I hope my reply comes across in the spirit I intend. You seem interested in the discussion. I'm replying in that way as best I can, but I know I can sound argumentative and dismissive and the like sometimes. So hopefully you'll find this interesting, thought provoking, and of value, rather than just stubborn argumentative-ness. (And I'm working to view others replies to me in the same way. It's so easy to just take a defensive position at times, right?) ;)

Understood.

I have been without internet for the past two days.  There was some major outage in the area.  Fixed now.

It appeared to have happened just as I read this post of yours.  I wrote an entire response that was about as long as your post.  Then I couldn't post it.  Now it's all gone.  

I spent a lot of time on it to get just the right wording.  What a waste.  So, I spent some time pondering what would be some bullet points I could distill out of what I said.

  • The ancient "sense" of reward is a bit different than how we see it today.  While I think that reward is probably a correct translation, it loses some connotation. It always included an idea of cause and effect.  Wages for a days work was not simply a contract between parties (although, it was, indeed practiced that way).  It was understood that wages were the natural result of a days work.  If we can make a distinction between "reward" and "result" we begin to understand what the ancient meaning was.  I think it would be incorrect to see it simply as "result" just as much as I think it is incorrect to see it as "reward".  It seems to be something in between.
  • It is an old notion that we "earn" our eternal "reward".  And in a sense I don't disagree.  But in another sense, I think it to be incomplete.
    • Brad Wilcox phrased it as "No, we are not earning heaven. We are learning heaven."  We prepare for it as if we are preparing for a wedding (feast).  But we never "earn the right" to go there.  Any more than we "earn" the right to go to a wedding feast.  We are invited.
    • Romans 4:4

To "earn a reward" is great imagery which is often used in scriptures and has been taught throughout history.  And it works with the mentality that we mortals are used to understanding.  But when we understand that the economy of God works differently than that of man, we have to accept certain truths while still working with that imagery.

AoF 2-4:

  • We dig ourselves into a pit through sin.  And there is no way for us to get out by ourselves. 
  • Through the Atonement, the Savior sends down a ladder (of principles & ordinances)
  • and tells us to climb up.  We're still required to do the minimal work of climbing the ladder. 

Never in such a circumstance would we say that we "earned" our way out of the pit.  We'd completely give credit to the one who provided the ladder to us.

Perhaps it is just perspective and attitude.  But beyond principles, ordinances, and obedience, our "eternal reward" does require attitude and perspective.  That tells us that the changes are not just outward, but that the Lord has effected a miraculous change of heart.   

Do we have the perspective to recognize that NOTHING would be possible without the Atonement?  Do we have the attitude of believing we only made it by relying wholly upon the merits of him who is mighty to save?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share